From who did Obama "inherit" the economic mess?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Piscator

I believe it starts from the top down. That being said, Bush left Obama an economy problem. Instead of fixing the problem, Obama made that problem a whole lot worse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It starts from the top down, but we have a republic, not a dictatorship, which means the legislature has more say in deciding the agenda than the president.

When the Democrats took control of congress in January 2006, unemployment was at 4.6%, the Dow was at 12,600, and the GDP had been growing like crazy since Clinton balanced the budget. In other words, what the democrats "inherited" in 2006 was a thriving, robust economy. Since 2006, the Democrats had control of all the committees.

It was Democrats who pushed subprime mortgages. In my opinion, the worst you can say about the GOP was that they proposed the de-regulation of financial markets in 1999 (I think it was 99) that Clinton signed. However, no one knew what was going on with those crazy mortgage-backed securities. If it was so clear that Wall Street was abusing the de-regulation, why didn't the Democrats propose to re-regulate Wall Street when they took control in 2006? Answer? No one had a clue what Wall Street was doing. But everyone knew that banks were being reckless by writing so many subprime mortgages, which was based on liberal doctrine that everyone is entitled to a home, even if they can't afford one.

Spence is 100% right when he says there is blame on both sides. I'd love to know what Spence thinks when he sees Obama, time and time again, putting all the blame on the Republicans, who had been out of power for almost 3 years when the economy collapsed. If Spence is right (and he is), then Obama is either an idiot or a liar, and there simply isn't another option. (In my opinion, Obama is BOTH an idiot and a liar).

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

When the Democrats took control of congress in January 2006, unemployment was at 4.6%, the Dow was at 12,600, and the GDP had been growing like crazy since Clinton balanced the budget. In other words, what the democrats "inherited" in 2006 was a thriving, robust economy. Since 2006, the Democrats had control of all the committees.

Ummm, I think that's why they called it a "bubble" as it had yet to burst.

It was Democrats who pushed subprime mortgages. In my opinion, the worst you can say about the GOP was that they proposed the de-regulation of financial markets in 1999 (I think it was 99) that Clinton signed. However, no one knew what was going on with those crazy mortgage-backed securities. If it was so clear that Wall Street was abusing the de-regulation, why didn't the Democrats propose to re-regulate Wall Street when they took control in 2006? Answer? No one had a clue what Wall Street was doing. But everyone knew that banks were being reckless by writing so many subprime mortgages, which was based on liberal doctrine that everyone is entitled to a home, even if they can't afford one.

I love it, so the GOP is responsible for de-regulation "the reason why nobody knew what was happening" but it's the insane liberals that really must be under it all...

Think of a big reason why the economy in the mid 2000's was doing well to begin with. A rise in International investment combined with low rates made credit easy to obtain and plenty of investors wanting to cash in on mortgage backed securities which seemed magical considering the housing market which continued to grow. Everybody was in on this, not just the minorities or poor, in fact they represented a fraction of the market.

This drove the bubble that eventually got as big as it could and housing prices -- across the board -- started to decline rapidly for everyone, which resulted in the sub-prime ARM's to ratchet up their rates. Many of which were a result of predatory lending and people not knowing what they were really getting into.

If properly regulated perhaps this could have been controlled (there still would have been a lot of sub-prime foreclosures) but considering the risky loans had been bundled with good loans (and sold off as AAA) nobody knew where the risk really was...and everybody pulled out.

Crash...

When the Dem's took Congress in 2006 they inherited this time bomb waiting to go off.

Not a lot of liberal ideology here, unless you think the entire house of cards was build to satisfy some government mandate, largely during a period where the GOP held both the Executive and Legislative branches of our government.

Oh wait, didn't President Bush push hard for more sub-prime lending because he felt that home "ownership" was good for America? Wasn't this conservative thinking? That the people owning their own home is more stable and responsible than looking for a government handout?

"Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the federal Home Loan Banks -- the government-sponsored corporations that handle home mortgages -- will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion, Bush said."

Source: Bush aims to boost minority home ownership - CNN

And shortly after the rate of sub prime lending goes through the roof.

The primary Dem opposition to reform (in 2003 and 2006) was driven more by the accounting scandals rather than concerns over sub-prime lending. Some of their issue were valid, some not...but I don't believe much of this reform would have had an impact on the derivatives market and mortgage backed securities.

And when Dems took over in 2007 they immediately pushed for more regulation to help ensure the same issues wouldn't arise again. Bush, focused on the present, was pushing taxpayer funded subsidies to help mortgage holders in over their head! What a RINO

The net is you're basing opinion off of a portion of the story...only a crazy person (i.e. mental disorder) would do this in good faith.

Spence is 100% right when he says there is blame on both sides.

First thing in 3 weeks you've said that's made any sense.

I'd love to know what Spence thinks when he sees Obama, time and time again, putting all the blame on the Republicans, who had been out of power for almost 3 years when the economy collapsed.

I don't believe Obama was sworn in until Jan 2009. By your reconing that would make today January 2nd 2012!

If Spence is right (and he is), then Obama is either an idiot or a liar, and there simply isn't another option. (In my opinion, Obama is BOTH an idiot and a liar).

It's called politics.

If you want someone to blame for this mess blame your neighbor for pulling equity from his house to buy a boat he can't afford, the short-term'ism of our markets, shady lenders out to make a quick buck, politicians trying to hold their power, Wall Street, a lack of personal responsibility etc... etc... etc...

Like I've said, there's plenty of blame to go around...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

[Spence -

"didn't President Bush push hard for more sub-prime lending "

No, he did not. He pushed banks to make loans to minorities that could be paid back, based on traditional qualifying criteria. Spence, let's put it out there, OK? If you have evidence to suggest that Bush was a fan of reckless mortgages (subprime), either post it, or admit that you made it up. For the 10th time, Bush was so alarmed by the recklessness of subprime mortgages, that he wanted to regulate Fannie and Freddie, with rules that they couldn't buy those crappy pieces of paper. The Democrats blocked that legislation. I'm sorry, Spence, if that fact doesn't support your personal agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless.

"And when Dems took over in 2007 they immediately pushed for more regulation to help ensure the same issues wouldn't arise again. "

Can you support that please? You may well be right, I have no knowledge. But you seem to take great liberties, at times, in creating your own realities which promote your agenda. If you can't back that up, please admit you made it up.

"I don't believe Obama was sworn in until Jan 2009. By your reconing that would make today January 2nd 2012!"

Do you ever, ever get tired of being 100% wrong? When I say the "Republicans" were out of power, I mean because they LOST CONTROL OF CONGRESS IN JANUARY 2006.

You see, Spence, this country is not a totalitarian dictatorship. It's a democracy with seperation of powers and checks and balances. In our system of government, the LEGISLATURE, not the executive branch, writes legislation.

I also see that once again, you cowardly dodged my other question, which was this. If you say there's blame on both sides (although you go on and on and on about the GOP, I haven't seen you post anything you think the libs did wrong), what do you think of Obama repeatedly saying it was all the Republican's fault?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, he did not. He pushed banks to make loans to minorities that could be paid back, based on traditional qualifying criteria. Spence, let's put it out there, OK? If you have evidence to suggest that Bush was a fan of reckless mortgages (subprime), either post it, or admit that you made it up.

Nobody is going to propose lending to people who "can't" pay it back. What the politicians on both sides did was encourage lending into the poorer and minority communities to expand home ownership. This is where the sub-primes exploded as people refinanced into ARMs.

For the 10th time, Bush was so alarmed by the recklessness of subprime mortgages, that he wanted to regulate Fannie and Freddie, with rules that they couldn't buy those crappy pieces of paper. The Democrats blocked that legislation. I'm sorry, Spence, if that fact doesn't support your personal agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless.

If it's a fact then it should be easy to find a link to a Bush proposal to ban Freddie and Fannie from taking sub-prime loans. Please help me out here because I can't find one...

Can you support that please? You may well be right, I have no knowledge. But you seem to take great liberties, at times, in creating your own realities which promote your agenda. If you can't back that up, please admit you made it up.

H.R. 1427, 313-104

Do you ever, ever get tired of being 100% wrong? When I say the "Republicans" were out of power, I mean because they LOST CONTROL OF CONGRESS IN JANUARY 2006.

Earlier you said I was 100% right. I can't be both...

You see, Spence, this country is not a totalitarian dictatorship. It's a democracy with seperation of powers and checks and balances. In our system of government, the LEGISLATURE, not the executive branch, writes legislation.

Yes, I did see School House Rock. Loosing Congress didn't mean that Bush was out of power, just as the GOP taking the House doesn't mean that Obama is not still ultimately in charge. i.e. the buck stops there.

I also see that once again, you cowardly dodged my other question, which was this. If you say there's blame on both sides (although you go on and on and on about the GOP, I haven't seen you post anything you think the libs did wrong), what do you think of Obama repeatedly saying it was all the Republican's fault?

It's always funny when people throw words like "cowardly" around in an Internet discussion without knowing much about the other people.

The fact is (search able in old threads) that I've mentioned mistakes by Democrats many times. And have pretty much described this as a systemic problem in every instance, counter to the assertion that liberal ideology and (gasp) Barney Frank are the root cause of the financial meltdown. This simple isn't founded in the reality you claim is the basis for a clean bill of mental health.

Obama gets to point the finger at the Republicans because he's the President and they're doing it to him. Hell, Obama wasn't even sworn in yet before the GOP was branding it his recession, and has blamed Obama for not being able to magically fix it every since.

Do we really think that a hallmark of Republican party -- lower regulation -- is the answer to preventing a similar calamity with our economy? I'm not sure I know anyone who seriously thinks so.

-spence

[buckman]

From Spence "Yes, I did see School House Rock. Loosing Congress didn't mean that Bush was out of power, just as the GOP taking the House doesn't mean that Obama is not still ultimately in charge. i.e. the buck stops there" The king of blame Bush.LMAO

[Jim in CT]

Spence -

"Do we really think that a hallmark of Republican party -- lower regulation -- is the answer to preventing a similar calamity with our economy? I'm not sure I know anyone who seriously thinks so."

Spence, I don't think less regulation is what's needed. We need regulation to prevent financial institutions from selling mortgage-backed cecurities the way it was done before.

But your memory is unbelievably selective. Part o fthe problem was subprime mortgages. I posted a link to a bill that the GOP proposed that would have tightened the controls a bit at Fannie and Freddie. That bill was defeated by the Democrats. Therefore, it seems to me that "less regulation" isn't an ide athat the GOP has a monopoly on.

You keep bending over like a contortionist to avoid criticizing Obama. Obama has never conceded that the Democratic party did anything to cause the recession. All he does is blame Democrats. Yet you do admit that both sides were at fault. If you think the Democrats were partly to blame, but Obama says it was all the GOP's fault, why can't you criticize Obama for his stance?

Answer? You are not rational. There is no fairy tale or excuse you won't hang your hat on to avoid critizing the Messiah. Obama's party controlled the legislature since January 2006, yet in his inauguration speech, all he did was blame Bush.

[Piscator]

Guys, does anyone think the people who signed up for these mortgages should be the ones to blame the most? I'm sick of hearing people saying they were mislead and they didn't know what they were signing up for. They are the ones most at fault. When you sign something, you have to do some due diligence and look into what you are signing. I bought my current house during the high peak of the market, I looked at what I made and what I could afford. Could I have bought a bigger house then? sure I could have but I didn’t get greedy and take a gamble on an adjustable rate staying where it was. I went with a fixed rate and a monthly payment I could afford (even re-financed since to a much lower fixed rate). Many people these days don’t take ownership for their actions and when things change (adjustable interest rates going up for example), they cry poor me and blame someone else (mostly looking to the Government to fix their problem). If they took 20 minutes to read about adjustable rates and how it effects monthly payments they should have been able to figure out the enormous risk. We wouldn’t need regulation and Government intervention if it weren’t for all these idiots running around buying houses they can’t afford. Since we have too many people in this Country without a clue, we now need the Government to step in once again and manage the rules. What a shame.
Am I being unreasonable here?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Guys, does anyone think the people who signed up for these mortgages should be the ones to blame the most? I'm sick of hearing people saying they were mislead and they didn't know what they were signing up for. They are the ones most at fault. When you sign something, you have to do some due diligence and look into what you are signing. I bought my current house during the high peak of the market, I looked at what I made and what I could afford. Could I have bought a bigger house then? sure I could have but I didn’t get greedy and take a gamble on an adjustable rate staying where it was. I went with a fixed rate and a monthly payment I could afford (even re-financed since to a much lower fixed rate). Many people these days don’t take ownership for their actions and when things change (adjustable interest rates going up for example), they cry poor me and blame someone else (mostly looking to the Government to fix their problem). If they took 20 minutes to read about adjustable rates and how it effects monthly payments they should have been able to figure out the enormous risk. We wouldn’t need regulation and Government intervention if it weren’t for all these idiots running around buying houses they can’t afford. Since we have too many people in this Country without a clue, we now need the Government to step in once again and manage the rules. What a shame.
Am I being unreasonable here?

I agree that the folks who took out these mortgages bear a big part of the blame. However, part of the problem wasn't just the mortgages themselves, but the complex financial instruments that were created to bundle and sell these mortgages (credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations, really complicated stuff), and the homeowners obviously had no idea this was going on.

What ticks me off is that these people acted stupidly, and now there are govt programs to modify those loans so those idiots can afford them. I get no pleasure from seeing someone lose their house. That being said, it's not fair that those who did the right thing still have to work our fingers to the bone to stay in our homes, and those that acted stupidly get rewarded.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Many people these days don’t take ownership for their actions and when things change (adjustable interest rates going up for example), they cry poor me and blame someone else (mostly looking to the Government to fix their problem).

You just summed up the liberal agenda in a nutshell. As long as someone belongs to a protected class of "victims", they are not responsible for their actions.

Instead, Democrats create massive entitlement programs for these "victims" that must be paid for by those who did absolutely nothing wrong. Then when the next election comes around, democrats (and the media, with the exception of one TV network) tell those victims that the scary republicans want to take away their welfare, so they better get out and vote democrat.

It's a very effcetive political strategy. It's so effective that our culture takes it for granted that liberals care more about the poor than conservatives. That's despite the fact that (1) study after study shows that conservatives give more time and money to charity than liberals, and (2) conservatives want poor people to become successful; liberals want the poor to stay poor, so that there is a permanent underclasss (of democrat voters) that's addicted to the welfare that liberals promise. The last thing that liberals want is for poor people to get wealthy, because if they did...they'd vote Republican!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I don't think less regulation is what's needed. We need regulation to prevent financial institutions from selling mortgage-backed cecurities the way it was done before.

I believe the Democrats have delivered on a lot of this this summer.

But your memory is unbelievably selective. Part o fthe problem was subprime mortgages. I posted a link to a bill that the GOP proposed that would have tightened the controls a bit at Fannie and Freddie. That bill was defeated by the Democrats. Therefore, it seems to me that "less regulation" isn't an ide athat the GOP has a monopoly on.

The 2005 proposal was abandoned. By what I've read the Dems on the Senate committee objected to a cap on the size of Fannie/Freddie holding but agreed to the increased oversight. Instead of negotiating the issue the Senate Republicans dropped it rather than take to the floor.

Considering that Bush had a majority in the Senate and the House, it would seem odd that they would drop such a substantial issue as they could have clearly gotten something passed had they wanted.

The only reasonable analysis is that both sides still didn't get it.

You keep bending over like a contortionist to avoid criticizing Obama. Obama has never conceded that the Democratic party did anything to cause the recession. All he does is blame Democrats.

I think you meant Republicans.

Yet you do admit that both sides were at fault. If you think the Democrats were partly to blame, but Obama says it was all the GOP's fault, why can't you criticize Obama for his stance?

You need to post some quotes in context to make an accusation like this. Considering your propensity to just regurgitate baseless talking points I'm not sure I'd trust any of your assertions.

Answer? You are not rational. There is no fairy tale or excuse you won't hang your hat on to avoid critizing the Messiah. Obama's party controlled the legislature since January 2006, yet in his inauguration speech, all he did was blame Bush.

And there you go again...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You need to post some quotes in context to make an accusation like this. Considering your propensity to just regurgitate baseless talking points I'm not sure I'd trust any of your assertions.

-spence

OK Spence, let's be really, really clear. You're going to honestly claim that you have no idea what I'm talking about, when I say that Obama has repeatedly blamed Republicans for the economic situation? You have never, not once, heard Obama say that the GOP "drove the car into the ditch"?

Spence, go ahead and google this...

" Obama republicans drove car into ditch", and see how many hits you get.

Obama: GOP Drove The Country Into A Ditch. 'Now They Want The Keys Back' (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire

OK, Spence. Time to see if you have a shred of intellectual honesty. Since you claim that both sides are to blame (and I agree), and you now know that Obama blames only the GOP (unless syou can show me a link where admits that liberal policies were also at fault), what do you think? What do you think of Obama putting all the blame on the GOP?

Please Spence, don't say "that's what politicians do", OK? Because Obama, remember, campaigned on some vague notion called "change". So he can't do that stuff and say it's "just politics", because he said he'd be different.

Good luck with this one. And good luck convincing yourself that you didn't already know what I was talking about.