Sen. Lindsey Graham: Sacrifice Obamacare To Avoid Sequester

blah blah blah

All the dude does is lie.

Summer of Recovery = Lie
Stimulus = Lie
ObamaCare, keep your doctor = Lie
ObamaCare, only 900 billion = Lie
Gitmo closing = Lie
Patriot act bad = Lie
Hates FISA = Lie
Illegals wont get ObamaCare = Lie
Transparent Government = Lie
Inflate your tires to save gas = Lie
etc

 

No one said crap about clinton or jimmy freaking carter. Who cares what those failures did.

Its got nothing to do with obama telling lies about the expense of obamacare.

We cant afford freebee nation when we're in debt upto our eyeballs.

 

You were the one making the untrue statement.

 

Irrelevant, just like Obama being President at the time unemployment went over 10% is irrelevant according to you.

Home ownership programs that began under Bill Clinton with the expressed goal of bringing ownership levels to their highest levels ever, including minority ownership.

Housing prices bubbling to ridiculous levels is purely your opinion, unless you can define what a "ridiculous housing price" is. Someone in 2001 could have said the same thing after the prices of their homes increased by 25% during just the past couple of years. And it's not like the effect of Clinton's programs ended on Jan 20, 2001.

[video=youtube;cMnSp4qEXNM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;CTbIb75JdwY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTbIb75JdwY[/video]

A "general "hands off" attitude" signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999. A decision he has never regretted.

Not a surprise, can't bring yourself to criticize a Democrat in any meaningful way.

Clinton threw millions into a housing market all at the same time. The sudden increase in buyers increased competition, which inevitably increased housing prices. He lowered borrowing standards so that less credit-worthy people were now able to obtain home loans. Are less credit worthy people more of a risk, or less of a risk? Combine this with the deregulation he signed into law, and it doesn't really appear like much of a stretch, at all. Prices in housing increased from 1998 to 2006, yet you want people to believe that the increased housing price from 1998 to 2001 was not part of the bubble, and had no effect on the creation of the bubble. The height of partisanship.

Oh, you mean this bill?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac

Prove that there was discrimination at the time Clinton started enforcing the CRA.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_40/b4102000409948.htm

I'll be sure and remember this for the next time a left-winger blames deregulation of the housing market for the mortgage bubble.

See what? Everytime I've had this conversation about Clinton and the housing bubble? Find them yourself.

 

It is not irrelevant at all. When Bush took office housing prices were growing but there was no housing bubble. He was in office over the next five years as the prices grew to historically ridiculous levels, and had the opportunity to do something about it be did virtually nothing. Because he firmly believed industry and market could regulate itself.

Obama inherited a full blown recession, the worst in 80 years, caused by the housing bubble. 700,000 jobs were being lost a month and the UR rate was skyrocketing every month as well. UR hit 10% in his first year. We can be thankful that he and the Fed took agressive, rapid action, or the UR rate could have been much worse.

Home ownership programs began long before that under various administrations, Democratic and Republican.

But there was no housing bubble while Clinton was president.

Sure. I'll agree it's my opinion, based on evidence.



Feel free to argue why in your view that is not a housing bubble reaching absurd levels.

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 pased by either chamber of the Republican controlled Congress:

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

"the Administration opposes the bill"


And here's a link to an article about Republican Mike Oxley, 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.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7...077b07658.html
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/...die/index.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/one-finger-salute/

 

Previously addressed.

He doesn't deserve it regardless of his party. I'm not trying to blame Reagan.

Clinton was not president when the housing bubble blew up to its absurd levels and then started crashing, bringing the economy with it.

No the one I cited in my prior post.

Dan Immergluck writes that in 2002 small businesses in black neighborhoods still received fewer loans, even after accounting for business density, business size, industrial mix, neighborhood income, and the credit quality of local businesses.[24] Gregory D. Squires wrote in 2003 that it is clear that race has long affected and continues to affect the policies and practices of the insurance industry.[25] Workers living in American inner cities have a harder time finding jobs than suburban workers.[26] Redlining has helped preserve segregated living patterns for blacks and whites in the United States, because discrimination motivated by prejudice is often contingent on the racial composition of neighborhoods where the loan is sought and the race of the applicant. Lending institutions such as Wells Fargo have been shown to treat black mortgage applicants differently when they are buying homes in white neighborhoods than when buying homes in black neighborhoods.[8][9][27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

Thanks.

I'm blaming it right now. Remember what?

You've never proved how the housing programs under Clinton caused the housing bubble. You've simply asserted it did.

Obviously you've been able to find your prior posts since you cut and pasted the text here. So it shouldn't be any trouble for you to re-post it like the rest of the text. Of course that is assuming you did prove it, which I've never seen.

 

According to who? Or what? I'm still waiting for a convincing explanation on why the 25% price increase over a 2 year time span that had already occurred when Bush took office was not part of the housing bubble, or had no effect on the housing bubble. Rapidly increasing housing prices wouldn't have affected people's motivation to buy more homes, refinance, and borrow equity?

And so did Clinton, based on his defense of the repeal of Glass Steagall. According to the home pricing chart that you routinely throw out, regulating Fannie and Freddie would have likely done nothing, as housing prices were already near peak levels. And I responded to this 2005 bill in my previous post.

That "aggressive, rapid action" likely lengthened the recession, similar to how FDR's actions lengthened the Depression. Maybe a real recovery would have taken place without the need to increase the debt by 60%.

Or it could have been much better. Depends on whether you believe in Keynesian economics or not.

What other housing program before Clinton's "National Homeownership Strategy" raised homeownership rates as much and as quickly?

So it's based on nothing but your opinion. Got it.

It is in your opinion that in 2001 the prices had not yet reached an "absurd level" despite a 25% price spike from just a few years earlier. Suddenly in 2002, the price reached an "absurd level" ? 2003? 2004? When, exactly, were people supposed to realize that the price increases, although following a linear trajectory, were at an "absurd level"? Your starting point for when prices reached an "absurd level" is based on nothing but opinion, and oddly enough, it keeps in line with your paid-by-the-post Democratic Party partisan shill routine.

That's not how Government works. Bills don't go from the House to the President. The Senate proposed S-190 which never made it out of the committee process, and hence, never reached the President's desk. S-190 was opposed by Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee, as my previous link showed.

It's worth noting that 1491 barely passed with support from Democrats. Why would so many Democrats be opposed to regulating Fannie and Freddie? Bush in 2003 proposed regulation and Democrats opposed him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Looks like Barney Frank was sadly mistaken, and that Bush was planning to do something about those two Government agencies as far back as 2003. Can't say he didn't try.

 

I posted the chart.

The increase before 2001 was within the normal range of housing price deviations, not indicative of any kind of a bubble.

Previously addressed. Glass-Steagall was already effectively dead. To the extent Clinton things that further de-regulation of the banking/housing industry was a good idea, I disagree with him and submit that the events have proved him wrong.

Nonsense on all accounts.

Unlikely. Even if you hold the illogical view that Govt spending and tax cuts someone increases the UR, the stimulus spending had not come on line strong enough to significantly make it worse.

I don't know, I'd have to see the data.

No, you don't got me. My opinion is based on evidence, as stated and demonstrated.

In 2001 prices were slightly above trend lines, within the normal fluctuations in the housing market. By 2006 it certainly had reach an absurd level. By the 2002-2003 time frame you can see that prices are deviating above normal historical fluctuations.

That is absolutely untrue.

When the President says he opposes the bill you're chances of passage are pretty slim unless you have 2/3 control in the Senate.

S-190 was never taken up for a vote. Democrats didn't support it.

I'm not sure what you mean. 1461 passed with over 60% support of the Dems, and over 90% support of the Republicans.

There was no crisis in 2003.

He wasn't. Bush had a chance to do something in 2005 on a bill Frank joined with the Republicans to promote and which Bush effectively killed.

We can say he didn't try.

 

And previously dodged.

Sure.

Repetitive. Bush was not President when unemployment went above 10%. Actions have consequences, and they are not always immediate.

Previously addressed.

Flawed reports based on anecdotal stories involving community activists. Blacks are less credit-worthy than whites in general, and there are a whole host of reasons why that is the case, unless you can prove "racism" and "discrimination" are the only causes.

http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/conf/conf21/conf21f.pdf

You're welcome.

So Glass Steagall was not an important part in regulating the housing market? If it was "already dead", why do so many people believe repealing this led to the housing bubble?

You haven't proved the housing programs under Bush caused the housing bubble. You've simply asserted it did. What I did was show evidence that suggests that millions of home buyers flooding the market as a result of lower borrowing standards led to rising home prices based on the concept of supply and demand, and I gave evidence to support this argument.

I've discussed Clinton and the housing bubble many times. I don't see a need to rehash all of my previous conversations when I'm currently having the same conversation. Sounds like a pointless request.

 

Cutting Obamacare IS cutting blindly across the board. Of course, I don't think the military should be cut either. I think it's a simple matter of Reago/Bushonomics being dead in the water and Americans getting used to 58' yachts rather than 60' yachts.

Cut foolish government spending including Graham's salary.

 

That is absolutely untrue.

So what? Explain and prove how Obama was responsible for the UR hitting 10%.

What a shocker you'd think that.

http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/conf/conf21/conf21f.pdf

In his summary, he makes the further statement that "the weight of the
evidence is contrary to the hypothesis that lenders discriminate against minority
borrowers or areas by denying mortgage applications." This clearly incorrect
statement could seriously mislead the reader and reveals a bias that runs through-
out the literature review. Although the evidence indicates that redlining exists in
only some metropolitan areas, the same studies find that minority applicants,
especially blacks, are twice as likely to be denied a mortgage as are similarly
situated white applicants. These findings are very statistically significant, and the
differentials are large. And contrary to Benston’s assertions, the studies are not
beset by problems of multicollinearity and the models are specified so as to
control for risk-related and other objective lending criteria.

These findings cannot be swept aside so easily. Lenders and society must address these findings
honestly and forthrightly. We need to develop lending procedures and a lending
officer training process that eliminates racial discrimination

Apparently not. I'm not an expert in Glass-Seagall, but my understanding is that it primarily served to separate banking from investment functions and was not principally concerned with regulating mortgage loans.

I never made such and assertion.

Sure. That's why you can't cut n paste the text. Sure.

 

Housing prices don't normally increase 25% in 2 years for no reason. And, unlike previous boom/bust cycles in the 70's and 80's, they didn't return to a baseline level. They kept increasing. Can you prove they would have gone back down as a result of Clinton's policies?

Unless, of course, deregulation had nothing to do with what happened. If Glass Steagall was already effectively dead, why didn't think bubble form a long time ago?

I disagree with your opinion.

Your argument rests on the idea that things would have been so much worse without all of the extra spending, but you can't prove an economic recovery couldn't have taken place without it.

Find it then. You're trying to argue other housing programs existed before Clinton's as a way of minimizing the effect that Clinton's homeownership strategy had.

It was stated, not demonstrated. Calling it "based on evidence" doesn't make it so.

If in 2001 the "prices were above trend lines", then they are also "deviating above normal historical fluctuations". You have no evidence to suggest they would have fluctuated back to normal levels but for Bush's policies of continuing Clinton's homeownership programs.

I disagree.

So what?

That's right, they didn't. Republicans supported it, however.

So more Democrats opposed regulating Fannie and Freddie than did Republicans. Interesting.

You just finished saying "By the 2002-2003 time frame you can see that prices are deviating above normal historical fluctuations."

I posted an article that showed how Bush wanted to increase regulation in 2003 and Democrats rejected his idea. Bush opposed 1491 but Democrats in the Senate opposed S-190. More Republicans supported regulating Fannie and Freddie than did Democrats. More importantly, any action taken in 2005 would have likely had no effect, as housing prices had already reached near peak levels.

 

There he goes again trying to prove he's not gay.

 

That's not the logic. Clinton not only was not president at the time, but there was no problem to even deal with. The problem developed and blew up under the Bush administration. The problem was fully effectuated and its consequences were already in motion when Bush left office.

Whatever. I've demonstrated there was good reason to believe there was redlining practices going on.

.

So the G-S repeal apparently wasn't that big of deal as to the regulation affecting the housing bubble.

Not at all. I bring it up to counter the implication of your repeated posts about Clinton being responsible for the housing bubble, to show that Bush not only continued the policies of Clinton you complain about, but expanded them. Yet somehow it's only Clinton you mention for fault even though he wasn't even president at the time the bubble occurred.

1) To back up your claim that Clinton's policies in fact contributed in any significant way to the housing bubble.
2) To demonstrate your credibility of your claim you have proved it before.

and now,

3) to demonstrate your credibility by showing the basis of your claim I'm being dishonest.

 

Sure they do.

Exactly.

No. Can you prove they would not have? No.

G-S is not the only bank regulation.

I couldn't care less.

I've stated the evidence supporting my position in detail in other threads. You can't prove the economy would have magically turned around by itself when the banking and housing and auto and other industries collapsed.

Do your own research

I provided the evidence. Folks can decide for themselves.

That is not true. Prices historically have fluctuated up and down and have not maintained an exact correlation to the trend.

I couldn't care less.

So when Bush opposed the only bill to ever pass a chamber of the Republican controlled Congress to regulate F/F, Bush's opposition effectively killed it.

It never went to a vote. so what?

Over 60% supported it, proving they weren't blocking F/F reform.

Correct.

So what? The Republicans controlled the government and legislative agenda. They could have passed a law regulating F/F if they wanted.

 

Well whatever it takes I guess, never mind fact, logic truth and reality.

- - - Updated - - -

You're still trying to blame Clinton??
My god man, NO ONE is buying it!

 

And I'm sure we all know why you don't want to, you have been proven wrong every single time!

 

Link?

Why would I do that? You're the one claiming the spike at the end of Clinton's Presidency was a normal fluctuation, which historically would show a declining trend. There was none.

I never claimed that it was.

I couldn't care less that you don't care.

It was your claim that the Government's actions are what kept things from being worse than they are right now. It's not my responsibility to prove your argument wrong.

Why? You were the one to introduce these other programs into the discussion, you should be prepared to know something about them. Otherwise it looks like you're just grasping at straws.

You did no such thing.

I never claimed they maintained an exact correlation to the trend. You claimed that the prices at 2002-2003 were above historical trends for being above the trend line. Your claim that 2001 was a normal fluctuation whereas 2002, for example, is not, is just an arbitrary decision that you've provided no evidence for.

I couldn't care less that you don't care.

Senate Democrats blocked any chance of a bill reaching Bush's desk. All we know is more Republicans than Democrats were in favor of regulation F/F.

So it shows Democrats were not interested in dealing with F/F, as Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer indicated.

60% in the House, completely blocked by Senate Democrats. You're blaming Bush for opposing a bill that wouldn't have reached him anyway thanks to Democrat opposition.

So was there a problem in 2003 with house prices or not? You seem to think so, and so did Bush, apparently. He wanted to regulate F/F then, with Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer saying no.

They couldn't have gotten a bill past a Democrat filibuster. They didn't have the kind of majority that Obama has enjoyed, where he could have gotten a single payer health care system passed if he wanted to. Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote.

- - - Updated - - -

Still acting like you are able to debate a topic on PF??
My god man, NO ONE is buying it!

 

I'm sure "we all know" you speak for nobody but yourself, and possibly any other people on the site who can only troll.

 

I wish graham would just go away.

 

As long as the Congressional Budget Office reports the ACA will save money cutting it would be unlikely by the Democrats and now I suspect even some Republicans if push comes to shove. If the cuts happen states will just need to pick up some of the load with more local and state taxes to fund some things they need to fund - states rights people and smaller Federal government. The mantra of the Tea Party and the Conservatives right?

 

Prices were within normal historical price fluctuations through 2000.

False. Prices peaked in 2006, not 2000. In 2000 they were within the normal range of historical price fluctuations.

Funny that the Bush administration kept promoting programs for home ownership if they thought there was a problem.

It's bad enough they were doing it if they didn't see a problem, to do it when they knew there was a problem is downright malfeasance.

To the contrary, far more show there was discrimination going on.

Then fault the Republicans for pushing de-regulation and that bill as well as Clinton for signing it.

"Back to blaming Bush for the Clinton home ownership surge that led to the mortage bubble?"

Anyone can see the record for themselves.

All you've done is cite some housing programs by Clinton and claim they caused the housing bubble.

Responsive to your statement, which was also repetitive.

You've never demonstrated how Clinton's policies caused the housing bubble in posts to me. Just asserted it. Proved by the fact you can't link to the arguments you claim you made, even though you easily found them to cut and past test of Clinton's programs.

 

Here it is again.

It was.

Fair enough. I'm just showing you have no substance for your position.

Do your own research

Now your just debating in bad faith. I posted it in the same post I gave my opinion.

I didn't say you claimed that. I have provided evidence for it.

That was a different bill.

How does the fact that over 60% of the Dems voted for the bill which was promoted by Frank show the Dems weren't interested?

Different bill. The House bill proves the Dems were willing to support a bill to regulate F/F.

I stand by my prior statements. by 2002-03 prices were deviating above normal historical price fluctuations.

The could have changed the bill to make it acceptable to the Dems like the one the House passed.

 

No they weren't. In 2001 they were already about $15,000 more than any point on the chart according to the inflation adjusted numbers. According to your own sources, Bush did not introduce any homeownership programs of his own until halfway through 2002. You act as if the effect of Clinton's homeownership push ended on January 20th, 2001.

Strawman. I never claimed prices peaked in 2000.

Increasing minority homeownership was a goal of the Clinton administration that carried over into the Bush administration. I suspect ending these programs would have caused a fierce backlash from minorities and other members of the left, who would likely accuse the administration of racism.

A wiki source is what was given, but I'll take your word that there are plenty of left wing sources out there that paint discrimination where there is no discrimination. Plenty of careers and votes depend on that perception.

I don't believe deregulation was even a major cause of what happened. I bring it up because many people on the left believe deregulation is what caused the problem to begin with. I blame Government policy of pushing homeownership and increasing prices.

Indeed, Bush did not start the Clinton homeownership surge. Clinton did. That doesn't imply that I never faulted Bush for continuing that effort like you falsely asserted. I have many times, even in this thread. You're being dishonest again.

I've cited sources that show the extent that Clinton went to in order to increase homeownership, including lowering borrowing standards. I argue that throwing millions into the housing market at the same time is correlated with the sudden sharp rise in prices that took place, especially considering these prices remained relatively flat for decades.

Your request for other threads where this conversation took place was repetitive and unnecessary. Seemed like a fitting response.

Dismissing my argument is not a persuasive rebuttal. My argument is fully supported by the sources I've selected that show millions of people entering the housing market all at the same time thanks to lowered borrowing standards brought about by Clinton's policies, and the rapid price increases that took place shortly after these policies were put into effect. Even if you don't want to believe that, and you choose to believe deregulation of the housing market is the culprit, Clinton still shoulders the blame for signing the repeal of Glass Steagall into law. You can try and argue that his deregulation effort, which he still stands by, was not an important piece of the puzzle, but you'll have to convince many of your fellow left wingers on that one.