It's all Bush's fault!

Kinda amusing that documented and dated facts have no weight when
they fly in the face of the libs mental rictus.
It's Bush's fault is their mantra.

Bush's fault!

I remember when it was Carters fault. Then the media mocked Reaganomics, until it worked. Then they stopped calling it Reaganomics. By late in his second term, NBC was asking their guests, how much longer the good economy would last.

They actually tried to talk down the success of the economy. Bryant Gumble and NBC in particular. Then they could not get enough air time for the "peace dividend" when the wall fell in 89.

Then the savings and loans got into trouble, so they blamed bush after he bit the bullet and raised taxes.

Clinton comes along and he retroactively raises taxes on the dead in 93. But he worked so hard.... Clinton recently said his administration benefitted from the technology boom of the nineties. Bush only had the housing industry to grow the economy. He said we needed a new industry every eight years. Almost word for word at his Global initiative conference, just a couple years ago.

And in 2013 all our taxes are going up. But since their is no Senate budget, spending will also go up, putting us further in debt. But no new industry. Just killing a few for the enviromental folks. Watch pay shrink some more to offset Obama care. Anyone who remembers Nixon wage and price controls will sort of understand, the pie in a single company is only feeds so many people. They cant print money.

Congrats?

I'd be shocked if Rand Paul knew that you exist.

First of all, Fannie and Freddie don't write loans, they purchase loans from originators. During the Clinton Admin, Congress in a very bi-partisan move with very heavy support from the Clinton folks, lowered the loan requirements for Fannie and Freddie, ie, they were allowed to buy much riskier loans. This was the start of the snow ball that came to a head with the sub prime mortgage meltdown. Every politician supported the original endeavor and almost everyone turned a blind eye to the impending implosion of Fannie and Freddie. However, most don't know that because during this period Fannie and Freddie were doing so many loans, FHA eased many of their underwriting requirements as well to get in on the action. Today, FHA is on the hook for tons of mortgages and the taxpayer is far from off the hook in this mess.

Id like to see more than one source that said 1/4 loans was Fannie or Freddie. They held seminars for lenders to make more loans. Jamie Gorelick, Johnson and Raines, all Clinton folks walked away with tens of millions of dollars in bonuses. Havent read a word about any wage clawbacks.

It isn't an urban myth, it is fact. I think I am pretty qualified to comment on it also as I am a certified residential real estate appraiser who is also FHA certified.

I don't know any economists and I don't typically do the C/P deal. However if that is what you want, read this and learn a little bit. This guy at the NY Times had more foresight than anyone. Note the date on the article. I'm sure you would like to expand your knowledge a little bit.

NY Times

My favorite paragraph is the last one.

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."

God what a stupid link that is. You only ask that question, when you want to avoid the truth.

A bubble is in fact the result of running out of buyers. By 2005 in the fall, the banks were making interest only loans to dead beats and their girlfriends, who were not even married. I met one. It was exactly his situation. My buddy is a mortgage broker and he told me all the loans that required no verification were called drug dealer loans. How stupid is that?

Sir, In an earlier post you stated that,

"Fannie & Freddie were not the cause of the collapse, they played a role, of course they did, but most economist would disagree with the claim that they had anything to do with the collapse because they were not the big players."

And to support that claim you posted a link to a site.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/07/did-fannie-and.html

The lead to the story is,

"Did Fannie and Freddie Cause the Mortgage Crisis?"

Jim Hamilton argues that Fannie and Freddie are partly to blame for "causing the underlying problem we face today":

Did Fannie and Freddie cause the mortgage crisis?, by Jim Hamilton: Some thoughts about the role played by the GSEs in the run-up in mortgage debt and house prices.

Paul Krugman ably lays out the case for why it's conceivable that Fannie and Freddie could have made a contribution...

I have a two questions for you: is Paul Krugman a Keynesian, and who was the first president of the United States?

Please, wake up and smell the coffee.

If you read what I wrote, I don't blame FNMA and Freddie exclusively for the crash, I blame Congress and the Clinton Admin for knocking loose the first rocks that started the avalanche. One thing to keep in mind: lenders and banks were selling their loans in record numbers to Fannie and Freddie after the reduction in underwriting regulations. So if you cannot sell a questionable loan, will you write that loan and keep it in house? Some did stay in house but the vast majority were sold to FNMA.


Absolutely, banks, mortgage brokers, politicians, realtors, and yes, even appraisers did their part to contribute to the mess. Guess what, I put a huge chunk of blame on CONSUMERS too.

It was my opinion a few years ago that we needed to get back to sound lending principles that we had gotten away from. (Dogfish knows way more about lending money than I can ever hope to) Too many borrowers had no skin in the game, ie, way too much real estate purchased with 0 money down and sellers paying all closing costs.

What a maroon....

His best work was cleaning out his desk. We are still paying Egypt to keep the peace with Israel. Checkbook diplomacy. 40 states were right on to get rid of that clown.

Well dear when I look for cake, I always consider gravity.

You are not sure Krugman is a Kenyan? How about Keynsian?

And you call the questioner a dummy....

It will probably shock you then to learn that I was not the author.



Fishy

It was the lack of quotation marks that got him.

Yeah, there are lots of articles written by "Fishy" in the newspapers.

Fishy

Obstruct and Exploit

Does anyone remember the American Jobs Act? A year ago President Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases, aimed in particular at sustaining state and local government employment. Independent analysts reacted favorably. For example, the consulting firm Macroeconomic Advisers estimated that the act would add 1.3 million jobs by the end of 2012.

There were good reasons for these positive assessments. Although you’d never know it from political debate, worldwide experience since the financial crisis struck in 2008 has overwhelmingly confirmed the proposition that fiscal policy “works,” that temporary increases in spending boost employment in a depressed economy (and that spending cuts increase unemployment). The Jobs Act would have been just what the doctor ordered.

But the bill went nowhere, of course, blocked by Republicans in Congress. And now, having prevented Mr. Obama from implementing any of his policies, those same Republicans are pointing to disappointing job numbers and declaring that the president’s policies have failed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/opinio...eneral&_r=0


Fishy

Too bad he didn't take a lesson from FDR. The WPA and CCC
put a lot of guy to work and essentially ended the depession.
Most of the O guys efforts about jobs have been BS electioneering
in recent times.
And immigration..
And taxes....
And 100 Mil. + election spending on the media.
etc.