Obama is the GREATEST President in HISTORY

Why snivel the Democrats got their collective asses waxed in both 2010 and 2014 giving them the largest majority, Federal and State since the 1920's. So, post all the polls you want.....the voters have spoken.

 

More regulation when you see the house is falling down. I thought Democrats were for more regulation, but not these Democrats. Not one voted for strong regulations on F/M & F/M

 

Over 60% of the electorate spoke when they turned out to elect a president in '08 and '12, and a record low of 37% spoke in '14, although not to elect a president. They'll get to do that in '16 when 60%+ will again speak.

That has little to do with the incumbent's approval being considerably higher than his predecessor's, albeit quite a bit lower than his predecessor's at this stage of their respective presidencies.



.

 

Crimson Tide fan huh... Personally I like UT and Florida but to each their own.

 

The Truth About ‘The Republican Mandate': 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010

According to a study conducted by FairVote, the 46 Democrats currently sitting in Senate have gotten 20.7 million more votes over the 2010, 2012 and 2014 elections than the 56 Republicans. Tallied up, that’s 67.8 million to Dems, and 47.1 million to Republicans. Or, to put it another way:

Democrats got a full 50 percent more votes than Republicans, and lost nine seats. Or to put it yet another way:

http://aattp.org/the-truth-about-th...t-more-people-voted-have-democrat-since-2010/

 

More regulation? Of what? GSE's didn't cause the crash, though Dubya's policies like REQUIRING them to buy $440 billion in MBS's in the secondary market, pushing their housing goals from 50% to 56% AND changing Clinton's rule from 2000 that restricted F/F from using subprimes on those goals, sure did hurt them, lol


No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)


1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom:


2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis:

3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it: This is not exactly an obscure corner of the wonk world — it is one of the most studied capital markets in the world.





4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now


MY FAV, AE'S Peter Wallison in 2004: “In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.” That's the guy with Ed Pinto spinning AEI's tale of affordable housing goals in the USA created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Philippines, China, Russia, DOZENS of nations thanks to Barney Frank and the Dems, lol
'

 

NO, UNLIKE RONNIE/DUBYA OL OBAMA HAS REGULATORS ON THE BEAT, lol


Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."



Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.



lol

 

I get it Bubba, YOU DON'T LIKE FACTS

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Q Why is it commonly called the "subprime bubble" ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

"Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006"

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf



Q. Er uh, didn't you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?

A. It did kinda say that didnt it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.


In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier

LOL

 

Q Well there was a 300 % increase in subprime loans. Why not call it Subprime Bubble?

A Subprime loans refers to the credit score of the borrower. It doesn't make it a bad loan if proper underwriting standards are used. Bush's working group said it was "triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages" . In 2004, 4.3 % of all mortgages were No Doc loans. In 2006 over 50% of all loans were No Doc loans. That's over a 1000 % increase in loans where the borrowers income was not fully documented or documented at all. "Another form of easing" is a nice way of saying "lower lending standards" . And notice it lines up with the dates already posted. In addition to No Docs, banks allowed piggyback loans, teaser rates, I/0 and even negative amortization loans.

(from Dallas Fed link above)

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. And then they sold the loan and risk to investors and GSEs clamoring for the loans. Actually banks, pension funds, investment banks and other investors clamored for them. Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to buy an additional $440 billion in mortgages in the secondary market.

 

US HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED 2001-2007, lol

CLINTON TOO????




james Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy.

View attachment 33342



Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.

 

LIAR

DEMS? PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE TELL ME WHAT POWER THEY HAD IN THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE AGAIN? lol

Yes, the GOP supports more regulations BUT the Dems fought them, THAT'S your posit??? lol





"Bush required home owners to qualify for a home loan and had to come up with at least a partial down payment before the government would help them. "


On December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which was aimed at helping approximately "40,000 families a year" with their down payment and closing costs, and further strengthen America’s housing market


THAT WAS THE GOP BACKED BILL, 160,000 MO DOWNPAYMENTS, LOL


When a low-income family is qualified to buy a home, but comes up short on the down payment, the American Dream Down Payment Fund will help provide the needed funds. We estimate that this fund will open the door to homeownership for 40,000 low-income families annually."


http://www.thechristiansolution.com/doc2010/322_AmericanDream.html


LOL

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html



Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law
Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/loans-20542-subprime-banks.html

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!



Bush Increasing Homeownership


He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down



LOL

 

Obama is the greatest President, like ever.

He signed the NDAA and some are parroting, "thank you sir, I'll have another!".

 

Been there done that your links don't begin to prove what you claim they do in fact they prove the opposite.

 

Interest on the debt is projected to exceed all military spending by 2022. And some people still don't think that is an issue.

The Legacy of Debt: Interest Costs Poised to Surpass Defense and Nondefense Discretionary Spending

Thanks Obama

 

This is called an ad hominem, want to to acvtually TRY to refute it?

 

Weird, ZERO memory of Dubya/GOP tax cuts in 2001-2003 AFTER Clinton's sound policy was creating a SURPLUS that Greenspan testified to GOP Congress in 2001 was in danger of paying down the debt to fast? This was After BJ Bill's 4 surpluses, 3 after he vetoed the GOP's $700+ billion tax cuts? Obama? lol

 

Wow, ZERO memory of how much debt under this President. Wow, ZERO memory of why there was a surplus, hint, it had nothing to do with Clinton.

 

that post was sarcastic, the point being that the president does not drive the economy, if he did.. then Warren Harding (who is actually one of the worst presidents in US history) would actually be one of our greatest. The fact of the matter is these economic patterns are years in the making, even the housing market bubble goes back before Bush was even in office (see the GLB act)

hell, you even stated yourself that the causes of the depression go back to before Hoover was president

 

We get it. Republicans are racist. Nobody is buying that argument anymore.

What about creating jobs and a strong economy? How 'bout that?

 

If he is so great then why doesn't he make cannibalism legal?

After all if homosexuals are no longer bad people and must be accepted as normal and good, then why not make cannibalism legal and good?

After all, the added benefits are that it would provide extra food for the country and the world, and if corn can be distilled into biodiesel fuel, well then, why not people?

It's a WIN WIN!

 

So you have reading comprehension issues?


"before Hoover was president"



MY POSIT:


" Yeah on the way to the conservatives first GOP great depression, Harding/Coolidge's 'free markets' bubble like Dubya's, that popped..."



" the housing market bubble goes back before Bush was even in office (see the GLB act)"




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush's President's Working Group on Financial Markets March 2008

"The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007."




Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev...3_analysis.pdf


Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists

We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty

There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

GLB didn’t cause the financial crisis—and, when push comes to shove, the regulatory evangelists must admit as much.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2012/11/12/why-the-glass-steagall-myth-persists/


TRUE, IT WASN'T REGULATIONS BUT THE ACTUAL REGULATOR ON THE BEAT, DUBYA, WHO LIKE RONNIE, IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS AND CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS. Weird right?

 

"What about creating jobs and a strong economy? How 'bout that? "

11+ MILLION PRIVATE sector jobs since "job killer" Obamacares passed Feb 2010

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001


Dec 2007



The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/12/bush200712

 

That's if you believe the fake stats put out by the Obama administration. The bureaucracy works for the democrats. They count temp jobs, part time jobs, minimum wage jobs and jobs the illegal aliens take away from Americans. There is no real net gain since he took office. More Americans are unemployed now than in anytime in our history.

 

I'm sorry but I can't take you seriously when you provide a source that credits itself as "members at the Ayn Rand Center"

anything Ayn Rand/Objectivist related is going to make up reasons why regulating anything in the market is bad, and does nothing to prevent financial bubbles like the recession.. or even the great depression (which you yourself already seemed to imply was due to laissez faire economics)

You just sited an anti-regulation source, and then provided a pro-regulation argument.. how do you expect to be taken seriously?

edit:

and for the record, Harding and Coolidge were in office before the depression hit during Hoover's presidency.. that's not a comprehension issue on my part, that's acknowledging historical chronology which you yourself addressed (the point being that econmic depressions are years and even decades in the making)... unless you were mistakenly saying that the depression began under Harding and Coolidge

 

"I'm sorry but I can't take you seriously when you provide a source that credits itself as "members at the Ayn Rand Center"


Definition of AD HOMINEM
1
: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2
: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE THE GLB CAUSE OF THE DUBYA GREAT RECESSION???? ANYTHING? lol



" You just sited an anti-regulation source, and then provided a pro-regulation argument.. how do you expect to be taken seriously?"

BZZ, Wrong


ONCE MORE:

TRUE, IT WASN'T REGULATIONS BUT THE ACTUAL REGULATOR ON THE BEAT, DUBYA, WHO LIKE RONNIE, IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS AND CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS. Weird right?



"Harding and Coolidge were in office before the depression hit during Hoover's presidency."

Really? You mean only one guy could be Prez at a time? lol. policies cheered on by Harding/Coolidge, that Hoover INHERITED 6 months into office were the fault of Hoover??? lol

TRY to use REASON, logic and HONESTY Bubba