From who did Obama "inherit" the economic mess?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the center tends to be inherently more pragmatic by it's very nature, not in a pure sense mind you (there's still room for idealism) but with a nod to reality when illuminating a path forward.

Glad I could make you laugh.

-spence

I'm sure that's what you see when you(and the "we") place yourselves on a pedestal in the "center" and look around and begin to illuminate forward paths....

reminds me of "WE are the ONES we've been waiting for"... creepy...


you didn't make me laugh as hard as my 12 year old who located the "yo mama so ....." joke app for her iPOD......

[Jim in CT]

Spence, if you are in the "middle" as you claim, that must mean that there are some issues on which you think conservatives are right, and liberals are wrong.

I'm in the middle (slightly right leaning). I think conservatives are right on the economy, abortion, and national security. I think liberals are right on gay marriage, gun control, minimum wage, and the need for some regulation on Wall Street..

So Spence, on what issues do you side with conservatives?

I suspect that you think you're in the "middle" because you fall somewhere between Keith Oberman and his newphew Rachael Maddow. But remember, those 2 don't exactly cover the entire spectrum, just the entire spectrum at one network.

[scottw]

actually...he's in the "center"...which is the optimal point from which to look down ...and illuminate the path forward with balanced ideology(just a tinge) and with observation while nodding at reality...or something...think about it

it was actually a brilliant quote

[Slipknot]

I don't care who broke it!
all i want to know is who's gonna fix it?
THAT'S all the matters

i'm tired of getting the chit end of the stick

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I don't care who broke it!
all i want to know is who's gonna fix it?
THAT'S all the matters

i'm tired of getting the chit end of the stick

I think it's important to figure out "what" broke it, so that we don't repeat the mistake. And "what" broke it is subprime mortgages (which in many cases banks were pressured to write by liberal social engineering policies) and a de-regulated financial sector that came up with crazy ways to rate those mortgages as "safe" investments, and then sell them and leverage them.

As for who will fix it? Not the liberals that the idiots in CT and MA elected to keep doing more of the same. In CT, the liberals have been running the show forever. Between income tax of the gazillionaires in Fairfield county, as well as the revenue we get from the 2 most profitable casinos in the world, CT has PLENTY of revenue. Revenue shortfall is not our problem...crazy spending is our problem.

When my state income tax is 10% (currently 5%), and my property taxes are $10,000 (currently $7700), that's when I move. And that day is coming.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

which in many cases banks were pressured to write by liberal social engineering policies

Damn liberal mindset
"Over 75 percent of white Americans own their home, and less than 50 percent of Hispanos and African Americans don't own their home. And that's a gap, that's a homeownership gap. And we've got to do something about it." —George W. Bush, Cleveland, Ohio, July 1, 2002

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Damn liberal mindset
"Over 75 percent of white Americans own their home, and less than 50 percent of Hispanos and African Americans don't own their home. And that's a gap, that's a homeownership gap. And we've got to do something about it." —George W. Bush, Cleveland, Ohio, July 1, 2002

The "ownership society" was a big plank in the 2000 Bush platform. I remember reading a Bush speech from then praising all the efforts of the financial institutions to provide loans to low income borrowers.

What seems to be getting lost is the issue wasn't necessarily low income housing (i.e. where liberals -- and President Bush -- might want to defend populist interests) but also people with moderate to high income who took out massive ARMs to buy into housing they simply couldn't afford. I know first hand of some friends who were making at least 250K a year and blew it because of their own recklessness...ultimately loosing their house.

As has been discussed at length in older threads, this was a massive and systemic problem largely driven by sub prime and prime loans being bundled together without adequate regulation.

Plenty of blame to go all around...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Damn liberal mindset
"Over 75 percent of white Americans own their home, and less than 50 percent of Hispanos and African Americans don't own their home. And that's a gap, that's a homeownership gap. And we've got to do something about it." —George W. Bush, Cleveland, Ohio, July 1, 2002

That's very intellectually dishonest, either that or you're an idiot. George Bush never suggested that the way to increase minority homeownership was to throw out all known guidelines for deciding who gets mortgages.

Conservatives, like me, want minorities to own their own homes. We believe the way to accomplish that is for them to get off welfare, work hard and get good jobs.


I cannot stand that kind of dishonesty, suggesting that Bush liked the idea of subprime mortgages.

[scottw]

CLOWARD - PIVEN STRATEGY

Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven (today Piven is an honorary chair for the Democratic Socialists of America), the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I think it's important to figure out "what" broke it, so that we don't repeat the mistake. And "what" broke it is subprime mortgages (which in many cases banks were pressured to write by liberal social engineering policies) and a de-regulated financial sector that came up with crazy ways to rate those mortgages as "safe" investments, and then sell them and leverage them.

When you say banks, you make it sound like all banks when it was the big banks.

Local banks were not pressured to write sub prime loans. Most local banks would not write a loan without twenty per cent down. Mortgage companies were the biggest culprit writing hundred percent loans or eighty-twenty percent loans, holding two mortgages.


If you want to know the root cause of the current subprime crisis, there are
three things you need to understand:
First, the problem was caused by politicians (primarily Democrats) pushing
their "entitlement" agenda in to the free market. It started with "The
Community Reinvestment Act" (CRA) which required banks to make high risk
loans to minorities and others who could not have qualified for a home loan
or business loan under normal circumstances.

Second, Bill Clinton further liberalized the CRA and signed a bill to repeal
the Glass-Stengal Act. This Act was put in place in the 1930s following the
bank failures during the Great Depression. It was designed to keep banks
out of the speculation business.

Third, George Bush proposed major changes in the CRA, FMAE and FMAC in 2003
that would have tightened requirements for these business loans and subprime
home mortgages. The vote went along party lines, the Democrats won and the
proposed changes were defeated.

Why does Spence want to keep blaming Bush?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Why does Spence want to keep blaming Bush?

Because he's aliberal, and liberalism is a mental disorder. I cannot provide better evidence than his last post.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

When you say banks, you make it sound like all banks when it was the big banks.

Local banks were not pressured to write sub prime loans. Most local banks would not write a loan without twenty per cent down. Mortgage companies were the biggest culprit writing hundred percent loans or eighty-twenty percent loans, holding two mortgages.


If you want to know the root cause of the current subprime crisis, there are
three things you need to understand:
First, the problem was caused by politicians (primarily Democrats) pushing
their "entitlement" agenda in to the free market. It started with "The
Community Reinvestment Act" (CRA) which required banks to make high risk
loans to minorities and others who could not have qualified for a home loan
or business loan under normal circumstances.

Second, Bill Clinton further liberalized the CRA and signed a bill to repeal
the Glass-Stengal Act. This Act was put in place in the 1930s following the
bank failures during the Great Depression. It was designed to keep banks
out of the speculation business.

Third, George Bush proposed major changes in the CRA, FMAE and FMAC in 2003
that would have tightened requirements for these business loans and subprime
home mortgages. The vote went along party lines, the Democrats won and the
proposed changes were defeated.

Why does Spence want to keep blaming Bush?

You're missing the biggest piece. There was a market for the bunding of these loans. Global cash needs to go somewhere and the US housing market was the place to be. The more demand for mortgages resulted in more demand to sell mortgages and it created a vicous cycle. Big banks were packaging and selling, but sophisticated investors were BUYING. Everyone should have known better but, its like fishing in an endless bluefish blitz, eventually you lose all your plugs. Funs over.
Was it Bush's fault? Not directly, but he was the president at the time so he'll get the blame. Was it republican policies? I have seen NO reregulation initiated by repubs that had any impact to the recession. None.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Mortgage companies were the biggest culprit writing hundred percent loans or eighty-twenty percent loans, holding two mortgages.

I thought liberal ideology was to blame?

If you want to know the root cause of the current subprime crisis, there are three things you need to understand: First, the problem was caused by politicians (primarily Democrats) pushing their "entitlement" agenda in to the free market.

Oh good lord...

It started with "The Community Reinvestment Act" (CRA) which required banks to make high risk loans to minorities and others who could not have qualified for a home loan or business loan under normal circumstances.

The CRA was meant to keep banks from blindly discriminating against poor communities, but did not legally mandate they take actions that would harm their own operations. I believe studies have shown that lending in poor or minority communities isn't inherently any more risky when proper standards are in place.

I also remember reading a study that showed lending enhanced by CRA wasn't found to be any more risky than prime.

Second, Bill Clinton further liberalized the CRA and signed a bill to repeal the Glass-Stengal Act. This Act was put in place in the 1930s following the bank failures during the Great Depression. It was designed to keep banks out of the speculation business.

The repeal of parts of the Glass-Sengal Act was sponsored by three Republicans. I think Clinton struck a deal that he would sign it, and the Republicans agreed to let Clinton expand the reach of the CRA. I'm not sure how this is further liberalizing the CRA though, unless you think discrimination based on where someone lives is a good thing for development.

Third, George Bush proposed major changes in the CRA, FMAE and FMAC in 2003 that would have tightened requirements for these business loans and subprime home mortgages. The vote went along party lines, the Democrats won and the proposed changes were defeated.

I think you're mixing the 2003 and 2005 proposals. In 2003 given the scandals Bush wanted to move oversight to the Treasury department. Democrats didn't think there was economic risk and therefore didn't see the value. Being politicians I'm sure they didn't want to loose their oversight privileges as well. Frank has openly said this was a mistake.

I do question how serious Bush was about reform though. Considering in 2003 and 2005 the GOP was in control of Congress you'd think they could have gotten something passed if they really wanted.

Additionally, you can't ignore other regulatory changes to the SEC made in 2004 under Bush that allowed all the giant banks to increase their leverage as well. From everything I've read, this pretty much created a pump between F/F and the banks to crank out loans, obfuscate all the risk and make a hell of a lot of money in the process.

Why does Spence want to keep blaming Bush?

Because you just read what you want to hear. I've been pretty consistent that this was a systemic problem. Both sides have pushed for more lending to poor and minority communities. Both sides have opposed regulation and reform.

-spence