Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > So is everyone enjoying the Bush RECESSION?

So is everyone enjoying the Bush RECESSION?
Thread Tools
MacTheRiverRat
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 01:16 AM
 
The few BLIND W followers still blame others when they should be blaming W the biggest idiot in 232 years.
Life of working on a Mississippi River Towboat
Apple 2, Apple 2e, Mac 128-k , PowerPC 6115, Imac 233, ibook 900 Mhz
Now an Aluminum 13" 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB SDRAM
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 01:20 AM
 
Hay guys, wats going on in here?

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 02:07 AM
 
Looks like someone needs directions, a compass, or a GPS. The PWL is a little further North.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 04:10 AM
 
Well done, sir.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 09:31 AM
 
Naming conventions aside, it was during the Clinton administration that both the Fed and many private observers were talking about "unwarranted exuberance" or the like. A recession takes two things, the first being an over-inflated economy. Food for thought.

Oh, and Mac? ALL politically charged (very intentionally so in this case) subjects go in the Political/War Lounge. Unlike the regular lounge where we have the place swept out with dust mops now and then, the PWL gets flooded with bleach on a regular basis. Not often enough for some people's tastes, but we have to strike a balance between sanitation and continuity.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 09:43 AM
 
Why do you blame Bush for a recession that is due to American's spending more than they can afford ?

Oh, wait, those idiots that spend more than they can afford also votes for Bush.
But wait some more: the same idiots also voted for Obama.

Can't wait: in two years, we can blame Obama for making things even worse.

-t
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 09:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Can't wait: in two years, we can blame Obama for making things even worse.
Even when things are actually getting much better overall. The market and the economy work on a timeframe that's completely separate from things like administrations and even tax year calendars, and the upswing is already starting (very slowly and very much out of sight). But it won't "feel right" for many years because of the people responsible for the exuberance that led to the big bubble and how they've conditioned everyone to think that "constantly expanding economic growth" is something that's realistic and achievable.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 11:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Why do you blame Bush for a recession that is due to American's spending more than they can afford ?
When Bush ran for re-election in 2004, he made a big deal out of his concept of an "ownership society", and he took pride in the notion that more Americans were homeowners. By his reckoning, as more Americans owned their homes, they would take more of a stake in their community and perhaps exhibit more of the "personal responsibility" that conservatives here are so keen on.

Right around the same time, I was reading in the press about how banks were getting a lot looser with their mortgage underwriting requirements, since home prices had already risen by quite a bit in some areas due to the increased demand, and fewer folks had money for a traditional down-payment. I specifically remember one article I read in 2004 saying that lots of folks were buying houses using balloon loans and loans where they had the option to make only interest payments for a period of time, and when all these loans came due in five years (meaning 2007 and 2008), if housing prices weren't high enough to cause people to refinance, there would be a lot of pain. The general consensus, of course, was that by the time the balloon payment was due, most folks would be able to refinance to a fixed-rate loan with the equity they've built up in their rising real estate investment.

Were these people idiots for buying more home than they could afford? Maybe. But they were spurred on by Bush, who actively encouraged folks to buy homes, and the banks who wrote loans they knew were in high likelihood of default. The Internet stock bubble was replaced with the Housing bubble. What's next, tulips?
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Even when things are actually getting much better overall. The market and the economy work on a timeframe that's completely separate from things like administrations and even tax year calendars, and the upswing is already starting (very slowly and very much out of sight).
I'm convinced this current problem stems largely from the fact that after taking such a bath with writing off bad mortages which had been insanely leveraged with these derivative instruments, banks are hesitant to lend to anyone right now. Lots of businesses are seasonal, and get through the down season using short-term loans like lines of credit. Get the big banks who took all that bailout money to start lending again, and this current panic will subside. It will still be bad, but not quite as bad as another Great Depression....
     
MacTheRiverRat  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Naming conventions aside, it was during the Clinton administration that both the Fed and many private observers were talking about "unwarranted exuberance" or the like. A recession takes two things, the first being an over-inflated economy. Food for thought.

Oh, and Mac? ALL politically charged (very intentionally so in this case) subjects go in the Political/War Lounge. Unlike the regular lounge where we have the place swept out with dust mops now and then, the PWL gets flooded with bleach on a regular basis. Not often enough for some people's tastes, but we have to strike a balance between sanitation and continuity.
Sorry but when things start flushing down the toilet people tend to BLAME the one in charge! The CEO of America at the time all this mess started was W . So he gets the BLAME. Just as the red hot tech bubble was starting to fall under Clinton's last days. Plain and simple.
Life of working on a Mississippi River Towboat
Apple 2, Apple 2e, Mac 128-k , PowerPC 6115, Imac 233, ibook 900 Mhz
Now an Aluminum 13" 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB SDRAM
     
MacTheRiverRat  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Even when things are actually getting much better overall. The market and the economy work on a time frame that's completely separate
How true.

BTW- my 401-k is now worth about $4.01
Life of working on a Mississippi River Towboat
Apple 2, Apple 2e, Mac 128-k , PowerPC 6115, Imac 233, ibook 900 Mhz
Now an Aluminum 13" 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB SDRAM
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 03:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Were these people idiots for buying more home than they could afford? Maybe. But they were spurred on by Bush, who actively encouraged folks to buy homes, and the banks who wrote loans they knew were in high likelihood of default. The Internet stock bubble was replaced with the Housing bubble. What's next, tulips?
You really don't wanna go down that road, because the Democracks had a much bigger share in this whole housing mess, including their constant backing of Fannie and Freddy f***ing up, and creating all kinds of housing related lobbyist groups.

Especially, look at the whole tangled web of Harry Reid, Barney Frank and the housing industry. The Republicans have NOT been as much in bed with them as many Democracks.

-t
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 06:13 PM
 
You know what, I'm getting tired of hearing this over and over. Deregulation of the way banks handle these loans after they are made played just as much of a role if not more then any sort of Democratic action to get poor people into houses.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacTheRiverRat View Post
How true.

BTW- my 401-k is now worth about $4.01
On the flip side, if you're 50 or younger, your 401(k) is gonna be worth a lot when the economy recovers in about 15 years. Think of all the stock you're buying every month (assuming that no more than half the companies in your mutual fund go bankrupt.)
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 07:07 PM
 
Once again, facts to a Democrat, like Kryptonite to Superman.

New York Times, Sept. 11 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.]''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said the administration's position is driven by concerns about the financial safety and soundness of the companies "to the exclusion of concern about housing."
In other words, screw concerns about financial safety, Democrats want to push houses on people that can't afford them and scew anyone who says it's a dumb idea, and when it finally does blow up in everyone's face... just fall back on the usual... "It was all Bush's fault!"



In 2005, Republicans attempted the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

Senate sponsors were Hagel(R) McCain(R) Dole(R) Sununu(R)

In the House, all 17 sponsors were Republican. Not a single Democrat.

McCain:
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."
You can guess what Obama's vote on it was.

Barney Frank of course lied again and again, right up to the point of collapse, that Frannie and Freddie were "just fine" and that Republicans were just trying to exaggerate the whole 'impending financial crisis' thing.

Now follow the money:
All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008 Name |Office | State Party | Grand Total | Total from PACs | Total from Individuals:

Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900 Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349 Kerry, John S MA D $111,000 $2,000 $109,000 Bennett, Robert F S UT R $107,999 $71,499 $36,500 Bachus, Spencer H AL R $103,300 $70,500 $32,800 Blunt, Roy H MO R $96,950 $78,500 $18,450 Kanjorski, Paul E H PA D $96,000 $57,500 $38,500 Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' S MO R $95,400 $64,000 $31,400 Shelby, Richard C S AL R $80,000 $23,000 $57,000 Reed, Jack S RI D $78,250 $43,500 $34,750 Reid, Harry S NV D $77,000 $60,500 $16,500 Clinton, Hillary S NY D $76,050 $8,000 $68,050 Davis, Tom H VA R $75,499 $13,999 $61,500 Boehner, John H OH R $67,750 $60,500 $7,250 Conrad, Kent S ND D $64,491 $22,000 $42,491 Reynolds, Tom H NY R $62,200 $53,000 $9,200 Johnson, Tim S SD D $61,000 $20,000 $41,000 Pelosi, Nancy H CA D $56,250 $47,000 $9,250 Carper, Tom S DE D $55,889 $31,350 $24,539 Hoyer, Steny H H MD D $55,500 $51,500 $4,000

Obama was in the Senate 3 years and he has more donations in that time than all the other Senators on the list have received in 10 years, except Dodd.
Even Bill Clinton was honest about this. I guess being out of the loop, he no longer gets the subcription to the Democrat Party talking points:
"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 07:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You really don't wanna go down that road, because the Democracks had a much bigger share in this whole housing mess, including their constant backing of Fannie and Freddy f***ing up, and creating all kinds of housing related lobbyist groups.

Especially, look at the whole tangled web of Harry Reid, Barney Frank and the housing industry. The Republicans have NOT been as much in bed with them as many Democracks.

-t
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
You know what, I'm getting tired of hearing this over and over. Deregulation of the way banks handle these loans after they are made played just as much of a role if not more then any sort of Democratic action to get poor people into houses.
Glad someone else said it. Turtle keeps saying that over, and over, and over again, and I keep having to correct her over, and over, and over again. Sub-prime mortgages wouldn't have even been possible if it weren't for deregulation by the Republicans. Even poor people could afford a home, the loan would just be higher interest but spanned over a longer period of time. The bank and/or lender would have to wait an extra 10 to 15 years to collect all the interest, but the interest would be more so it works out for the bank/lender anyway.

Flat out greed and promises on future home values killed the market. Short term profits were more important than long term investments.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
MacTheRiverRat  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 07:11 PM
 
Bottom line both parties are screwed! IMHO.
I have always been more middle of the road. I fear for my country from both parties .
Life of working on a Mississippi River Towboat
Apple 2, Apple 2e, Mac 128-k , PowerPC 6115, Imac 233, ibook 900 Mhz
Now an Aluminum 13" 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB SDRAM
     
stumblinmike
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 08:19 PM
 
It is easier to blame the poor people. The conservatives here think they will never be in their shoes. Ha Ha Ha!!! And the stock market will be a memory, and a bad one at that, in 15 years. Heck of a job, Bushie!!!!
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 08:43 PM
 
If the Democrats were to blame for this whole mess McCain would have won the election. It's that simple.

If there is such an obvious and indisputable trail of evidence pinning this whole crisis on the Democrats, how come it never came out in the open? Why didn't McCain hit it and hit it hard?

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 11:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
If there is such an obvious and indisputable trail of evidence pinning this whole crisis on the Democrats, how come it never came out in the open? Why didn't McCain hit it and hit it hard?
Are you kidding me? You're wondering why someone who probably ran one of the most feeble campaigns in history didn't seize a good campaign opportunity? Instead, McCain dropped everything, ran to Washington, sat silent, and didn't express himself until offering support for a measure opposed by a significant majority of Americans.

Democrats aren't really calling a whole lot of attention to themselves either.
ebuddy
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2009, 07:18 AM
 
The truth of the matter is that all this can be directly attributed to Dem presidents like Wilson and FDR.

Sub-prime? No. That was just an effect, not the cause.

All you guys are doing is rearranging the deck chairs.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
MacTheRiverRat  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2009, 08:11 AM
 
Fact
Unemployment rate Jan 2001 4.0
Unemployment rate jan 2009 7.2
Life of working on a Mississippi River Towboat
Apple 2, Apple 2e, Mac 128-k , PowerPC 6115, Imac 233, ibook 900 Mhz
Now an Aluminum 13" 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB SDRAM
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2009, 10:35 AM
 
I don't think that the Democrats are entirely without fault here. But there's no doubt that Bush was touting the Ownership Society in 2004, and openly celebrating how many new first-time home buyers were created under his watch. Since this financial trouble has its roots in an unsustainable housing market, it seems reasonable to lay some of the blame on the guy who was beaming over how many people he put in houses that they'd have to give up five years down the road.

Plus, I'm not really sure if the prices on the "affordable housing" that Democrats claim they wanted to encourage people to buy experienced quite the same bubble as the rest of the country. And even if prices did rise, since the houses were "affordable" to begin with, they required less of a down-payment and less financial sleight-of-hand to qualify for a mortgage. (I don't mean that the loan wasn't sub-prime based on the credit of the borrower, I mean that simply since the loan wasn't for as much as other houses, there were fewer options available to the borrower.) In short, I'm not really all that sure how much mortgages on affordable housing contributed to this.

I'm convinced that the problem started when folks bought houses with mortgages structured so that if the house value didn't appreciate, they'd owe so much more than the house was worth in five years that foreclosure would actually be a good option for the (former) homeowner. If you ran a bank, would you ever make a loan like that?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2009, 12:08 PM
 
The Community Reinvestment Act is not to blame for the housing and mortgage crisis (which seems to have precipitated everything else). It's the (never have been regulated) mortgage broker profiteers who used the CRA to pressure banks to make bad loans (or swindled banks into making these loans) and the profiteers in the banking industry itself who jumped on the bandwagon of "making money by making loans" whether they were a good idea or not. It was "maximize investor return over good business practices." It was, frankly, unbridled greed, not a political party, an executive, or any other single entity. Greed.

Blaming Bush for this is like blaming dirt for mudslides. The drive for deregulation was more to get rid of wasteful and stupid Congressionally-mandated requirements for outdated metrics and reports, not "nobody minding the hen house." On the other hand, it seems that the Clinton administration itself actually pushed for a lot of investment in "pie in the sky" high-tech projects that never did much of anything. Does anyone else remember how old Al made such a big thing about "investing in the Internet" back in the early to mid '90s? He was the Clinton administration's point man on this.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2009, 01:42 PM
 
Well put. I do tend to think Bush deserves more of the blame for this because, as I mentioned previously, he actively campaigned on it in 2004.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2009, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Once again, facts to a Democrat, like Kryptonite to Superman.

New York Times, Sept. 11 2003...
Here's a problem I have with that. I can guarantee there wasn't a single Democrat sponsor for the bill because the earmarks/pork in that bill didn't give them enough money, or, gave too much money to a select few Republicans.

Those bills are never what they seem, and at any point there is unanimous support from one party and none from another it almost always means there's a second part to that bill that will completely screw over the other party. Then when they're running for office or whatever, they can claim that they were the only party who voted for the bill to "help" people, while the other party didn't do anything.

There was mud slinging like this during the presidential debates on both sides, and every time both McCain and Obama explained that they didn't vote for the bill because X and Y problem was completely over the top.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
villalobos
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2009, 05:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Even when things are actually getting much better overall. The market and the economy work on a timeframe that's completely separate from things like administrations and even tax year calendars, and the upswing is already starting (very slowly and very much out of sight). But it won't "feel right" for many years because of the people responsible for the exuberance that led to the big bubble and how they've conditioned everyone to think that "constantly expanding economic growth" is something that's realistic and achievable.
If "constantly expanding economic growth" is not sustainable, then capitalism is dead.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2009, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by villalobos View Post
If "constantly expanding economic growth" is not sustainable, then capitalism is dead.
This "constantly expanding" is not "continued prosperity." I was referring to EVERYTHING getting more and more profitable no matter what, and artificially inflated prices as items change hands. The "flip this house" syndrome is a great example. What value is added to a house that is flipped in a matter of weeks? Probably not even a decent coat of paint. Yet over the last several years the PRICE of that house would have gone up by tens of thousands of dollars. Constant growth is often sustainable. Constant EXPANSION may not be a great choice of phrasing on my part, but the idea that NOTHING can or should moderate growth is what causes those bubbles that hit the tech industries in the 1990s and housing this past several years. Creating demand is not the same as inventing new ways to soak the public, and there ARE reasons to back off and let the market cool down. Which are two ideas that most of the world seems to have ignored since about 2005.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2009, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
When Bush ran for re-election in 2004, he made a big deal out of his concept of an "ownership society", and he took pride in the notion that more Americans were homeowners. By his reckoning, as more Americans owned their homes, they would take more of a stake in their community and perhaps exhibit more of the "personal responsibility" that conservatives here are so keen on.

Right around the same time, I was reading in the press about how banks were getting a lot looser with their mortgage underwriting requirements, since home prices had already risen by quite a bit in some areas due to the increased demand, and fewer folks had money for a traditional down-payment.
Bush got on the bandwagon that started plenty of years before. And the banks figured out ways to do what FNMA and FHLMC and FHA wanted them to do, that's all.

If we're going to blame Bush, we have to throw Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Phil Gramm, John McCain, John Conyers, Tom Daschle and all the others in Congress since 1977 under the same bus. Along with the freaking MORONS who bought houses that they couldn't pay for, and the stinking, lying crooks who sold those houses and built those houses.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2009, 03:15 PM
 
dumb fly over hicks
     
MacTheRiverRat  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2009, 03:32 PM
 
Wow! I just checked the stock market its down again! Thanks W - the idiot!
Life of working on a Mississippi River Towboat
Apple 2, Apple 2e, Mac 128-k , PowerPC 6115, Imac 233, ibook 900 Mhz
Now an Aluminum 13" 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB SDRAM
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2009, 06:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacTheRiverRat View Post
Wow! I just checked the stock market its down again! Thanks W - the idiot!
Only idiots blame idiots.

-t
     
MacTheRiverRat  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2009, 08:16 PM
 
Yea I remember when I had my first beer too!
Life of working on a Mississippi River Towboat
Apple 2, Apple 2e, Mac 128-k , PowerPC 6115, Imac 233, ibook 900 Mhz
Now an Aluminum 13" 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB SDRAM
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2009, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
You know what, I'm getting tired of hearing this over and over. Deregulation of the way banks handle these loans after they are made played just as much of a role if not more then any sort of Democratic action to get poor people into houses.

Finally at least someone actually has a clue to what started all of this.

If people want to blame someone, blame the policy makers, and original investors who are getting refunds for their own poor investment gambles and shifting the burden to the rest of us...

people act as though Joe Idiot is controlling the economy rather than Mat Millionaire. Hell if I bought a house and it was worth far less than what I owed...call me irresponsible if you like.... I'd abandon it too!! Of course I'm not going to pay for it! Thats predictable. What idiot would?!

nothing thats happened with the economy so far is a surprise to anyone at the top. They just gotta act like it is to get your vote.
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2009, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You really don't wanna go down that road, because the Democracks had a much bigger share in this whole housing mess, including their constant backing of Fannie and Freddy f***ing up, and creating all kinds of housing related lobbyist groups.

Especially, look at the whole tangled web of Harry Reid, Barney Frank and the housing industry. The Republicans have NOT been as much in bed with them as many Democracks.
Here... watch the Democrats in action during one of the numerous Republican attempts to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2009, 04:58 PM
 
These banks would have never written many of these troubled notes in a true free-market atmoshphere. Government intervention via Freddie and Fannie's backing of the loans took away the natural, market-driven risk that would have normally been present.

Either way, the record is very clear as to which party tried to reign this in, and which party rebuffed those attempts.
( Last edited by spacefreak; Jan 14, 2009 at 05:04 PM. )
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2009, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
These banks would have never written many of these troubled notes in a true free-market atmoshphere. Government intervention via Freddie and Fannie's backing of the loans took away the natural, market-driven risk that would have normally been present.

Either way, the record is very clear as to which party tried to reign this in, and which party rebuffed those attempts.
The banks that are still in good shape didn't. The ones that are in trouble either pushed profits (on the short term) by getting origination fees and points up front for crappy loans, or depended on mortgage brokers to "do the background stuff" and ensure that their loans were going to people that had a "good enough" probability of repaying the loan. You'll notice that the field of banking has contracted rather dramatically recently...

Let's look at WaMu (Washington Mutual) as an example. They jumped into subprime mortgages at the crest or just after the crest. By that time, all the really "able" repayers had gotten their loans and the folks gaming the system were in grand form. So WaMu wound up with a HUGE percentage of their late mortgage loans going bad in a big way. Bad planning, bad management, and a turn toward greed-from a bank that had been the standard for conservative management for decades-ruined WaMu.

Oh, and both parties managed to scuttle good regulation. The Dems wanted to establish "regulation" that was akin to "we don't think you're smart enough to tie your own shoes" while the Reps wanted to do away with some seriously important oversight along with the useless reporting and record keeping. Neither party was really interested in oversight, which could have both improved businesses and made it easier and cheaper for a qualified buyer to get an affordable loan. Shame on both of them.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2009, 09:18 PM
 
It's nothing compared to the Osama Depression.
     
Andy8
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2009, 09:30 PM
 
I'm lovin' itâ„¢
     
kobi
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2009, 02:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
It's nothing compared to the Bush Depression.
Sorry, I had to fix it.
The Religious Right is neither.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2009, 11:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by kobi View Post
Sorry, I had to fix it.
More like break it. The OP was correct. All Obama's proposed "fixes" were tried before - in the FDR Administration. And experts agree his policies EXTENDED the Great Depression by years.

And all the "worst recession since the Great Depression" Chicken Littles have short memories. The worst since the Great Depression was owned and operated by the Carter Administration - who ALSO tried to reinstitute FDR's failed policies.

On assuming office in 1977, Jimmeh Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration. The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. With approximately 8 million people out of work, the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states.


It semes most of you are too young to remember that, or simply have lost memory of it over the years.

So, keep crying wolf.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
kobi
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2009, 01:08 PM
 
Wow! With all the lies that you just told I don't know where to start.
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
More like break it. The OP was correct. All Obama's proposed "fixes" were tried before - in the FDR Administration. And experts agree his policies EXTENDED the Great Depression by years.
Let's let President Obama take office and pass a fix before you tear it apart ok?

Sorry but this statement is FUD. FDR's policies didn't extend the great depression; this is a great lie that Republicans try and pass off as truth. Daniel Gross of the New York Times debunks your Fox News/George Will theory here

It was only with the passage of New Deal efforts--the SEC, the FDIC, the FSLIC--that the mechanisms of private capital began to kick back into gear. Don't take it from me. Take it from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who wrote the following in Essays on the Great Depression: “Only with the New Deal’s rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression."

The economy did contract in 1938, as Will notes. The business cycle was still alive back then. As the National Bureau of Economic Research notes, there was a 13-month recession in 1937-1938, which was a fairly typical length for a recession in the 20th century. But it came after more than four years of expansion, which started in. . . March 1933. (Coincidence?) The 13-month recession of 1937-1938, in which the economy contracted 6.2 percent, didn't leave confidence in markets at their nadir, as Will argues. The 43-month Depression between 1929 and 1933, in which Gross Domestic Product fell 45 percent, left confidence in markets at their nadir.
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
all the "worst recession since the Great Depression" Chicken Littles have short memories. The worst since the Great Depression was owned and operated by the Carter Administration - who ALSO tried to reinstitute FDR's failed policies.
Oops! Another lie. Carter never tried to reinstitute FDR's policies, as most were still in effect well into the 1980's. FDR created the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Social Security, and Fair Labor Standards Act (minimum wage). Carter created the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. How many of those are we still using? I think all of them.
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
assuming office in 1977, Jimmeh Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration. The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. With approximately 8 million people out of work, the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states.
I like that you try and spit out numbers, but that the history isn't there to back it up. Here's an example: McCain got 98% of the vote and still wasn't elected!! See how fun that is when you tell lies!

Carter inherited Nixon's Recession that was caused by Nixon going off the gold standard and thus starting the Energy Crisis. It then snowballed from there. It was Nixon's mess and Carter did the best that he could to clean it up.

As far as the Bush Recession/Depression it was started by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which deregulated the banks and allowed them to merge/partner up with insurance companies. It was this deregulation that helped start the 2007 Sub-Prime Mortgage crisis.

You can try and rewrite history all that you want, but you need to get better sources than Fox news and George Will.

I just wonder how many failed Republican presidencies is it going to take before the Republican party doesn't exist? You have Hoover, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and now both George H.W. Bush and now George W. Bush. That's 6 in the last 80 years. Scary.
The Religious Right is neither.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2009, 02:06 PM
 
Speaking of lies, read your own post.

We don't HAVE to wait for Obama to take office, we have to simply LISTEN to what he is SAYING he will do. Of course WHAT he says never seems to matter as long as he sounds good saying it, huh?

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...px?RelNum=5409

And those Carter numbers are pure history, hate to break it to you. just making claims doesn't change it. My numbers are real, the history backs it up.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/tguide/index.html

Here, knock yourself out.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...9/Jimmy-Carter


The Great Depression was extended by 7 years by FDR's policies according to an EXPERT study, NOT a "Fox News/George Will theory."

Try actually doing some research next time.

WWII ended the Great Depression, not FDR's economic policy.

http://mises.org/story/535

http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/0728

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...cstillwell.DTL

Truly rich, citing Social Security the greatest Ponzi scheme ever conceived - makes Bernie Madoff look the complete wanker. The SEC failed to catch the aforementioned Madoff. It's a failure.

YOU can attempt to rewrite history, too bad all the resources and references back me up, huh?
( Last edited by Macrobat; Jan 16, 2009 at 02:25 PM. )
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2009, 02:25 PM
 
It's all just speculation though. Who knows what would have happened without the new deal. Things could have been much much worse. We just don't know. Hoover tried to do nothing and it didn't work. FDR at least tried something.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2009, 04:24 PM
 
Lots of great deals to be had in property and goods, the last 6 months have been fantastic.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2009, 09:22 PM
 
It doesn't do much good to look back into the past, but I'm not currently feeling like I'm enjoying a "Bush" or "Democrat Congress" recession. Nor an "Obama" recession.

I feel pretty justified in being exasperated by the current "Frank/Dodd Recession". Those are the two guys who were fighting to play fast and loose with the rules so that their buddies could profit short-term and it sent the economy into the sh*tter while they assured everyone there was absolutely no risk and then had the audacity to act like they had/have the answers now that their plans have pretty much put the economy into the toliet.

They can rot in hell for all I care. I hope some reasonable, honest Democrats challenge and beat the crap out of them next election cycle. It shouldn't be too hard to craft a compelling campaign against those two bums.
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2009, 10:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
More like break it. The OP was correct. All Obama's proposed "fixes" were tried before - in the FDR Administration. And experts agree his policies EXTENDED the Great Depression by years.
I guess that depends on which experts you ask and which policies you're referring to. Details are hard. This official list of past recessions seems to indicate that the recovery began in March 1933. Certainly FDR deserves some blame for the recession in '37, but probably not for reasons you'd agree with.

And all the "worst recession since the Great Depression" Chicken Littles have short memories. The worst since the Great Depression was owned and operated by the Carter Administration - who ALSO tried to reinstitute FDR's failed policies.
From where I'm sitting, that same list I mentioned above looks like it says 1973 and 1982 were the worse since the depression.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2009, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Here's a problem I have with that. I can guarantee there wasn't a single Democrat sponsor for the bill because the earmarks/pork in that bill didn't give them enough money, or, gave too much money to a select few Republicans.
That's not even a well thought out excuse. The only way Democrats could have added their own pork to the bill, would be by co-sponsoring it. Dems have never had any problem pretending to be bipartisan any more than Republicans when it comes to loading bills down with pork, so the whole excuse of pork makes not a shred of sense in this case. Nor was pork a reason that any Democrat gave for opposing the bill.

Those bills are never what they seem, and at any point there is unanimous support from one party and none from another it almost always means there's a second part to that bill that will completely screw over the other party.
You're right in a way- the part that Democrats felt they would be getting screwed over, was the fact that many ranking members were using Freddie and Fannie as their own personal ATM, under their usual guise of pandering to the poor. Of course they didn't want it reformed, or anyone even making the case that we were headed for a trainwreck.

I do love the new attempted Democrat mantra on this:
"Subprime loans had nothing to do with the banking meltdown!"

Riiiight! Because the subprime mortgage fiasco has hypocritical Democrat fingerprints ALL OVER IT! So of course the new party spin is to ignore it and now even pretend it hasn't hurt anything. Classic!
     
MacTheRiverRat  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2009, 09:00 PM
 
8 years of the Biggest idiot in 232 years!
Life of working on a Mississippi River Towboat
Apple 2, Apple 2e, Mac 128-k , PowerPC 6115, Imac 233, ibook 900 Mhz
Now an Aluminum 13" 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB SDRAM
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2009, 09:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacTheRiverRat View Post
8 years of the Biggest idiot in 232 years!
Why on earth would you say that about a man who attained the highest office in the world and your President? Are you the biggest idiot of Burger King in 54 years?
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:46 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,