President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

That's funny. Have you seen the reports of the Sanders people in Nevada?

Reports by who? The media that is in the tank for Clinton? Earlier in the election, I also remember the media reporting how a Hispanic Clinton delegate was shouted at to "Speak English!" by Bernie followers. When the footage came out, that turned out to be a total lie. I have yet to see any footage of chairs being thrown in Nevada or anything close to that. The supporters were rightfully pissed off. Did the media even report how more delegates showed up for Bernie at the April Nevada convention than they did Hillary? That was supposed to give him an edge at the May Nevada convention. Instead the changed the rules and denied the Delegates a chance to be heard. Rebelling at democracy being squashed is NOT anarchy.

[Monker]

Bernie and Donald stand the best chance to break the two party system and give working people a chance.

With Bernie, we know he can't be bought. Trump so far has largely self-financed his campaign. But will that continue? And if it doesn't, how soon till he starts talking like a typical Republican? Follow the money...

After the nomination, he has all but admitted he will accept donations. In doing so, he can also pay himself back for any money he spent to get the nomination.

In other words, he really didn't tell the whole truth.

And, I would expect Bernie to be in the same situation if he had earned the nomination.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I don't put too much stock in the political scientists you quoted, though. Most political scientists are more political than scientist, like most journalists. I know better than most. I have a degree in PoliSci, but chose not to use it and instead entered the real world of work because I understood the farcical nature of it all.

Well, the one author is from the American Enterprise Institute and is a conservative. The other author is from the Brookings Institute and is a liberal. And they are 100% right. There is a false equivalence about Democrats and Republicans. One party still tries to govern. The other just panders to AM talk radio screwballs.

Stimulus in terms of putting cash back into people's hands who gave it to the government is far better, IMO, than giving it to crony capitalists and union bosses as payback for political support.

Either way it’s government stimulus, which is a Keynesian idea. When a Republican president does it, he gets support. When Obama proposes it, everybody pretends like it’s some radical traitorous thing.

I don't think he could have ever imagined that just 15 years later we would have the EPA, etc. as big government continued to explode under LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2, and O.

Well, Ike lived through FDR. FDR's WPA employed some 9 million people. The EPA, by comparison, currently has 16000 employees. Ike would probably want to expand and strengthen the EPA.

Here's an excerpt of a letter Ike wrote in 1954. Ike was a Republican. The party he describes in this letter sounds very much like the current GOP.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Just shows how much his party moved to the extreme right.

Kennedy gets a pass because he was killed before he could do too much damage, and actually sounded a lot like Republicans of today on fiscal matters.

This is crap. JFK lowered taxes when the marginal rate was 90%. He dropped it to 70%. Reagan later dropped it to 28%. Would JFK be in favor of that? Doubtful. JFK also pushed for Medicare - which is socialized medicine full stop. JFK also created the Peace Corps. Today's Republicans hate both Medicare and the Peace Corps.

Nixon's creation of the EPA created one of the worst bureaucracies we have ever seen. Have they done some good? Yes in many ways. But more often than not, they have bent over backward to create rules and obstruction to reasonable progress. Then, they completely destroy a river in Colorado last year and who at the EPA is accountable?

Wait a minute. So the EPA tried to clean up a mine that was seeping contaminated water. You can certainly blame the EPA for fucking up. But why didn't private market forces intervene and clean up the Superfund site? It was not a government owned mine. A private company made profit from natural resources and then left a mess for somebody else (i.e. the government) to take care of. If EPA regulations has been in place when that mine was founded, the spillage may have been avoided.

Look at the VA or TSA these days to see how well they do.

The TSA was founded in direct response to the failings of private industry. Pre-9/11, the airline industry could not even be relied upon to have locks on the cockpit doors. If you think the TSA sucks, just take a look at the news today about EgyptAir and get back to me.

[The_Noble_Cause]

And, I would expect Bernie to be in the same situation if he had earned the nomination.

Then you don't know Bernie Fucking Sanders.

[Boomchild]

After the nomination, he has all but admitted he will accept donations. In doing so, he can also pay himself back for any money he spent to get the nomination.

In other words, he really didn't tell the whole truth.

And, I would expect Bernie to be in the same situation if he had earned the nomination.

Actually, this does not reflect his full statement on the subject. Even before he was the presumptive nominee he said that he may accept donations for the general election. His full response to getting paid back the money he spent for the primary election was that he has the option of getting paid back but that doesn't mean he is going to ask to be paid back. So it hasn't been established as a fact. So that is the total truth.

[Monker]

And, I would expect Bernie to be in the same situation if he had earned the nomination.

Then you don't know Bernie Fucking Sanders.

And, you don't realize it takes billions to fund the campaign after nomination because you are raising money both for your own campaign and your party as well. Even Trump can't afford it without losing a LOT of money...and he knows it. The estimate for this year is between 5 - 10 BILLION dollars. So, that is the entire net worth of Donald Trump. At least he has real estate he could sell.

What does Bernie have? 100million in donations? LOL. Yeah, that would work real well.

[The_Noble_Cause]

And, you don't realize it takes billions to fund the campaign after nomination because you are raising money both for your own campaign and your party as well.

Blah blah blah. Same thing was said about Bernie not accepting PAC money for his primary race. And now he has raised more money from small donors than any candidate in history. He's re-writing the rules. Meanwhile Hillary is stuck to the same old moth-eaten playbook.

[tj]

And, I would expect Bernie to be in the same situation if he had earned the nomination.

Then you don't know Bernie Fucking Sanders.

And, you don't realize it takes billions to fund the campaign after nomination because you are raising money both for your own campaign and your party as well. Even Trump can't afford it without losing a LOT of money...and he knows it. The estimate for this year is between 5 - 10 BILLION dollars. So, that is the entire net worth of Donald Trump. At least he has real estate he could sell.

What does Bernie have? 100million in donations? LOL. Yeah, that would work real well.

If Bernie could win the nomination, which I think would happen if all the primaries were held today and the DNC had no Superdelegates, he would still be at a huge disadvantage against Trump. Bernie would have to accept the contributions he eschews right now and at least tacitly accept the support of Super PACs to be able to even stay in the game. He would win a certain % of the vote just because he has a D next to his name on the ballot, but Trump would completely blow him out.

I don't see how Bernie would win against Trump, even if he did accept big donor money. He's too far left of where most of America stands and Trump isn't as far right. I am not a Trump fan at all, but don't see how Bernie would stand a chance. Hilary will because she will accept any money, has a system in the tank for her, and has ridden Bill's coattails for 40+ years to her current level, and will do just about anything - and I mean ANYTHING - to win.

[The_Noble_Cause]

So all these DOCUMENTED attempts to do something are false?
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives. ... 09-10.html

They are pretty much meaningless.
Freddie and Fannie didn’t originate subprime loans. They also don’t bundle loans up and securitize them. The entire premise of your argument is flawed. Nobody believes that Bush was a champion for MORE regulation of ANY kind.

This study by Fed of St. Louis proved it without doubt.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-005.pdf

All this crap about redlining, CRA, and Freddie /Fannie is just total deflection from a destructive de-regulatory ideology and a party that doesn’t want to reap what it sowed.

[tj]

So all these DOCUMENTED attempts to do something are false?
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives. ... 09-10.html

They are pretty much meaningless.
Freddie and Fannie didn’t originate subprime loans. They also don’t bundle loans up and securitize them. The entire premise of your argument is flawed. Nobody believes that Bush was a champion for MORE regulation of ANY kind.

This study by Fed of St. Louis proved it without doubt.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-005.pdf

All this crap about redlining, CRA, and Freddie /Fannie is just total deflection from a destructive de-regulatory ideology and a party that doesn’t want to reap what it sowed.

But wait, what about the Wall Street kingpins who supported Democrats Gore, Kerry, Obama and have paid millions to Bill and Hil? They don't have any guilt in it? I think that people from both parties are guilty for a long time on this and so many other things. Even people who are registered D still give substantial money to R candidates to ensure that they have access, and vice versa.

So, setting aside blame, what do you think should be done going forward? What is it about any of the ideas floated by Bernie, Hil, Donald, the Libertarian guy, or whomever that you think is the right course economically moving forward? I am not trying to be argumentative, but am truly curious about what you think good solutions could be.

[The_Noble_Cause]

But wait, what about the Wall Street kingpins who supported Democrats Gore, Kerry, Obama and have paid millions to Bill and Hil? They don't have any guilt in it?

Of course they do. These corrupt Dems have ruined the country and what it means to be a liberal. I voted for Obama. But I was also on here early on pointing out that the guy was a bought-and-paid-for stooge. My guy in 2008 was Mike Gravel. Very much like Bernie, he was older than shit and spoke his mind. Gravel had huge balls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLepLeJEWpE

[The_Noble_Cause]

So, setting aside blame, what do you think should be done going forward? What is it about any of the ideas floated by Bernie, Hil, Donald, the Libertarian guy, or whomever that you think is the right course economically moving forward? I am not trying to be argumentative, but am truly curious about what you think good solutions could be.

My ideas are all over the place. I want single payer healthcare, but I also want to do away with the IRS. I am in favor of anything that makes citizens' lives easier.

I agree with Bernie maybe 75%. The remaining 25% would be Libertarian. Hillary is a war-monger and a serial liar. Even by Republican standards, she is bad fucking news.

[The_Noble_Cause]

TNC, that is a very good read, but Clinton was still the one who waved his wand and removed restrictions for getting home owner loans.

Not sure what legislation you are referencing. The biggest factor in the recession was the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which separated investment banking from commercial banking. The repeal was pushed by Phil Graham and signed by Clinton. Graham was recently an economic advisor to Cruz and also worked for McCain's campaign - proving that bad ideas die hard. As for Clinton, I think Alan Greenspan said it best: "Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while."

The loan companies took any loan, took the fee's then dumped them on Freddie and Fannie, which is us. AGAIN, al I'm saying is there was alot too it, to call it a Bush recession isn't exactly being honest, it's just a liberal tool used to gain power.

Again, the Community Reinvestment Act only applied to regulated banks. Private lenders like Countrywide made the majority of subprime loans and sold those loans to investment banks. Freddie and Fannie may have had some risky mortgage securities in their portfolio. Was it enough to topple the economy? No. Wall Street holds the power. You sooo desperately want to blame the crash on Democratic programs but the facts simply don't bear that out.

[Monker]

There isn't just one regulation, or one 'mistake' that you can point to that caused W's financial colapse.

Yes, deregulation played a part. Banks could buy and sell stock. Investment companies could be a bank, make loans, issue credit cards, etc. If you want to get into history, this is part of what lead to the S&L crisis under G HW Bush.

But, all of these types of things have good intentions as their basis. Wanting people to have the opportunity to own a home is not a bad thing in itself. Allowing "financial institutions" to exist to be the basis for all financial transactions for their customers is not a 'bad' thing.

But, those good intentions were abused due to GREED by all.

Banks made loans to people they KNEW could not afford because they knew they could package those loans together and sell them on the market as high risk mortgages. They bank no longer cared about the risk...they simply offloaded it to someone else. So, a financial institution buys them and repackages them again and sells them as part of a 401k portfolio. So, they offloaded the risk back to the consumer because, hey, nobody cares about the 401k until they retire. Or, they package them as part of an offer to another financial institution to buy something else. Or, they simply offer them as a package for the public to buy. Any way they did it, they are passed this hot potato around to each other and the uneducated consumer.

But, that isn't all. Real estate agents are TRAINED to sell you the most expensive house you are willing to buy. They don't care if it is 50% higher than the market says it should be. All that means is it is in a hot area you should buy it quick. They don't care if you say you can't afford a $300,000 house and only want to spent $150,000...Hey, you get raises, right? You may feel a pinch now but in 5yrs you'll be fine. So, they pressured people to spend more then the needed, for houses that may be over priced.

And, of course the naive people will their $300,000 dream house and want it rather then get buy with their $150,000 starter home. Or, maybe they don't even have a job by their agent says they can get them a loan anyway.

So, all of these greedy people: Banks making loans and selling them, investors on Wall Street buying the loans and reselling them, market chasers trying to make quick on high risk loans, naive people wanting more house than they can afford, or people who can't even afford ANY house getting the load anyway.

All of that greed combined together to create this bubble that fed itself. It got bigger and bigger with more bad loans, and then it burst. Suddenly that $300,000 home was only worth $150,000. Suddenly your 401k that was heavily invested in real estate was 1/4 of it's original amount...and continuing down because of the ripple effects across all investments. Suddenly, NOBODY could by a home - or wanted to...so real estate agents had no income. Banks suddenly looked at their books and they couldn't afford the risk of ANY loans any longer. Wall Street looked at their companies value become 1/4 of what it was...and they were in trouble.

Greed is NOT good. Greed does NOT work. Greed makes you feel good in the moment for short term satisfaction...but in the long term, everything falls apart and you are worse off.

So, good for W. for standing up to Fannie and Freddie. But, at the same time, big fucking deal. If he knew what was going on, and he should have, then why wasn't he telling banks to not make loans to people who couldn't afford them? What wasn't he telling all financial institutions to stop trading these toxic loans? Why wasn't he warning EVERYBODY that what happened with the S&L crisis would happen again if they didn't stop. Why wasn't he demanding congress act to stop this bubble before it burst?

You know why? Because his financial team was too busy thinking up gimmicks like those stupid pre-refund checks that did absolutely NOTHING to stimulate the economy. That is what they were focused on instead of the obvious huge problem that they did not even want to acknowledge existed.

Whether you like it, or not. The S&L crisis happened under the Republican watch and Presidency. And the next financial colapse happened under Republican watch - and the son of the same President. The Bush's and Republicans OWN both of these crisis.

[ohsherrie]

It isn't that the GOP has zero interest in governing, it is that they don't support his policy. Reverse is the same for Democrats.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Sorry. Bush's signature issues, tax cuts and going to Iraq, were all supported by Democrats. When Obama came to power, mainstream policies such as government stimulus, were distorted to appear as the end of Western civilization. Just earlier the same year, George W. Bush was mailing rebate checks to people as a form of stimulus - which is pretty much the government equivalent of dropping money from helicopters. Back in the day, Republicans proposed BIG ideas or at the very least, signed big things into law. Ike was inspired by the German autobahn and gave us the interstate. Nixon vowed to defeat cancer and later gave us the EPA. Nowadays, Obama can't 't even propose fixing potholes without being called the devil spawn of Pol Pot. Political scientists, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, summed it up nicely in their book, "It's Worse Than It Looks" -

"Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of major national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being implemented."

Very well said and absolutely correct. Thank you.

[ohsherrie]

There isn't just one regulation, or one 'mistake' that you can point to that caused W's financial colapse.

Yes, deregulation played a part. Banks could buy and sell stock. Investment companies could be a bank, make loans, issue credit cards, etc. If you want to get into history, this is part of what lead to the S&L crisis under G HW Bush.

But, all of these types of things have good intentions as their basis. Wanting people to have the opportunity to own a home is not a bad thing in itself. Allowing "financial institutions" to exist to be the basis for all financial transactions for their customers is not a 'bad' thing.

But, those good intentions were abused due to GREED by all.

Banks made loans to people they KNEW could not afford because they knew they could package those loans together and sell them on the market as high risk mortgages. They bank no longer cared about the risk...they simply offloaded it to someone else. So, a financial institution buys them and repackages them again and sells them as part of a 401k portfolio. So, they offloaded the risk back to the consumer because, hey, nobody cares about the 401k until they retire. Or, they package them as part of an offer to another financial institution to buy something else. Or, they simply offer them as a package for the public to buy. Any way they did it, they are passed this hot potato around to each other and the uneducated consumer.

But, that isn't all. Real estate agents are TRAINED to sell you the most expensive house you are willing to buy. They don't care if it is 50% higher than the market says it should be. All that means is it is in a hot area you should buy it quick. They don't care if you say you can't afford a $300,000 house and only want to spent $150,000...Hey, you get raises, right? You may feel a pinch now but in 5yrs you'll be fine. So, they pressured people to spend more then the needed, for houses that may be over priced.

And, of course the naive people will their $300,000 dream house and want it rather then get buy with their $150,000 starter home. Or, maybe they don't even have a job by their agent says they can get them a loan anyway.

So, all of these greedy people: Banks making loans and selling them, investors on Wall Street buying the loans and reselling them, market chasers trying to make quick on high risk loans, naive people wanting more house than they can afford, or people who can't even afford ANY house getting the load anyway.

All of that greed combined together to create this bubble that fed itself. It got bigger and bigger with more bad loans, and then it burst. Suddenly that $300,000 home was only worth $150,000. Suddenly your 401k that was heavily invested in real estate was 1/4 of it's original amount...and continuing down because of the ripple effects across all investments. Suddenly, NOBODY could by a home - or wanted to...so real estate agents had no income. Banks suddenly looked at their books and they couldn't afford the risk of ANY loans any longer. Wall Street looked at their companies value become 1/4 of what it was...and they were in trouble.

Greed is NOT good. Greed does NOT work. Greed makes you feel good in the moment for short term satisfaction...but in the long term, everything falls apart and you are worse off.

So, good for W. for standing up to Fannie and Freddie. But, at the same time, big fucking deal. If he knew what was going on, and he should have, then why wasn't he telling banks to not make loans to people who couldn't afford them? What wasn't he telling all financial institutions to stop trading these toxic loans? Why wasn't he warning EVERYBODY that what happened with the S&L crisis would happen again if they didn't stop. Why wasn't he demanding congress act to stop this bubble before it burst?

You know why? Because his financial team was too busy thinking up gimmicks like those stupid pre-refund checks that did absolutely NOTHING to stimulate the economy. That is what they were focused on instead of the obvious huge problem that they did not even want to acknowledge existed.

Whether you like it, or not. The S&L crisis happened under the Republican watch and Presidency. And the next financial colapse happened under Republican watch - and the son of the same President. The Bush's and Republicans OWN both of these crisis.

Also absolutely correct. I'm so glad there are others who remember how things really happened. Sometimes I think I'm the only one left.

[tj]

One last time...the banks WERE FORCED TO LEND MONEY TO PEOPLE WHO COULDN"T AFFORD HOMES by Janet Reno, Acorn, Clinton and yes even Obama back then. The Pubbies under W tried to reign them in but to no avail. Their GSE's (Grand Social Experiments) blew up in their faces. This revisionist history just kills me.


January 2005-July 2006


Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), co-sponsored by Sens. Sununu and Dole and later Sen. McCain, re-introduced legislation to address GSE regulation.


"The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006," reports the Wall Street Journal.


Greenspan testified that the size of GSE portfolios "poses a risk to the global financial system. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to bail out the lenders [GSEs] . . . should one get into financial trouble." He added, "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis . . . We put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership."


Greenspan warned that if the GSEs "continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road . . . We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."


Bloomberg writes, "If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. . . . But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then."


April 2005


Treasury Secretary John Snow again calls for GSE reform, "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America. . . . Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system," from a White House release.


May 2005


At AEI Online, Wallison warned that "allowing Fannie and Freddie to continue on their present course is simply to create risks for the taxpayers, and to the economy generally, in order to improve the profits of their shareholders and the compensation of their managements. It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit."


January 2006


Chairman Greenspan, in a letter to Sens. Sununu, Hagel and Dole, warned that the GSE practice of buying their own MBS "creates substantial systemic risk while yielding negligible additional benefits for homeowners, renters, or mortgage originators." He stated, ". . . the GSEs and their government regulator need specific and unambiguous Congressional guidance about the intended purpose and functions of Fannie's and Freddie's investment portfolios."


March 2006


Sens. Sununu and Hagel introduced an amendment to a Lobbying Reform Bill directing GAO to study GSE lobbying and requiring HUD to audit the GSEs annually.


May 2006


After years of Democrats blocking the legislation, Sens. Hagel, Sununu, Dole and McCain write a letter to Majority Leader William Frist and Chairman Richard Shelby expressing demanding that GSE regulatory reform be "enacted this year" to avoid "the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the Housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."


May 2006


Sen. McCain (R-Arizona) addressed the Senate, "Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were ‘illusions deliberately and systematically created' by the company's senior management. . . . Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. . . . OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay."


McCain stressed, "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."


April 2007


Sens. Sununu, Hagel, Dole, and Mel Martinez (R-Florida) re-introduced legislation to improve GSE oversight.


April 2007


In "A Nightmare Grows Darker," the New York Times writes that the "democratization of credit" is "turning the American dream of homeownership into a nightmare for many borrowers." The "newfangled mortgage loans" called "affordability loans" "represent 60 percent of foreclosures."


September 2007


President Bush: "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs . . . the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."


2007-2008


The housing bubble began to burst, bad mortgages began to default, and finally the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac portfolios were revealed to be what they were, in collapse. And the testimony is evident as to why. As Wallison noted, "Fannie and Freddie were, I would say, the poster children for corporate welfare."


September 2008


Rep. Arthur Davis, whose testimony is found above in October 2004, now admits Democrats were in error: "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to iencourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

Quit with the facts, already. Look, it doesn't matter which party was in the white house, wall street bankers of both parties made a killing in the run up of the real estate market. Blame for everyone.

[The_Noble_Cause]

One last time...the banks WERE FORCED TO LEND MONEY TO PEOPLE WHO COULDN"T AFFORD HOMES by Janet Reno, Acorn, Clinton and yes even Obama back then. The Pubbies under W tried to reign them in but to no avail. Their GSE's (Grand Social Experiments) blew up in their faces. This revisionist history just kills me.

One last time, the overwhelming majority of subprime lending came from private firms not under the authority of the CRA. The "Pubbies" didn't try to reign anything in. The "Pubbies" were too busy deregulating derivatives and anti-predatory lending laws. The "Pubbies" continue to fight to repeal Dodd-Frank and any regulatory action passed since the recession. That's what "Pubbies" do.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Well F.F., I keep posting what happened and what was involved and keep getting told that things like this,....

No, you’re both cherry picking quotes. Anybody can play that game. And most of the quotes being picked refer to Fannie and Freddie, which was not even driving the crisis. You guys rely on 'cut and paste' tactics because you can’t articulate what the fuck happened in your own words. Did Fannie and Freddie securitize subprime mortgages? No. It was Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, etc. Did Fannie and Freddie make subprime loans? No, it was Ameriquest and Countrywide etc. You guys are contorting yourselves into self-fellating human pretzels trying to pin the crisis on BIG liberal government somehow, someway. Both Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Commodity Futures Modernization Act let the genie out of the bottle. And both represent the type of deregulatory policies the GOP continues to push. Suggesting the Recession happened because Republican regulations were ignored is the equivalent of liberals acting as champions of supply side tax cuts and pro-life policies. What's next? Did Reagan get us out of World War 2? Did Jimmy Carter sign the emancipation proclamation? Is upside down and downside up? If Caitlyn Jenner has balls does that make her Kanye's step-father in law? Do you guys even know what your party represents, or are you too embarrassed to admit it?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Thanks for spamming the board, FF.
You'll note, when I mentioned the Fed Study about the Housing Crisis, I provided a link to it. Not all 500 pages of the study. This is a discussion board. As I already said, you can't discuss the issue because you don't understand it at all. So you just post bullshit like the following...

Mr. Abdou’s complaint alleged that the bank sold defective mortgage loans to mortgage-finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As already mentioned, Freddie and Fannie had subprime mortgages in their portfolio. But did they make the loans? No.

To satisfy CRA examiners, Clinton mandated “flexible” lending by large banks. As a result, CRA-approved loans defaulted about 15% more often, the NBER found.

And of the top 30 subprime lenders, how many were subject to the CRA? Just one. Keep posting bullshit.

[The_Noble_Cause]

From what you just posted, it's the Banks fault, which I would agree, not totally Bush, which is my only point. I don't excuse Bush from it. But he didn't do it at all.

I've blamed everybody including Clinton to Bush to Greenspan, who could have stopped the bubble.

[JBlake]

No matter what Hag Clinton and her following call it, it's still going to be the "I'm With Stupid" campaign.

[The_Noble_Cause]

From what you just posted, it's the Banks fault, which I would agree, not totally Bush, which is my only point. I don't excuse Bush from it. But he didn't do it at all.

I've blamed everybody including Clinton to Bush to Greenspan, who could have stopped the bubble.

How about that. We agree.

Nah, I don't think so. Greenspan turned a blind eye because he is a free market zealot. The GOP is still held captive by the same dangerous deregulatory ideas.

[Monker]

No matter what Hag Clinton and her following call it, it's still going to be the "I'm With Stupid" campaign.

Wow, Trump must have selected either W or Sarah Palin as his VP.

[The_Noble_Cause]

A shocking new poll from ABC News reveals Hillary Clinton is losing to Donald Trump nationwide 46 percent to 44 percent. That’s an 11 percent shift from March, when Trump trailed Clinton by 9 points.

I'm not shocked at all. Hillary is stiff, scripted, and unlikable.

[steveo777]

A shocking new poll from ABC News reveals Hillary Clinton is losing to Donald Trump nationwide 46 percent to 44 percent. That’s an 11 percent shift from March, when Trump trailed Clinton by 9 points.

I'm not shocked at all. Hillary is stiff, scripted, and unlikable.

This....and the undeniable fact that she's just a fucking bitch. When she speaks she always sounds so angry, almost like an angry dyke, as if there's any other kind. lol

I don't understand how she has any support. Maybe there are just some really blind people out there.

[tj]

Holy cow, this could be an epic Presidency if we allow it..

Who knew that the Trump campaign would be getting involved in higher education policy this year? Sam Clovis, a tenured economics professor and Trump campaign co-chair, recently noted that their objectives include getting the government out of student lending, requiring colleges to share in student loan risk, and discouraging borrowing by liberal arts majors.

Clovis told Inside Ed that the mere mention of these policy proposals has sent some Washington graybeards into a swivet, and "he expects some higher education leaders to react the same way when Trump outlines these ideas during the fall campaign."

Some of the ideas under consideration could be "revolutionary," Clovis said. Among the proposals currently being prepared are the following:

• A complete shift of the current federal student loan system to a market-based and market-driven system that would be run by private banks

• Remediation programs for those unprepared for college-level work would be renamed "student success programs"

• Colleges would subject applicants to greater scrutiny and only admit those who show promise of graduating and finding jobs within a reasonable time frame

• There would be less emphasis on parent contributions and the Free Application for Federal Student Aid and more of "a partnership" between the student, the bank and the college

Saying that all colleges should have skin in the game and share the risk associated with student loans, Clovis noted that many in Congress already voiced support for that idea, adding that "the risk needs to be substantial enough to change the way colleges decide whether to admit students, and which programs they offer."

The ROI on most college degrees is horrible now. Most universities primary mission now is research, not education, though they won't admit it.

Requiring universities to share the risk would shut down thousands of programs of nominal value and be a good thing.
The student loan issue is now what the housing loan issue was 8 years ago. Lenders and universities encouraging students to borrow for "a college degree" without any concern for how that loan will get paid back. Students graduate with degrees in "women's studies" or "comparative religion" and then find out that there are no jobs where they can use their education in those areas. So, they take a job at WalMart to start paying back the loans. And unfortunately, student loans can not be discharged through bankruptcy, so once you have it you are stuck with it.

[tj]

A shocking new poll from ABC News reveals Hillary Clinton is losing to Donald Trump nationwide 46 percent to 44 percent. That’s an 11 percent shift from March, when Trump trailed Clinton by 9 points.

I'm not shocked at all. Hillary is stiff, scripted, and unlikable.

This....and the undeniable fact that she's just a fucking bitch. When she speaks she always sounds so angry, almost like an angry dyke, as if there's any other kind. lol

I don't understand how she has any support. Maybe there are just some really blind people out there.

She's a woman (or so she says. Which, if we can just choose which gender we want to "identify" with, what does it matter?
It's her turn.
She was Secretary of State
She's a woman
She was a US Senator
It's her turn
She was a First Lady
She's a woman
She was on the board of WalMart
It's her turn
She's an attorney
She's a woman
She's a grandmother
It's her turn
She has stuck with Bill for 40 years
She's a woman

[Boomchild]

I don't understand how she has any support. Maybe there are just some really blind people out there.

Come on now, ever have a discussion with a hardened feminist?

[steveo777]

I don't understand how she has any support. Maybe there are just some really blind people out there.

Come on now, ever have a discussion with a hardened feminist?

Yes, but I had no idea there were so many of them. Voting with vaginas. lol