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.
I wonder what the debt would be now if we hadn't invade IRAQ for a lie (WMD's) or had funded Medicare Part D.
A lie?? I'm pretty sure Hillary voted to go to war to remove Hussein from power because of intel that turned out to be wrong. That's not at all the same thing as a lie. For a good example of a lie, review her claims of a 'youtube video' being the cause of the attack on our Benghazi embassy.
Another fact is that under the Obama economy the poor and middle class saw overall income declines while the rich saw income increases....something that didn't happen under Reagan or Bush....under them all income classes saw income increases......making the economy the last 8 years the largest trickle down economy in our history...factually speaking.
Under Bush, the United Stated engaged in a war that has cost us trillions. Bush led the economy to crash because of deregulation of banks and lending which let to the housing bubble. Obama spent the last 8 years repairing the economy. It was Republicans who encouraged Obama to let the banks and auto industry fail and not to bail them out. Thank god, he didn't listen to them and as a result they paid back those loans with interest in a few short years. But Democrats should also be held responsible. Obama perpetuated the war and the Bush tax cuts. He is as much to blame as Bush. 20 years ago, those types of mergers would have happened but now it's common place.
But if you want to know the truth, this problem is independent of politics. The reality is industry controls the economy regardless of which political party is in power. The reality is our middle class will continue to shrink as we continue to outsource jobs and manufacturing outside of the United States to save money. During Bush's time, we saw the change and saw massive number of professional service jobs (software, accounting, finance) being sent abroad. That trend is only continuing. Also, the government has pretty much turned a blind eye to monopolies and anti-trust laws. Look at the airline industry. There are 4 major airlines now and the government allowed that to happen. There is no way they should have allowed United and Continental to merge let alone Americans Airlines and U.S. Airways.
.... Bush led the economy to crash because of deregulation of banks and lending which let to the housing bubble. ...
In fact, causation of the burst of the housing bubble occurred because of quite the opposite. During the 90’s and early 2000’s the federal government, through it’s regulation, demanded that banks loosen lending standards. Perhaps readers may recall activists' accusations of such things as “red lining” which charged lenders were not making loans available to certain minorities in certain neighborhoods. There were other such false claims. Thus the federal and state governments in all their wisdom began initiating a series of regulations to ‘encourage’ lending to otherwise unqualified buyers. We saw creation of such instruments as “interest only” loans, 'negative amortization' loans and zero-down mortgage loans. All in an effort to qualify buyers and create the appearance of ‘reaching out’ to not-so-attractive customers.
I was working at the nation’s second largest bank and recall our management teams constantly referring to the CRA (community reinvestment act*, first enacted in 1977 but substantially revised in 1995) which in effect was the governments measurement of lending performance in otherwise unattractive neighborhoods (to unattractive borrowers). The CRA measurements were thus used against banks who might wish to grow or merge to increase their profitability. In effect the governments (federal and state) were telling banks to either loosen lending standards or you will pay a regulatory price. (Statists would later label these lending practices as “predatory” ignoring the reasons banks got into this business in the first place and blaming banks for what the regulatory system was creating).
It was not deregulation that caused the housing bubble but the increasing regulations being used as a hammer against banks forcing them to lend to those who had previously been considered unqualified. Apparently there are those who still believe that more of the same will somehow solve the problem these ill-conceived efforts created in the first place.
*The CRA requires that each depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated by the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency periodically. Members of the public may submit comments on a bank’s performance. Comments will be taken into consideration during the next CRA examination. A bank's CRA performance record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities. ~ Board of Governors of The Federal Reserve System.
Location: Escaped SoCal for Freedom in AZ!!!! LOVE IT!
394 posts, read 343,060 times
Reputation: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneR
In fact, causation of the burst of the housing bubble occurred because of quite the opposite. During the 90’s and early 2000’s the federal government, through it’s regulation, demanded that banks loosen lending standards. Perhaps readers may recall activists' accusations of such things as “red lining” which charged lenders were not making loans available to certain minorities in certain neighborhoods. There were other such false claims. Thus the federal and state governments in all their wisdom began initiating a series of regulations to ‘encourage’ lending to otherwise unqualified buyers. We saw creation of such instruments as “interest only” loans, 'negative amortization' loans and zero-down mortgage loans. All in an effort to qualify buyers and create the appearance of ‘reaching out’ to not-so-attractive customers.
I was working at the nation’s second largest bank and recall our management teams constantly referring to the CRA (community reinvestment act*, first enacted in 1977 but substantially revised in 1995) which in effect was the governments measurement of lending performance in otherwise unattractive neighborhoods (to unattractive borrowers). The CRA measurements were thus used against banks who might wish to grow or merge to increase their profitability. In effect the governments (federal and state) were telling banks to either loosen lending standards or you will pay a regulatory price. (Statists would later label these lending practices as “predatory” ignoring the reasons banks got into this business in the first place and blaming banks for what the regulatory system was creating).
It was not deregulation that caused the housing bubble but the increasing regulations being used as a hammer against banks forcing them to lend to those who had previously been considered unqualified. Apparently there are those who still believe that more of the same will somehow solve the problem these ill-conceived efforts created in the first place.
*The CRA requires that each depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated by the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency periodically. Members of the public may submit comments on a bank’s performance. Comments will be taken into consideration during the next CRA examination. A bank's CRA performance record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities. ~ Board of Governors of The Federal Reserve System.
^^^ this (as well as many other examples in other industries) is why we need LESS government interaction/interference... it always leads to problems. The Federal Government isn't an expert at all things - yet they want to get involved in everything.
This country was founded upon Freedom of enterprise... the free market will always work itself in the most effective way... it's almost always when Feds get over-zealous that things go to crap.
A lie?? I'm pretty sure Hillary voted to go to war to remove Hussein from power because of intel that turned out to be wrong. That's not at all the same thing as a lie. For a good example of a lie, review her claims of a 'youtube video' being the cause of the attack on our Benghazi embassy.
The lie was the intel that stated WMDs were in Iraq to begin with. I don't know if Bush directly lied or not, but there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence that supports that the war hawks of the time were pushing the alleged presence of WMDs despite not having a lot of evidence. The irony is that you could have actually made a good argument at the time that the invasion was the right strategic move to gain a better position with a friendlier regime in an unstable region...not making a judgment as to whether it was morally right or wrong, but it at least made sense. Good chance the public would have not been in favor of that however, hence the WMD story with a danger to the American public. Bottom line is that most of the government, including Hillary, bought the story hook, line, and sinker and voted in favor of invading.
Many people do not openly support Trump because of the violence of the anti Trump crowd but when they are safe at home look at what happens........
Gateway Pundit: Social Media Patterns Show Trump Is Looking at a Landslide Victory
Facebook
Trump: 10,174,358 Likes Clinton: 5,385,959 Likes
Trump Live Stream Post — 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million views
Clinton Live Stream Post —11,000 likes, 0 shares, 321,000 views
Youtube Live Stream
Trump: Averages 30,000 live viewers per stream
Clinton: Averages 500 live viewers per stream
Don't misinterpret following a candidate as a show of support. I follow both Hillary and Trump on facebook because I like to know what they're saying. But neither are getting my vote.
George Carlin said it best: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
So there you go.
I loved Carlin, but there's a bit of irony in that joke, in that the 'average' of something doesn't mean that half are on one side and half on the other.
I loved Carlin, but there's a bit of irony in that joke, in that the 'average' of something doesn't mean that half are on one side and half on the other.
Yes, but saying "the median person" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Trump is down by double digit points in all the polls. I predicted a long time ago that he was going to lose in a landslide and people disputed that. He just doesn't have the numbers. You can't alienate minorities and women and expect to win. After he loses, the Trump birther-like devotees will scream conspiracy to rationalize his loss. And then when the smoke clears, Republicans will re-evaluate their campaign strategy and realize that racism is not going to win elections and alienating nearly 40% of the population is not wise strategy.
What will also happen is Republicans will start pointing the fingers at each other and will say the only reason they lost is because they nominated Trump and that he was an anomaly and should have never been the nominee. They will argue that if Paul Ryan or another candidate had been the nominee, they would have won. Watch, it's coming.
I think the real reason Trump is popular is he is considered genuine. I think the reason he was even ahead in the polls is they don't see Hillary as being authentic and Americans are tired of typical politicians. But I think his latest slam on the Muslim parents of the fallen U.S. soldier sorta crossed the line and a lot of Trump supporters fell off the wagon after that. Even those who don't like Muslims or Islam recognize a fallen U.S. soldier is a fallen U.S. soldier who died in service to his country and you can't go there.
I wont even begin to describe or go into detail the issues with Killary, you are all well aware, yet turn a blind eye. And the leaked DNC emails just go to show who the real racists are. Hint: its not the Republicans. But go ahead, keep supporting the corrupt, lying, murdering Dems. How do you guys sleep at night?!?!?!?
On subject, he doesnt alienate minorities. He alienates ILLEGALS. Get your facts straight and learn the difference. For Pete's sake, the man has hired TONS of minorities. Same goes for women.
And his slam at the parents of the slain Muslim (his name escapes me.. Khan? lol) was questionalbe, yes. But here you have this man who (sadly) lost his son in battle against Muslim extremists, which he is openly for bringing into the US. I mean, no one is that stupid. Right? Right? I jsut adore how he deleted his website shortly after media caught on to his schemes. And then you have the parents of the Benghazi victims which got ZERO media coverage and were openly mocked by that heinous BEOTCH Hillary. Her corrupt BS will soon catch up to her and I cant wait. Hold on, nevermind... Bill will just meet with Loretta Lynch and get things straightened up again. Right?
George Carlin said it best: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
So there you go.
Humility was never his strong point. People are voting for Trump for a reason. Instead of understanding WHY they are voting for (either side) I just see many people slinging insults this election. Nastiest one for a long time.
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.
