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 read somebody comment "Even if unemployment was 19% Obama is going to win". That wouldn't shock me and if that's the case we are getting the economy we deserve.
Obama is riding high for the moment - right track/wrong track polls are all the way up to 30% right track. Who wouldn't want 4 more years of that?
Spin, spin, spin all you like - the NEWS of the day is the horrible jobs numbers from today and other indicators that the obama recovery....IS NOT ONE.
Ah, we got the definitive answer now, no more discussion needed.
Reducing cost is always about cutting something. If that something is fraud or overpayment recovery, why would you be complaining about it? If that something is about simplifying code and consequently striving for cost reductions, why would you be complaining? Fiscal conservativeness shouldn't be a lip service. It is why I prefer the word, fiscal responsibility. Being responsible comes with challenges, being a conservative only requires a closed mind, and especially from the realities.
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.
Actually YOU were discussing the stimulus bill, which included food stamps, and then touting the benefits of it.
Yeah I know, I'd want to forget about that failed policiy as well..
A LOT more than food stamps actually but your fascination for food stamps led to you insisting making it a part of the discussion. I should have obliged?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay
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.
Well, if you don't want others to read/respond to your post, you should sent PMs instead.
But now that you are saying I've not addressed a question you asked, pardon me but would you mind posting it again? If this is about the same old idea of yours that my claim was incorrect that there were more private sector jobs added in eight years under Bush than were added this May, then may I ask you to provide evidence that debunks my claims?
Oh, so now we're down to "magnitude". And where is your counter point that provides your view on what led to this lending debacle, encouraging lending/credit markets and making savings a terrible idea?
Sorry, but a fractional rate cut in the middle of a growth cyclical is hardly comparable to a 5% or 10% cut in the middle of a recession.
The fact is you are dead wrong that EFFR cuts were somehow out of the typical pattern in 2001, when in fact we can follow the same trend of cutting rates during recession all the way back to when the data began in the 1950s.
Sorry, but a fractional rate cut in the middle of a growth cyclical is hardly comparable to a 5% or 10% cut in the middle of a recession.
The fact is you are dead wrong that EFFR cuts were somehow out of the typical pattern in 2001, when in fact we can follow the same trend of cutting rates during recession all the way back to when the data began in the 1950s.
How many times in history have interest rates been cut all the way down to zero? How did that happen? Besides answering that, I must ask again, what do you think led us into a credit driven economy, eventually a bubble and finally the pop?
No, policies such as relaxed leveraging and reduced interest rate cuts promoted credit markets while killing the incentives to save. Such promotions led to bubble.
oooh this should be good.. Please tell me what policies of the Democrats promote incentives to save? I cant wait to hear this one. Clearly you dont know the difference between spending, and investing..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Now when you say, economic growth is not a bubble, are you implying that economic growth and economic bubbles are mutually exclusive?
You can indeed have growth without a bubble..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
How so?
if you dont know that the GSAs were guaranteeing mortgages, which helped to sell them on the 2ndary market by increasing the credit ratings to AAA, then you've lost all credibility on the topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Really? Let me see what kind of guarantees Lehman Brothers
Lehman Brothers didnt fail due to bad mortgages, they fell due to debt owed to MBS investors. Yes, one backs the other, but they are not the same. MBS's arent insured, the underlying debt is..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
AIG and like provided before they were given the power to leverage over 30:1, much less 10000:1.
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 but they delay payment on the defaults until after the properties are resold. These companies very well could have flooded the market with millions upon millions of homes, which would have further crashed the market, or they could have sold these assets off to the government, or borrowed against the assets in order to substain day to day operating expenses (i.e. because companies borrow overnight to fund these expenses), in order to stay liquid. As it turns out, AIG did both, but again.. Without the guarantees, these mortgages wouldnt have been packaged and sold and companies would have had to keep day to day funds liquid. The problem wasnt that these companies were bankrupt, its because they didnt have cash flow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Are you also claiming that a part of the reform was to prevent 0% and subprime mortgage?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Well, while I look forward to the data you should be providing as asked above, I must admit, accounting is a major challenge. I'm no accountant, and even they can find it challenging or else they wouldn't be needed.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Prove it, complete with a link. It will also help if the evidence you must have can demonstrate the similarities and dissimilarities from the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.
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.â€, 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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Is that the reform you're talking about, that never made it out of the housing committee? And what stability are you talking about?
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..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Prove it.
I did.. you just refuse to watch the videos or listen to facts because they prove you wrong..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I see why you're running around all over the place. You're concluding GSEs when I'm talking about major banks doing the lending.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
How long had the government been guaranteeing loans, again? And why did that suddenly become an issue?
Because Clinton changed the standards to authorize them to insure substandard mortgages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
And which clause in the reform you speak of, would have restricted such guarantees?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
When you walk like a duck, quack like one... but why don't you tell me more about this reform, your analysis and where your conclusions come from beyond jotting down a sentence, if you don't want to be seen in the wrong light?
Why dont you do your own research rather than just making up how you wish things to be. ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
One more time, they are tailor made for you. They only make for amusement for me, like those election time ads.
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..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Again, no point repeating and complicating a discussion. Just respond to this whole post by detailing the reform you speak of, your analysis of it and I will be up for a debate with you.
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.
A LOT more than food stamps actually but your fascination for food stamps led to you insisting making it a part of the discussion. I should have obliged
We're only talking about $300 BILLION, and yet again you want to ignore it as if its not present.. I'm so glad you post here to provide me with non stop humor..
Reducing cost is always about cutting something. If that something is fraud or overpayment recovery, why would you be complaining about it? If that something is about simplifying code and consequently striving for cost reductions, why would you be complaining? Fiscal conservativeness shouldn't be a lip service. It is why I prefer the word, fiscal responsibility. Being responsible comes with challenges, being a conservative only requires a closed mind, and especially from the realities.
The least you could have done to demonstrate your capacity out of habit, would have been to pick a one-liner post of mine that wasn't really anything serious. What a waste of space.
Such facts from your world do not exist in mine.
Ah yes, liberals. Ignore facts, and stick with feeeelings
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.
