This sums it up pretty well

Then why do you refuse to understand the Rs have had control for the last 7 years and done nothing to avoid the problem?

You instead find it much more pressing an issue to call me names instead of facing that fact.
 
Obfuscate said:
No, but we did have a Recession and unemployment went to something like 6.5%. If it were not for the low rates that spurred growth those #'s would have been worse. I don't think this recession will be much worse than that one was. Rates were too low and global rates were historic lows but they needed lower rates at that time and 9-11 was differant as economists had to forecast the economy based on non economic situations of 9-11.
Click to expand...

The fact is that a government completely controlled by the Republican party did nothing to fend off this problem when they could have. Its just a fact.
 
We had a whole thread on this where we pointed to where the law changed and how it was applied. Instead of comprehending then taking some of it and applying it to everybody involved the attempt is to stick it to the ones where the ball landed.... Nothing proves to me your partisan blinders more than your agreement in that thread then the magical transformation when reading what you hoped was real from another.

The game kick the ball game started in 1992 with that law that I pointed to that forced banks to begin down this road. It was supposed to sunset in '95 but they extended it until Bush, who again extended it....
 
Obfuscate said:
No, but we did have a Recession and unemployment went to something like 6.5%. If it were not for the low rates that spurred growth those #'s would have been worse. I don't think this recession will be much worse than that one was. Rates were too low and global rates were historic lows but they needed lower rates at that time and 9-11 was differant as economists had to forecast the economy based on non economic situations of 9-11.
Click to expand...

There is a reason the recession and economic downturn from 2000-2003 was not as severe. It is because home values continued to escalate and because borrowers continued to take out more and more equity out of their homes. Yes, the low rates spurred growth, but they were kept low for too long. Like tax cuts, low rates can be good in the short run, but they are typically bad for the long run. Tax cuts work as short term stimulus, but eventually you need spending cuts to pay for them. Interest rates being lowered can spark growth and investment, but if left low for too long, they can also spark inflation.

When you combine that inflation with a housing bubble bursting... you typically end up in the potential nightmare situation of stagflation.
 
I am a turbo-lib far lefty, I'm left of everyone on the board.
The only thing is I'm trying to teach my fellow lefties they don't have to reject being rich and being in the investor class. Why give that segment to the cons.
 
also was something appended to the bill so clowntoon politically could not veto it ?

I am not sure but the whole picture must be viewed in an attempt to get the truth and assign blame.
 
Damocles said:
We had a whole thread on this where we pointed to where the law changed and how it was applied. Instead of comprehending then taking some of it and applying it to everybody involved the attempt is to stick it to the ones where the ball landed.... Nothing proves to me your partisan blinders more than your agreement in that thread then the magical transformation when reading what you hoped was real from another.

The game started in 1992 with that law that I pointed to that forced banks to begin down this road. It was supposed to sunset in '95 but they extended it until Bush, who again extended it....
Click to expand...


The law was not a danger to the economy until it was used in a Massive way to fuel a slagging economy. You change a law when it proves to harm you right?

The effects were not harmful untill it was apllied differently than it had ever been applied before.
 
uscitizen said:
which party controlled congress in 92 ?

I am really not sure, but think it was republicans.
Click to expand...

Lets see... the Reps took control of the House for the first time in 40 years in 1994. Hmmmm... I wonder who had control of the House?

Bottom line... it began under Bush, continued with Clinton and also with Bush2.0. During that time both parties did nothing but encourage this.
 
uscitizen said:
also was something appended to the bill so clowntoon politically could not veto it ?

I am not sure but the whole picture must be viewed in an attempt to get the truth and assign blame.
Click to expand...
Again, in '92 the Democrats controlled the congress. The Rs did not gain control until 1994.
 
This author was a Clinton advisor.
Yeah, they never attack Bush.

No one is every told anywhere don't worry about your balance. That's laughable.
And for the moron lefties critisizing the economy, look it up cause I know you can't quote them. GDP numbers for the last 7yrs. Multiply that times a trillion and that's how much growth we've had balpark. It's not small.
 
Superfreak said:
Lets see... the Reps took control of the House for the first time in 40 years in 1994. Hmmmm... I wonder who had control of the House?

Bottom line... it began under Bush, continued with Clinton and also with Bush2.0. During that time both parties did nothing but encourage this.
Click to expand...

True but as you said it did not bite us right away, but the experts in this admin should have seen it coming when it started and done something to mitigate the effects.
Instead they encouraged it more by keeping interest rates lower than necessary.
 
Desh said:
Then why do you refuse to understand the Rs have had control for the last 7 years and done nothing to avoid the problem?

You instead find it much more pressing an issue to call me names instead of facing that fact.
Click to expand...

Desh, who exactly has said anything to the contrary? I have agreed with you on the fact that over the past seven years the Reps could have done something. So could the Dems. But that doesn't change the fact that BOTH parties are responsible to a degree. It also does not change the fact that the BORROWER and LENDER are primarily to blame.
 
Desh said:
The fact is that a government completely controlled by the Republican party did nothing to fend off this problem when they could have. Its just a fact.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to stick up for the current Repulicans and their handling of the economy but in all honesty Fiscal Policy does very little compared to Monetary policy and can really do nothing but make situations worse when they try to control global forces or the buisiness cycle. History proves that. There is a big problem because with Communisim and socialism being abandoned world wide since the 80's, these economies have grown and they wanted the safe secure bets that the US has been historically. You had too much money chasing too few goods which helped esculate prices to unsustainable levels and we are now dealing with that. Add in 1% Fed rates that made it very inexpensive to build new homes and develop new land that helped create the oversupply we see now.
 
Desh said:
The law was not a danger to the economy until it was used in a Massive way to fuel a slagging economy. You change a law when it proves to harm you right?

The effects were not harmful untill it was apllied differently than it had ever been applied before.
Click to expand...
The effects were always harmful. You could see the beginning of the effect as the economy slagged a bit at the beginning of Clinton's term to regain on the insane Tech bubble. The harm began and continued through two administrations.

And SF, 1992 was Clinton's first year. The attempt was to be able to claim "More <insert specific group here> than ever before own homes!" Everybody wanted on that train, that's why they continued the program.
 
Superfreak said:
It is also FACT that the Dems did nothing to stop this either. Its just FACT.
Click to expand...

Who on this board has been saying for at least three years, that predatory lending and subprime lending needs to be reigned in and regulated. My recollection is that it was Desh, USC and other democrats.

Who on this board was advocating letting the free market handle it, and dismissing the oncoming crises by saying that stupid people deserve to get burned? I think it was you and fellow bush voters.
 
Damo are you saying the consolidations of financial institutions due to the act was the main cause of the situations?
 
Cypress said:
Who on this board has been saying for at least three years, that predatory lending and subprime lending needs to be reigned in and regulated. My recollection is that it was Desh, USC and other democrats.

Who on this board was advocating letting the free market handle it, and dismissing the oncoming crises by saying that stupid people deserve to get burned? I think it was you and fellow bush voters.
Click to expand...

but it wasn't 'free market'. It was a market that was forced to rate people qualified, that previously weren't by market forces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top