cawacko
Well-known member
What would have been different? What do you think the Fed would have done differently?
Economy after W vs. Obama
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
What would have been different? What do you think the Fed would have done differently?
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
A country that has its fiscal house more in order doesn't experience the kind of panic that we did in '08. The housing bubble would have burst, but it simply wouldn't have been as impactful.
Getin the ring
Verified User
why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are talking about.
the housing "crash" is on Barny Frank and Ted Kennedy.
Bush tried many times to warn congress that the lending practices put forth by these two whinos would lead to trouble.
lending people money that resulted in mortgages that amounted to more than their monthly income should not have required presidential intervention.
It's called math
So why don't you read more up on the subject then come back and apologize to GW.
goof
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Bush had a majority in Congress.
Trying to blame Barney Frank is a bit of a stretch.
Trying to blame Barney Frank is a bit of a stretch.
Getin the ring
Verified User
so the fact that more people were out of work when Obama left office than were out of work when he took office means nothing to you. Just your fake "# of jobs reports" huh?
dear God what am I conversing with in this forum, it's like an elementary school class
Getin the ring
Verified User
This is an article by the Boston Globe, the most liberal Newspaper this side of San Francisco
But feel free to google any number of sources.
please man, read up on stuff before you opine, you're embarrassing yourself
The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.
All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.
As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"
Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.
Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.
cawacko
Well-known member
Bush was fiscally irresponsible, there's no letting him off the hook for that.
And Frank looks pretty foolish now with all the video of him arguing Freddie and Fannie's soundness.
Jarod is arguing ideology here. Keynesians love spending. I'm talking bigger than Onceler here, keysenians arguing too much spending played a major role is a complete reversal of their stated beliefs. They may argue the money should have been spent differently but not against spending
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
The crash was what caused the massive job loss.
I would love to read what you were writing about the stimulus in 2009. Over 15 million jobs created since, steady quarter-after-quarter growth, and the stock market tripled.
I mean, can you imagine what Trump would be tweeting with #'s like that?
Getin the ring
Verified User
an amateur debate class freshman would back up such a claim with exactly what policy from Obama he would attribute a "tripled stock market", or job growth.
and don't bother googling it now because there's nothing there. You can't just babble with eloquence and that makes it true. Obama tried that for 8 years, and we got a great big pile of eloquent sh!t
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I think a President has somewhat limited capability to affect the overall economy, but I supported the bailouts (which I give Bush credit for) and the stimulus at the time. I think austerity when things were in a freefall would have been a disaster.
The stimulus did what it was supposed to do. It stopped the downward spiral, and the private sector took over from there.
Its so Covfefe....
Is Covfefe finally the turning point for this president. Are people finally going to see how aimless and feckless this president is?
cawacko
Well-known member
Already hijacking your own thread which you have been avoiding?
cawacko
Well-known member
not posting in it
GazzaQueen
Verified User
We just can't understand it. Obama did so great and Hillary ran on being the UberObama. So why isn't she 50 points ahead, you may ask.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
That really doesn't specifically point to how you think it led to the subprime housing crisis?
Let me ask this a different way. Is it your contention that under a President Gore there would have been no housing crisis?
I mean if deficits and debt lead to housing crises then we should have had one under Obama no?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Explain how the country's fiscal debt made it worse?
How did people keeping more of their money make it worse?
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
The unfunded W tax cuts for the wealthy resulted in an exaggerated accumulation of wealth with the members of the extremely wealthy class, causing a lack of flow of money to the middle class and a restriction of expansion, when this occurred, the wild exuberance that had been experienced in the largely unregulated real-estate lending markets was proven unsustainable and thus resulted in an exacerbation of the economic problem. The result was a domino effect pushing the American economy toward the brink of full collapse as the wealthy froze the accumulated assets and attempted to wait it out. Because the lack of circulating wealth, made worse by the panic in the financial sectors, the Government was the only answer to getting money circulating again resulting in the clear solution being an extended period of greatly reduced interest rates and the pouring of money into the system.