Trump on Pace to Do What Obama Couldn’t

Feel free to retract your post, the well informed (those who don't get their world view from RW propaganda internet videos) will respect you for having the balls doing so.

For those interested in truth on the Democrats and Freddie and Fannie, as opposed to the distorted spin of an edited right wing propaganda internet video, here is the vote of the Democrats on HR 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which was the *only* bill to regulate F/F to ever be passed (in 2005) by a chamber of the Republican controlled Congress.

Party - Ayes - Nays
Republican 209 15
Democratic 122 74

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll547.xml

And here is the the Bush administration's response to this, the only bill to regulate F/F ever passed by either chamber of the Republican controlled Congress:

"the Administration opposes the bill"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851

And here's links to an article about Republican Mike Oxley, of Sarbannes-Oxley fame, then ranking Republican majority member and chair of the House Financial Committee on Financial Services and sponsor of that bill, saying how they "got a one-finger salute” from the Bush White House.


He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2009-04-02/html/CREC-2009-04-02-pt1-PgH4498.htm page HR4500

 

The BLS household survey is important, but it is not a highly accurate measure, as it is based on telephone surveys and can vary quite a bit month to month. It is better to consider it in terms of trends.

 

I'm not going to read this whole thread, but Obama hit 4% several times
In fact, the only year he didn't hit 3% was his first year in office, which followed the -0.92% growth in the last year of Bush.

 

With respect, it was George W. Bush who gave HUNDREDS of billions - through HUD - to Fannie and Freddie (among others) to give people, who frankly had no business owning homes at that time, access to MASSIVE amounts of government backed money so they could do just that.
ALL booms/bubbles begin when new money enters a market. This was the trigger for that. The Dream Act was the beginning of the housing boom/bust.
Sure, a lot of others went along with it - especially the Fed/Congress/banks - but it was all begun with a massive initiative from GWB.
I think his idea was well intended, but like most politicians, he did not have a clue about macroeconomics and how his 'dream' would horribly distort the market.

From the 4:00 mark especially shows the MASSIVE Fannie/Freddie involvement and stimulus directly by Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html


BTW - I am neither Dem nor Rep.

 

I agree.

But my point is that sawyer is using the U-3 rate as 'proof' of what a great job Trump is doing. But then he dismissed the fact that the Household Survey last month showed a drop in total employed by 74,000 (seasonally adjusted) and 894,000 (not seasonally adjusted) - obviously because the latter does not support his pro-Trump stance.
But you cannot logically brag about the U-3 and then ignore the very survey that it is based on.

That's like bragging your college is ranked #2 in the AP poll and then turning around and dissing the poll itself.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm

That is my point.

 

he has no desire to have a civil discussion. he is likely a... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ts-hone-online-attack-plans-for-2018-u-s-vote

 

Fair point.

 

Looks like the prediction for GDP growth in 2017 by the Fed is now 2.2-2.5%. Thus, the Fed did not increase interest rates in the recent meeting.

Maybe the OP was a little premature celebrating the "winning" Trump economy. Plus, the current economy already factors in the promised tax cuts, based on hope rather than facts. What if the tax cuts won't materialize? Will we see a recession?

In any case, the fundamentals still do not favor strong GDP growth, certainly not in the 4% range, as promised by Trump. Most likely, the economy will trod along at a slow growth rate, no matter if there are tax cuts or not. The uncertainty created by the "let them guess" WH and the do-nothing congress will make sure of it.

 

Would you prefer a more liberal bias source like the "Atlantic" ?

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis -> https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...vernment-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

 

Non sequitur. I never claimed the government had no involvement in the housing crisis.

We had a party in charge of the government whose view on regulation was that business could regulate itself. The sat by and did nothing will the housing bubble frenzy blew up to absurd levels.

And we saw, once again, the lesson history teaches about business regulating itself.

 

GMAFB! The corporate world WITHHELD jobs and production for 8 years, claiming they were unsure of what the outcome of legislation would be. And that was guaranteed NOT to be thanks to a committed GOP obstructionist edict.

NOW suddenly everything alright. Typical revisionist neocon/********* BS! puh-leeze!

 

Good N.Y.T. article that you linked too.

But it's the N.Y.Times, the same fake news NYT who ran a story using anonymous sources that they had to retract that Trump and Putin were in a direct collusion with each other back in 2016.

From the article:

It just wasn't Congress, President Bush, President Clinton, Senator Obama who helped create the financial crises that led to the "Great Recession" but also the private baking institutions who provided sub prime loans to those who really didn't qualify for any kind of a loan.

Remember when Mexico announced that illegal aliens from Mexico could get a Consular identification cards aka Matrícula Consular de Alta Seguridad (Consular Identification Card). ? Who was really behind it ? It was the Bank of America and Wells Fargo so they could provide sub prime loans to illegal aliens who couldn't produce a pay check stub or a W-2 or a SS #.

Explains how Jose who stood on a street corner as a day labor and his wife Juanita who cleaned toilets were able to get a sub prime loan to purchase that $350 K home in the barrio and default of the loan a few years later.

The federal government refused to recognize the Matricula card as a legal form of ID but California did and so did most of the banks in America.

How many in the banking institutions were prosecuted and sent to prison by Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder ? Not one.

 

The government had a bit more active a role, it promoted lowering lending standards to facilitate purchases by borrowers who would not reasonably qualify (if mortgage originators regulated themselves). I know a Mariachi band player and a waiter (both in Los Angeles) who each purchased homes then valued at over a million dollars, and this was based on their incomes. It was easy to qualify, the property itself typically made more money than it's buyer, banks knew if the borrower defaulted they'd recover a revalued property.

 

It is true that George "Ownership Society" Bush promoted more lax regulation and easing of housing standards. Of particular note, he repeal "anti-predatory" lending rules that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals.

As often happens in a bubble, "gold fever" reduces risk perception among investors.

 

Qouteing Rep. Barney Frank.
"Fannie and Freddie are in great shape."

 

1) Another RW propaganda false statement. You are not quoting Frank. Frank never said that. He said "These two entities … are not facing any kind of financial crisis"

2) Frank made that statement in 2003, when F/F were fine.

3) Frank was all throughout the housing bubble a minority congressman without the power to pass a law on chewing gum.

4) Frank supported the Republican bill passed by the Republican House to regulate F/F, that the Bush administration killed. Frank even signed off on the Republican letter to the Senate urging them to act on the bill. The Republican leadership in the Senate ignored it.

5) The Bush administration announced every quarter that Fannie and Freddie were "adequately capitalized" right up until October, 2008.

6) It's always fun to blame the guy who talks funny, right?

 

Well, I am not using the NYT article as some Bible on the period. I just posted the first article I saw that seemed to get it. There are numerous sources that understand what happened back then and what were the causes.
Heck, it was common sense that giving out mortgages to people who cannot afford to pay them back was a monumentally stupid idea in the long run.

But as for blame?

A) there is no way there would have been a sub-prime mortgage crisis without the Fed. If they had wanted to slow down the boom...they could have at any time, near-instantly. But their absurd ultra, low interest rate policy was begun and then left in place for FAR too long.

B) IMO, GWB/Congress is FAR more to blame then the banks. Banks will only do what the government/Fed will let them do. And GWB DIRECTLY challenged both Fannie/Freddie AND the banks to give more mortgages to low income people (he more or less did that in the above speech I posted). And they would not have been able to get all those lousy, ridiculous mortgages had Fannie and Freddie not backed them. And Fannie/Freddie could not have backed them without GWB pouring HUNDREDS of billions into them via HUD.

Sure you can blame Carter and Clinton for starting the low income housing idea. But GWB ran WILD with it (again, with good intentions, IMO) and clearly got the Fed to go along with it as well. After Congress approved this madness, the rest was history.

If the Fed had left interest rates at historical norms and had GWB not gone low income mortgage crazy with his Dream Act...I cannot see any way that the housing boom/bust could ever have happened when it did.
As I said, you cannot have a boom without new money entering the market. And the Fed/GWB were the ones that allowed for the new money to enter the housing market. And GWB not only allowed it. He practically threatened the banks/Fannie/Freddie if they did not do it. This was his baby and he wanted it done.


Once again, I am neither Dem nor Rep.

 

It was so watered down by the Democrats.........that it wouldn't work......

 

Obama might be the only recent President failing to reach a GDP of 3.8%, but no other President since F. Roosevelt inherited an economy from his predecessor so broken and dysfunctional. It's easy to forget, or simply ignore, the many positive things Obama did to restore our economy. He wasn't perfect (no President is), but he deserves a huge amount of credit, and I think future historians will give it to him.

 

Bush inherited a booby trapped economy from Clinton. After Billy Boy deregulated the markets, Bush had no choice but to continue his policies.

 

Do you guys just make this stuff up as you go?

Bush had a Republican administration and Republicans controlling both houses of Congress for most of his tenure, and you're actually trying to argue that he had "no choice" but to continue the same policies?

Though your statement betrays ignorance born of RW propaganda. Bush did have a choice and did change policies. For the worse.

 

LOL, you're citing the Bush's own claims for why it killed the only bill every passed by a house of the Republican controlled Congress?

The Republican House bill was supported by 90% of the House Republicans, and by the Bush Administration's own appointed head of the OFHEO, which was responsible for overseeing F/F. Bush killed it because he didn't want to regulate F/F, he wanted to get them out business.

We can only wonder what difference it would have made had Bush not fought the reform of Fannie and Freddie.

 

So what? You really believe Congress and the Prez controls our government? Lol! Such a sweet kid!

 

Oh, I forgot. It's the secret cabal of Jews. LOL such a deceived child!

 

And it was a valid reason.