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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-07-2009, 01:36 PM
 
28,419 posts, read 9,187,135 times
Reputation: 3021

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
You just want some stick or other to beat Obama with, and even though this one is a completely meaningless invisible stick with no substance to it...
That's a pretty crappy attitude to display towards that

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/media/15134_1289625880108_1214068603_864063_1867185_n.jp g (broken link)
unemployed.

...make it 17.5%, U6.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2009, 01:36 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 19,968,813 times
Reputation: 3906
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
We are holding obama and his "uniquely qualified" team accountable for the promises they made. So you object to using obama's very own chart, the one he used to sell the stimulus, to remind everyone of the promises he made?
Credibility needle is on "E". You've now reached approximately the same level as Saddam Hussein's Information Minister in the Spring of 2003...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2009, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,267 posts, read 24,717,063 times
Reputation: 7016
Uh-huh. Considering the deceitful numbers that obama is putting out regarding the stimulus impact, he is in a world of hurt with his chart and the promises he made.

Even the media can no longer hide the absolute failure of the stimulus or the bogus numbers that are claimed by obama.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2009, 02:00 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 19,968,813 times
Reputation: 3906
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Ummm... it was actually Obama's economic team that claimed unemployment wouldn't rise beyond 8% if Congress passed the porkulus, I mean 'Recovery Plan.'
Again, they made no such claim. The claim in the projection is that unemployment would peak sooner and at a lower level with a stimulus package than without one. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Obama's own words: “If we don’t act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.” Swift and bold action was taken on the 'Recovery Plan,' and look at what we get...Double-digit unemployment.
Never ruled out. It wasn't ruled in BY ANYONE because conditions in early January did not warrant it.

Job losses are likely to continue this year, as economists surveyed by Bloomberg News in December forecast the jobless rate to rise to 8.2 percent by the end of 2009 from 6.7 percent in November.
Obama Says U.S. Must Act Swiftly to Address Economy

Apparently what you wanted was a Prophet, not a President. That's not very realisitc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2009, 02:10 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 19,968,813 times
Reputation: 3906
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It's pretty clear Barney Frank didn't have a problem with the FHA making loans to people who can't afford them back in 2007 and 2008.
It isn't clear at all. To explain again, Frank endorsed the volumes of FHA lending that were propping up residential mortgage markets and thus keeping home prices from falling even further, even if that meant that FHA and the taxpayer would have to take a few extra hits on eventual defaults. Have you never heard of cutting your losses? Stopping the bleeding? Anything at all like that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Knowingly extending more bad debt, purposely incurring more defaults, and racking up higher levels of foreclosures helps maintain housing values how?
In the ways described in your own article. Go back and read it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2009, 02:31 PM
 
28,419 posts, read 9,187,135 times
Reputation: 3021
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Again, they made no such claim.
Sure they did...



Figure 1, on page 4:
The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan
http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2009, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
21,029 posts, read 9,732,264 times
Reputation: 4739
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
No, the authors were Christina Romer, then still the President-elect's designee as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors and now holding that position, and Jared Bernstein, who was and still is VP Biden's chief economic advisor.


The Office of the Vice President Elect!

They own it.

Have a nice day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2009, 02:52 PM
 
28,419 posts, read 9,187,135 times
Reputation: 3021
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
It isn't clear at all. To explain again, Frank endorsed the volumes of FHA lending that were propping up residential mortgage markets and thus keeping home prices from falling even further, even if that meant that FHA and the taxpayer would have to take a few extra hits on eventual defaults. Have you never heard of cutting your losses? Stopping the bleeding? Anything at all like that?
Yeah, I don't lend more money to someone who's not capable of paying it back.

Quote:
In the ways described in your own article. Go back and read it.
I read it. It doesn't explain how knowingly extending more bad debt, purposely incurring more defaults, and racking up higher levels of foreclosures helps maintain housing values.

In fact, it doesn't...

"The expansion of the FHA’s role in the housing market was supposed to have no cost to taxpayers, according to lawmakers like Barney Frank who backed the expansion. So what went wrong?

It’s a story familiar to anyone who has watched our financial institutions fall apart. Basically, home-price declines have exceeded those used to model their expected losses. It now seems likely that losses will diminish reserves beyond the required 2% level. If that happens, Congress will either have to allow the FHA to operate with thinner reserves, order the FHA to raise fees on homebuyers or bailout the agency with additional taxpayer dollars."
FHA Time Bomb Explodes...Bailout Coming Next!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2009, 02:53 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 19,968,813 times
Reputation: 3906
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
False.
True. From September 2003...

Rep. FRANK: Let me ask you, Mr. Secretary—and again I appreciate that there is not a lot of rhetoric in here about how terrible these are. I appreciate that you think we should enhance the regulation, but I get the impression that you were talking more about guarding against potential future problems developing, rather than feeling that there is an urgent need to stave off some crisis. Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Treas. Sec. SNOW: No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The SEC concurred in the findings of inappropriate accounting practices, and directed Fannie Mae to restate its earnings for 2001-2003. Fannie Mae, then, estimated that it would be forced to recognize $9 billion in losses.
JS-2369: Testimony of Secretary John W. Snow<br>Before the<br>U.S. House Financial Services Committee<br>Proposals for Housing GSE Reform (http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js2369.htm - broken link)
Go back and read the history. This was entirely a dispute over whether Fannie Mae had complied properly with revised federal accounting standards even though the principles employed by Fannie had been approved by its own internal auditors and had been cleared in concept by federal auditors when an advance outline of Fannie's proposed accounting treatments was reviewed for compliance with the modified regulations. Nevertheless, OFHEO came up with different interpretations of the new law and was sticking to them, and the SEC (which might better have been busy elsewhere) went along with OFHEO's call. That left neither Fannie or Freddie with any room to maneuver. They each had to restate their books, which was not a safety or soundness issue, but it did limit their ability to operate going forward at what would otherwise have been full capacity as the revised accounting made improved capitalization a priority. Indeed Fannie's share of the SFH mortgage markets that had once been 75% but which had already fallen to just below 50% in 2004, now shrank to less than 25% by 2006. The rest of the market (and the profit) was picked up by Wall Street.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2009, 02:59 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 19,968,813 times
Reputation: 3906
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That's a pretty crappy attitude to display towards that unemployed...make it 17.5%, U6.
Has nothing to do with unemployment. Has to do with your predilections for misinterpeting projections and seeking to put them to inappropriate use. This is merely a case of stumbling, fumbling, and bumbling on your part. The unemployed don't enter into it at all...
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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 $84,000 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.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top