hwt 0 #1 February 10, 2009 I just heard Obama blaming this whole mess on Bush. Well part is true,but let us take into account that it was Clinton who signed in NAFDA and it was the Democrats who pushed for lower home requirements. Thus flooding the market with high risk home buyers and dramatically raising housing prices. The Democrats intentions were good but they did not foresee the banks greed or altering supply and demand . Lets not forget that bail out passed by the Democratic house and senate a short while ago which gave away 350 billion dollars. Bush signed the bill so we blame him?...........Blue Skies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BIGUN 1,483 #2 February 10, 2009 Quotelet us take into account that it was Clinton who signed in NAFDA and it was the Democrats who pushed for lower home requirements. You may wish to dig a little deeper on this subject.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #3 February 10, 2009 Quote Quote let us take into account that it was Clinton who signed in NAFDA and it was the Democrats who pushed for lower home requirements. You may wish to dig a little deeper on this subject. NAH... never happen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #4 February 10, 2009 > I just heard Obama blaming this whole mess on Bush. >Well part is true,but let us take into account that it was Clinton . . . Obama is blaming Bush for things? Outrageous! The only thing to do is . . . to blame Clinton instead. (waiting for someone to blame Reagan.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #5 February 10, 2009 Quotelet us take into account that it was Clinton who signed in NAFDA and it was the Democrats who pushed for lower home requirements. Thus flooding the market with high risk home buyers and dramatically raising housing prices. Banking is much more of an issue than housing. It was the Republicans that deregulated banking and let them take your money that you put into good faith into an account, and gamble it away (on an over-inflated housing market).Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Remster 30 #6 February 10, 2009 Quote(on an over-inflated housing market). Quick pop quiz: what has been the average raise in house prices, per year (adjusted for inflation) from Jan 1987 to Oct 2008?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites headoverheels 334 #7 February 10, 2009 Quote(waiting for someone to blame Reagan.) Well, it was Reagan, but he's dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #8 February 10, 2009 This? OK, I cheated on my quiz and used Google - so whack my knuckles with a ruler. It's more interesting if you remove the 20-25% decline from 2007 and 2008 - toward the end of when banks were investing heavily in housing - that's a hockey stick that would give Al Gore a hard-on.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,588 #9 February 10, 2009 Naw, Bill left Bush I out. We can still blame him. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #10 February 10, 2009 QuoteNaw, Bill left Bush I out. We can still blame him. Hey, I'm a left-leaning liberal, but I actually thought Bush I was an OK guy - despite his anti-abortion stance. But we can still blame him for raising a couple of corrupt kids, right? Right? Bueller?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,588 #11 February 10, 2009 I thought Bush I was decent too. But as long as we're passing blame back, he needs to get in line. We're equal-opportunity blame-passers Wendy W. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #12 February 11, 2009 Personally, I blame the French. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #13 February 11, 2009 Quoteand it was the Democrats who pushed for lower home requirements. Thus flooding the market with high risk home buyers and dramatically raising housing prices.] The facts say otherwise, but don't let that interrupt your whining. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #14 February 11, 2009 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E3D91F39F933A0575BC0A962958260Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #15 February 11, 2009 QuoteQuotelet us take into account that it was Clinton who signed in NAFDA and it was the Democrats who pushed for lower home requirements. Thus flooding the market with high risk home buyers and dramatically raising housing prices. Banking is much more of an issue than housing. It was the Republicans that deregulated banking and let them take your money that you put into good faith into an account, and gamble it away (on an over-inflated housing market). I have posted quite a bit on Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Here are some things to note: 1) It did not "de-regulate" per se. Rather, it unified the oversight of investment banking, savings banking and insurance. 2) It was a new idea that was untested. It led to the great economic explosion we saw between about 02 and 07. 3) GLB was passed with bipartisan support in the house and party-line in the senate and was signed in 1999. 4) The economy corrected. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #16 February 11, 2009 Quotehttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E3D91F39F933A0575BC0A962958260 What do you think that article from 1994 means w/r/t correlation or causality of mortagage crisis? Recycling electron almost completely verbatim. The NY Times article cited just doesn’t support the argument. It might suggest something worth investigating: what default rate has been observed in those loans? Are they higher than average? Are they lower than average? Are they more heavily regulated? Or less? How many have been made and what is the average value? $150,000 or $900,000. The article is about a new program. It doesn’t, however, say anything about default payment rate or securitization of loans hiding the risk or what were the [changing] regulations on that program. It’s not demonstrating correlation unless one wants to find it. Humans have an amazing ability to find patterns. There’s a lot of speculation & rhetoric but no one seems to be presenting data that supports the "Blame CRA" hypothesis. When one does go to the data, however, one finds that "Blame CRA" hypothesis is not supported. It has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly. The problem with the “Blame CRA” hypothesis is that it’s not true. That is the facts do not support it … no matter how much people want to believe it. More on how the CRA default rates are *lower* than non-CRA mortages, i.e., the data doesn't support the hypothesis. If one wants to point to NY Times articles that might prompt other investigations into correlations and causalities for the mortgage crisis one might look to increase in McMansion’s, this one on accounting mismanagement by executives at an insurance corporation, this one on deregulation and collapse of large energy corporations as indicative of corporate malfeasance, this one from 1995 on derivatives and lack of regulation, this one from 2005 on risks of derivatives still not being adequately addressed, or this one from 1988 on securitization of consumer loans. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #17 February 11, 2009 QuoteI have posted quite a bit on Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Here are some things to note: 1) It did not "de-regulate" per se. Rather, it unified the oversight of investment banking, savings banking and insurance. 2) It was a new idea that was untested. It led to the great economic explosion we saw between about 02 and 07. 3) GLB was passed with bipartisan support in the house and party-line in the senate and was signed in 1999. 4) The economy corrected. 1) You sound like the Republican stumpers that claim GLB was "modernization" of the banking system. If letting banks take your deposits to Vegas and gamble them is modernization, then I say we let the bookeepers in sin city balance the federal budget. 2) It was not a new idea - it was entrenched in same the flat-earth, Keynesian economics of the GOP. Less government, more privatization, blah, blah, and oh, yeah, we'll put some of that money into the pockets of the politicians as well. 3) On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed). On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law that ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy and also "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e. protection against exclusionary redlining) The bill then moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November. Source Wikipedia. It was party-line from beginning to end. At the end, the Democrats caved in to get support for their program, which ironically, some Republicans are blaming the whole mess on. 4) Which correction are you talking about? The one that lost 3.6 million jobs, as a direct result of GLB?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hwt 0 #18 February 11, 2009 I think that if both sides focused on what is best for America and stopped blaming each other, the bills emerging from congress would be a little more balance but that will never happen......Blue Skies! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #19 February 11, 2009 Quotehttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E3D91F39F933A0575BC0A962958260 I believe the Federal Reserve analysis in 2008 trumps the NYT from 1994. CRA loans did NOT cause the economic crisis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #20 February 11, 2009 Are you trying to confuse the righties with facts AGAIN? They have to have their little myths or their heads would explode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #21 February 12, 2009 QuoteThey have to have their little myths or their heads would explode. Myths ... some might call some of my strongest beliefs myths. And a little more than 500 years ago, many of them would have been out right heretical: freedom & justice as a right, equality, love (versus arranged marriage), private property, civil law (over religious-based or despotic law of king), American exceptionalism, public libraries, lots of things. I value those who ask questions ... even the ones who ask hard questions. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #22 February 12, 2009 QuoteAre you trying to confuse the righties with facts AGAIN? They have to have their little myths or their heads would explode. You mean your mantra of "It's all the Republican's fault", right?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #23 February 12, 2009 Quote Quote Are you trying to confuse the righties with facts AGAIN? They have to have their little myths or their heads would explode. You mean your mantra of "It's all the Republican's fault", right? Since 1994.. and your rePUBICan Revulsion.... and especially since Jan 20 of 2001 the Bush Rubber stamp yes men.... it was.. to think other wise.. is some severe fantasy land they have assigned their cognitive dissonance to over there in the Party of Morals and Family Values land. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #24 February 12, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Are you trying to confuse the righties with facts AGAIN? They have to have their little myths or their heads would explode. You mean your mantra of "It's all the Republican's fault", right? Since 1994.. and your rePUBICan Revulsion.... and especially since Jan 20 of 2001 the Bush Rubber stamp yes men.... it was.. to think other wise.. is some severe fantasy land they have assigned their cognitive dissonance to over there in the Party of Morals and Family Values land. Good thing that the party of NO morals and No values is in charge now, then isn't it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #25 February 12, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Are you trying to confuse the righties with facts AGAIN? They have to have their little myths or their heads would explode. You mean your mantra of "It's all the Republican's fault", right? Since 1994.. and your rePUBICan Revulsion.... and especially since Jan 20 of 2001 the Bush Rubber stamp yes men.... it was.. to think other wise.. is some severe fantasy land they have assigned their cognitive dissonance to over there in the Party of Morals and Family Values land. Good thing that the party of NO morals and No values is in charge now, then isn't it? It really is so sad that you truly believe that.. I think it points out some very serious flaws... Look within your self Mike.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
BIGUN 1,483 #2 February 10, 2009 Quotelet us take into account that it was Clinton who signed in NAFDA and it was the Democrats who pushed for lower home requirements. You may wish to dig a little deeper on this subject.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #3 February 10, 2009 Quote Quote let us take into account that it was Clinton who signed in NAFDA and it was the Democrats who pushed for lower home requirements. You may wish to dig a little deeper on this subject. NAH... never happen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #4 February 10, 2009 > I just heard Obama blaming this whole mess on Bush. >Well part is true,but let us take into account that it was Clinton . . . Obama is blaming Bush for things? Outrageous! The only thing to do is . . . to blame Clinton instead. (waiting for someone to blame Reagan.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #5 February 10, 2009 Quotelet us take into account that it was Clinton who signed in NAFDA and it was the Democrats who pushed for lower home requirements. Thus flooding the market with high risk home buyers and dramatically raising housing prices. Banking is much more of an issue than housing. It was the Republicans that deregulated banking and let them take your money that you put into good faith into an account, and gamble it away (on an over-inflated housing market).Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #6 February 10, 2009 Quote(on an over-inflated housing market). Quick pop quiz: what has been the average raise in house prices, per year (adjusted for inflation) from Jan 1987 to Oct 2008?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 334 #7 February 10, 2009 Quote(waiting for someone to blame Reagan.) Well, it was Reagan, but he's dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #8 February 10, 2009 This? OK, I cheated on my quiz and used Google - so whack my knuckles with a ruler. It's more interesting if you remove the 20-25% decline from 2007 and 2008 - toward the end of when banks were investing heavily in housing - that's a hockey stick that would give Al Gore a hard-on.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #9 February 10, 2009 Naw, Bill left Bush I out. We can still blame him. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #10 February 10, 2009 QuoteNaw, Bill left Bush I out. We can still blame him. Hey, I'm a left-leaning liberal, but I actually thought Bush I was an OK guy - despite his anti-abortion stance. But we can still blame him for raising a couple of corrupt kids, right? Right? Bueller?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #11 February 10, 2009 I thought Bush I was decent too. But as long as we're passing blame back, he needs to get in line. We're equal-opportunity blame-passers Wendy W. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #12 February 11, 2009 Personally, I blame the French. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #13 February 11, 2009 Quoteand it was the Democrats who pushed for lower home requirements. Thus flooding the market with high risk home buyers and dramatically raising housing prices.] The facts say otherwise, but don't let that interrupt your whining. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 February 11, 2009 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E3D91F39F933A0575BC0A962958260Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 February 11, 2009 QuoteQuotelet us take into account that it was Clinton who signed in NAFDA and it was the Democrats who pushed for lower home requirements. Thus flooding the market with high risk home buyers and dramatically raising housing prices. Banking is much more of an issue than housing. It was the Republicans that deregulated banking and let them take your money that you put into good faith into an account, and gamble it away (on an over-inflated housing market). I have posted quite a bit on Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Here are some things to note: 1) It did not "de-regulate" per se. Rather, it unified the oversight of investment banking, savings banking and insurance. 2) It was a new idea that was untested. It led to the great economic explosion we saw between about 02 and 07. 3) GLB was passed with bipartisan support in the house and party-line in the senate and was signed in 1999. 4) The economy corrected. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #16 February 11, 2009 Quotehttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E3D91F39F933A0575BC0A962958260 What do you think that article from 1994 means w/r/t correlation or causality of mortagage crisis? Recycling electron almost completely verbatim. The NY Times article cited just doesn’t support the argument. It might suggest something worth investigating: what default rate has been observed in those loans? Are they higher than average? Are they lower than average? Are they more heavily regulated? Or less? How many have been made and what is the average value? $150,000 or $900,000. The article is about a new program. It doesn’t, however, say anything about default payment rate or securitization of loans hiding the risk or what were the [changing] regulations on that program. It’s not demonstrating correlation unless one wants to find it. Humans have an amazing ability to find patterns. There’s a lot of speculation & rhetoric but no one seems to be presenting data that supports the "Blame CRA" hypothesis. When one does go to the data, however, one finds that "Blame CRA" hypothesis is not supported. It has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly. The problem with the “Blame CRA” hypothesis is that it’s not true. That is the facts do not support it … no matter how much people want to believe it. More on how the CRA default rates are *lower* than non-CRA mortages, i.e., the data doesn't support the hypothesis. If one wants to point to NY Times articles that might prompt other investigations into correlations and causalities for the mortgage crisis one might look to increase in McMansion’s, this one on accounting mismanagement by executives at an insurance corporation, this one on deregulation and collapse of large energy corporations as indicative of corporate malfeasance, this one from 1995 on derivatives and lack of regulation, this one from 2005 on risks of derivatives still not being adequately addressed, or this one from 1988 on securitization of consumer loans. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #17 February 11, 2009 QuoteI have posted quite a bit on Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Here are some things to note: 1) It did not "de-regulate" per se. Rather, it unified the oversight of investment banking, savings banking and insurance. 2) It was a new idea that was untested. It led to the great economic explosion we saw between about 02 and 07. 3) GLB was passed with bipartisan support in the house and party-line in the senate and was signed in 1999. 4) The economy corrected. 1) You sound like the Republican stumpers that claim GLB was "modernization" of the banking system. If letting banks take your deposits to Vegas and gamble them is modernization, then I say we let the bookeepers in sin city balance the federal budget. 2) It was not a new idea - it was entrenched in same the flat-earth, Keynesian economics of the GOP. Less government, more privatization, blah, blah, and oh, yeah, we'll put some of that money into the pockets of the politicians as well. 3) On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed). On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law that ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy and also "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e. protection against exclusionary redlining) The bill then moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November. Source Wikipedia. It was party-line from beginning to end. At the end, the Democrats caved in to get support for their program, which ironically, some Republicans are blaming the whole mess on. 4) Which correction are you talking about? The one that lost 3.6 million jobs, as a direct result of GLB?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #18 February 11, 2009 I think that if both sides focused on what is best for America and stopped blaming each other, the bills emerging from congress would be a little more balance but that will never happen......Blue Skies! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #19 February 11, 2009 Quotehttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E3D91F39F933A0575BC0A962958260 I believe the Federal Reserve analysis in 2008 trumps the NYT from 1994. CRA loans did NOT cause the economic crisis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #20 February 11, 2009 Are you trying to confuse the righties with facts AGAIN? They have to have their little myths or their heads would explode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #21 February 12, 2009 QuoteThey have to have their little myths or their heads would explode. Myths ... some might call some of my strongest beliefs myths. And a little more than 500 years ago, many of them would have been out right heretical: freedom & justice as a right, equality, love (versus arranged marriage), private property, civil law (over religious-based or despotic law of king), American exceptionalism, public libraries, lots of things. I value those who ask questions ... even the ones who ask hard questions. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #22 February 12, 2009 QuoteAre you trying to confuse the righties with facts AGAIN? They have to have their little myths or their heads would explode. You mean your mantra of "It's all the Republican's fault", right?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #23 February 12, 2009 Quote Quote Are you trying to confuse the righties with facts AGAIN? They have to have their little myths or their heads would explode. You mean your mantra of "It's all the Republican's fault", right? Since 1994.. and your rePUBICan Revulsion.... and especially since Jan 20 of 2001 the Bush Rubber stamp yes men.... it was.. to think other wise.. is some severe fantasy land they have assigned their cognitive dissonance to over there in the Party of Morals and Family Values land. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 February 12, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Are you trying to confuse the righties with facts AGAIN? They have to have their little myths or their heads would explode. You mean your mantra of "It's all the Republican's fault", right? Since 1994.. and your rePUBICan Revulsion.... and especially since Jan 20 of 2001 the Bush Rubber stamp yes men.... it was.. to think other wise.. is some severe fantasy land they have assigned their cognitive dissonance to over there in the Party of Morals and Family Values land. Good thing that the party of NO morals and No values is in charge now, then isn't it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #25 February 12, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Are you trying to confuse the righties with facts AGAIN? They have to have their little myths or their heads would explode. You mean your mantra of "It's all the Republican's fault", right? Since 1994.. and your rePUBICan Revulsion.... and especially since Jan 20 of 2001 the Bush Rubber stamp yes men.... it was.. to think other wise.. is some severe fantasy land they have assigned their cognitive dissonance to over there in the Party of Morals and Family Values land. Good thing that the party of NO morals and No values is in charge now, then isn't it? It really is so sad that you truly believe that.. I think it points out some very serious flaws... Look within your self Mike.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
