Titanic
Incorrect source or offensive?
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous The economy assumes | Irony Next »
» 137 comments
-
Recent Comments
oษนษนษษฅษ on IF YOU READ THE HEALTHCARE… uber on This episode of Doctor Wh… oษนษนษษฅษ on ….and then I said Just Stop Typing on ….and then I said oษนษนษษฅษ on How to Reinforce One’s I… oษนษนษษฅษ on How to Reinforce One’s I… oษนษนษษฅษ on How to Reinforce One’s I… Just Stop Typing on ….and then I said Silverfox on This episode of Doctor Wh… AZfederalist on How to Reinforce One’s I… 
Cheezburger Network Blog
“The media have successfully predicted 36 out of the last two recessions.” -Zig Ziglar.
A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth of the economy. So far, we have not had one *month* of negative growth. Slow growth, yes, but growth.
But keep listening to the leftist press and, sure enough, u can haz duhpression.
“That which I greatly feared has come upon me.” -Job
But R! They neeeeeed the economy to be bad!! They have a vested interest in it being real real bad!!
Tell me it isn’t, ema. Please, just say plainly, “The fundamentals of the economyare strong,” for the record. I want to have you on record saying that.
Look, the economy has it’s ups and downs, but don’t tell me that the current state of the economy is NOT benefitting the Obama campaign in anyway. The worse it gets the better they look, it doesn’t matter whose fault it is they are going to blame the Republicans and try to make themselves look good.
Why does a bad economy hurt the Republicans, ema? Aren’t they the party of small government, businesses, and fiscal responsiblity? Isn’t this their area? Why do Americans blame the Republicans? The “liberal media?”
“Americans” in general do not. They blame Carter’s “Community Reinvestment Act”
http: / / http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/default.htm
Get more information from IBD at
http: / / http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306632135350949
and a source which you will descry as being a blog, but you can check the cited facts for yourself:
http: / / http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/20/ibd-carter-more-blame-financial-crisis-bush-or-mccain
Note also that Bush tried in 2003 to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which at that point were being run by former Clinton admin members–one of whom is now Obie’s chief economic advisor.
How come the Community Reinvestment Act has a higher rate of repayment than regular loans? Read that first site you link to! Read it! The facts are right there in front of you. The CRA is not the problem, it never was, the problem is that a top down driven economy provides no incentive to the rich to invest in new business creation, so they invent ridiculous ponzi schemes to invest in.
–
Please, people on both sides, before you parrot back talking points, perform due diligence and check to see that what you are saying has ANY BASIS in reality.
Do your own damn due diligence and read the other links.
You mean the talking points you are parroting? Do you deny that the CRA has a higher repayment rate than regular loans? If so, then how is it the problem? If not, where are YOU getting your data? Please, try to put two and two together. Trying to blame this financial crisis on the CRA is patently ridiculous, anyone can see that it is not, and was never the problem. But like all parrots, you can’t think for yourself. When confronted with your own ignorance, all you can do is say, “Go read what these guys have written! It convinced me!”
I repeat: Do your own damn due diligence and read the other links.
Weird, I did read them and I never saw one simple figure that would prove the point: what is the CRA default rate? If the CRA is the problem, then CRA loans should be defaulting at a higher rate, right? So what is it? You can’t tell me, because you do not know, and you won’t look it up, because you know I’m right. Because I already know the default rate, and I know you are simply wrong, and I also know that you never looked into this yourself, you just took another idiot’s word on the matter, because that is what you WANT to believe.
If you’re so all knowing, what *is* said default rate, oh glorious one?
We got’s us a 100% self-proclaimed geeneeus (though I sense he may not be the sharpest bulb in the deck)
You know PK eats links, right? You can do your own research by googling “edfault rate on Community Reinvestment Act Loans.” My research shows the defaulkt rates for CRA loans are between .005 and .010, depending on location.
I’m not saying I’m a genius. I’m just saying, I do my own research and come to my own conclusions.
Seth,
Time out. On the link-eating thingie? Separate URLs thusly:
http: / / http://www.whatever.com
And they go in fine. Nothing gets eaten or delayed. Users need only remove the spaces.
‘Kay, putcher dukes back up!
R.
You still put in the url in full.
The Republicans have held the presidency for the past 8 years, and held majorities in both houses of congress from 1994 until 2006. How in the name of all that’s fiscally sound can you blame the current mess on the Democrats?
It’s all Clinton’s fault, obviously. Or maybe Carter.
Carter started the mess. It’s just been rolling downhill and not getting fixed by *anyone* that had the power to.
Should edit that to read his administration. No one person is to blame for it. A lot of corrupt Democrats have been lining their pockets for years this way.
Carter did not start this mess. If you are referring to his Community Reinvestment Act, I will point out that not only do loans given under the CRA have a lower than average default rate, but banks operating under the CRA are more likely to hold onto the debt themselves rather than resell it. Carter’s CRA has kept this crisis from being even worse.
Because they did it? They were the ones saying “There’s no problem! Nothing to see here!” while the Republicans were saying “I think you’re full of it”. And it’s been going on far longer than 8 years.
The common misconception seems to be that because conservative = smaller government, that that also means less regulations, when in fact the opposite is true. The Republicans wanted *more* regulation, but the regulations are on the *government* not on the people. In effect you can say both parties want more or less regulation, as long as you don’t bother to point out who’s getting regulated.
So you’re saying that despite holding on to power for so long, they were unable to fix what they saw as glaring mistakes in the economic policy? And while seeing the need for more regulation, constantly parroted a desire for less? So they’re either complicit, or they’re incredibly incompetent. (Or both.) Not a party I’d think any self-respecting American would back.
I never claimed the Repubs had any backbone.
Just that they are strong on defense, and, IN GENERAL, the economy. Oops.
They claim to be strong on defense, but they’ve made a hash of that, too. All they really do is talk a good line while funneling lucrative contracts and government positions to their cronies.
Seen any large buildings destroyed due to enemy action within our borders lately?
Haven’t seen any tigers around here, either. That tiger repellent I bought must be working!
Never have been any, but there have been large buildings blown up fairly recently…
Who knows whether or not we’re safer now. It’s hard to say. It’s possible the reason we haven’t had another attack is that we’ve plugged the holes in our security that Al Qaeda exploited, or it’s possible that they realized their attack backfired. Their goal is the removal of US influence from the world, and all they did was encourage us to overthrow two governments relatively friendly to their cause and install more US-Friendly governments. Not exactly a stunning victory for Islamic Extremism. It’s just generally a bad idea to provoke people if you want them to leave you alone.
1. We plugged holes.
2. We took away resources by:
A. Freezing monies.
B. Preempting territory (Afghanistan and Iraq).
C. Removing two govt’s. sympathetic to their ends.
D. Persuading other govt’s that it would be wise to, at the
very least, disengage from hostilities.
3. It’s a really bad idea to provoke Americans in particular,
if you want them to leave you alone, viz. Japan (WWII)
or Germany (WWI, which, although justified, was a provocation on
our part.)
4. Why I think Bush will go down as a great president: He is
looking ahead for decades and investing in education and
infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan, knowing that other
Muslim countries are watching. The illiteracy rate in Muslim
nations is very high, and the media almost exclusively
government controlled, which means that the pople know
only what they are fed by the State and their imams.
Break that cycle and there is a *chance* that they will join
the ranks of civilized nations. Fail to do so, and there is a
100% chance that they will not.
5. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and their fellow travelers have not
desisted because anything ‘backfired’. They have just
continued operations elsewhere than the territorial US–
for the moment.
A. Major Islamic terrorism 2/02-9/04: (Take out the space
between http:// and www.)
http:// http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/07/terrorism.uk1
B. 11,875 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 (page down to see 9/11/01 to 12/31/03.
http:// http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2001-2003.htm
C. Google “hyperbaric bombs” to see what’s next. No
nukes, just good clean HE and potentiators.
Bottom line: These people will not stop until they have achieved their ends, or until we (“we” being the US, being the only power capable of and willing to do so) persuade them otherwise.
Really? You really think Al Qaeda LOST?
You have serious problems understanding their goals and MO then. THe US lost a lot more in the “war” the Al Qaeda ever did.
Actually IN THEORY on the economy
I like what they stand for and not what they do.
Because the perception of the public, helped along by the liberal media, is the state of the economy is the fault of the Republicans. Whether we are going through a downturn or a recession (don’t think so yet), they are blaming the government when expanding and collapsing are normal for the economy.
A bad economy hurts Republicans because a Republican is President, most likely. Remember, most Americans are too stupid to look at anything beyond who is President. Any and all problems that occur are entirely due to one mans decisions.
It’s just too hard for most Americans to care about something other than themselves for long enough to give it even a single solid moment of thought. Much easier to pretend we’re a dictatorial regime or monarchy and that every problem is due to some executive order.
And it happens with both parties. The President, regardless of whether he is a Democrat or Republican, takes the blame for most anything bad that happens. Regardless of who else was involved in the poor decision making. On the same token, they are often credited for things that were largely the work of others, but people tend to focus on the negative and treat the positive as status quo.
America is the nation of blame. In everything, we must single out one person who is to blame. It’s too hard for most Americans to think of the possibility that many people are responsible for the bad things that happen. It gets especially harder once you realize that Americans have been bullied into choosing a “team” (Republican or Democrat), and are reluctant to see the flaws amongst their own “teammates” or their ideas and policies.
I’ve always despised the two-party system for their ignorance and flawed groupthink it promotes. It happens on both sides of the aisle without fail, every year.
Wise words, O Worthy One. Srsly.
agreed!!
You could technically link the blame of the President to the masturbatory power trip that people try to bestow upon themselves by voting him in. The presidential election is always huge, like a giant and crazy football party. Everybody is gloating and pumping their team. Egos are huge about who is “going down!!!”
And because people feel they directly vote for the president (despite the fact that is wrong) they feel they have direct power. So if their choice was somehow flawed, they want somebody to blame. The obvious person is the guy they “hired” for the job. Then they can deride him and play the victim of a ploy which still gives them power because they made a choice, it just turned out wrong.
So I agree, people in a desperate attempt to feel like they are in on it all, love to blame the president since that is the most visible expression of their presumed political power.
You may want to consider that the Republicans have long promoted themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility, setting themselves in opposition to the so-called “tax and spend” Democrats.
The Republican was a friend to businesses great and small, so the story went, and would not encumber Industry with the “inefficient” regulations and oversight, because obviously the market would correct itself if a problem occurred.
Well, guess what pubbies. The market is undergoing one hell of a correction just now, and the public that you’ve reassured for so long with your patronizing drivel is waking up to realize that you’ve been screwing them all along.
It’s time to take some personal responsibility, and that’s why the Democrats’ numbers are up and the Republicans’ are in the crapper.
Lack of regulation is great in some areas, bad in others. I think the financial sector should get some healthy oversight, not just a giant costly bandaid when they fall down and have a boo-boo. Yeah, corrections occur on their own but they can be rough so when the corrections do occur, everyone panics and wants to fall back on corporate welfare. Would be best to avoid the need for them in the first place. It’s a delicate balance though, where do you draw the line between healthy oversight and overbearing government interference in the market?
Fiscally, the Republicans of today are far from conservative. If anything the only difference between them and the Democrats is where they want to rack up the big spending, not whether to do it in the first place.
Agreed. As to where to draw the line, I’d humbly put forth that that question should be answered not by ideology, but by educated people trained in the disciplines of economics and finance. The time when any politician can declare that “no regulation is good regulation” has come to an end.
Yeah I wonder if part of our problem is that it’s largely lawyers making our big financial decisions rather than economists.
That’s kinda like letting a funeral home decide how much life insurance you need instead of a trained agent. ;P
No… it’s like taking medical advice from a doctor, instead of from your insurance company.
O_o
So, you think we’re better off letting lawyers handle economic matters than economists? Are you daft?
Unless he is horribly miswording things, I think he might be… o_O
I’m pretty sure we’re all in agreement here, just a couple phrases got swapped around and confused people.
Seems like it.
Brain fart on my part. I had in mind lolnathan’s post about letting the lawyers make economic policy. I have failed.
All right, ’splain to me how Clinton’s budget surplus was actually the work of the republican party. Ready… go!
I will, if you’ll ’splain to me how the national *debt* rose by two trillion dollars, or 54%, under Slick’s Willy. See link fo’ da sad facts.
http: / / http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
And yet, you were just agreeing with lolnathan’s comment that “The President, regardless of whether he is a Democrat or Republican, takes the blame for most anything bad that happens. Regardless of who else was involved in the poor decision making. On the same token, they are often credited for things that were largely the work of others, but people tend to focus on the negative and treat the positive as status quo.”
So, if the prez wasn’t responsible, I guess that leaves… why, it’s the Republican-dominated legislature! What a surprise!
I don’t know if ema has the economic basis for saying it–so I will: “THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ECONOMY ARE STRONG.”
If you need to buy a house, and have good credit–YOU CAN. If you need to buy a car, and have good credit–YOU CAN. If your business needs credit and has a good net worth, CREDIT IS THERE TO BE HAD. (Though I personally believe that everyone should be doing business on a cash basis anyway, EXCEPT for home purchases.)
Have you defaulted on YOUR home, or is it being foreclosed on? Is YOUR car being repossessed? Are YOUR credit card payments late? If so, barring extraordinary circumstances, you shouldn’t have had them in the first place.
If not, STFU. You are not a party to this discussion.
Well, everything is fine for me so far! But, I am worried about how that might change depending on who gets elected next.
How come your Illustrious Leader is calling this the biggest financial crisis since the depression, hmmmmm?
Because it’s Bush and he’s notorious for wild scare tactics. I’m surprised there haven’t been mass suicides with how he has depicted this situation. Everytime I heard a single sentence from him about this bailout thing, I have to fight the urge to pull out my meager savings and stick it under my mattress.
This sucker’s goin’ down!!
lol The world was supposed to end on Monday, how come we’re all still here?
They keep pushing back the date. But it does have a firm deadline of vacation time.
Oh right, the vaction! That’s important, right?
God, I want a vacation… -_-
No no no. The world was supposed to end when the Hadron Collider was fired up. But that didn’t happen, so we opted for plan B. Which also failed. Who’s got plan C?
If everyone on the internet does not send me $1 right now, the world as you know it will end, pretty soon…!! You have been warned!
And send me two dollars!
I want my two dollars!
Tree fiddy
After you ski the K.
Don’t worry! The LHC can still destroy the world! They haven’t actually collided anything yet, and now its down for repairs until spring!
The Mayans could still be right!
If not checked, it does have the potential to hurt individuals. I’m glad it’s being addressed and have faith that effective action will be taken. In a bipartisan manner, even–just like the war in which we are engaged. (Hmm, national defense and the economy–the two issues I considered when I voted for Bush (though I disagree with him on nearly everything else)–*and the Dems, despite rhetoric to the contrary, go along*. Nearly every time.)
That said, are you standing in a soup line?
Thought not.
I’m not sooo convinced of that R, I’m not an economic genius or anything but I have heard the argument that the bailout could go through to the tune of 700 billion and not actually help anything either! So, maybe we should bit the bullet? I’m really on the fence with the bailout since I just don’t know!
To ema, and everyone:
Read the following, then copy and paste it into a message to your respective representatives–even those who are NOT your reps, like committee chairs in Congress. They listen, even if you’re not a constituent. It’s why the original plan didn’t pass *immediately*.
Estimated cost of the following is $50 billion–that’s FIVE with ONE zero.
http: / / a1611.g.akamai.net/f/1611/26335/9h/dramsey.download.akamai.com/23572/dr/media/pdf/the_common_sense_fix.pdf
Yes! This is what I read earlier, I think you had it posted. I listen to this guy on the radio sometimes. R, that link doesn’t work… could you try it again?
You have to take out the spaces between the http and the slashes. See if that does it. (I post it that way so it doesn’t disappear into ICHC/PK link limbo.)
Ain’t it amazin’: The Dems need (and act like they *want*) the country to go into the toilet in order to gain power. To “prove” that we are losing the battle in Iraq (our military is useless and incompetent), to “prove” that our War is Wrong because da ickle Islamobombthrowers are just misunderstood, to “prove” that capitalism doesn’t work (are there any remaining doubts that the left is communist in all but name?), to “prove” that ALL Republicans are *completely and totally* evil, incompetent, greedy (read: human–not like ANY Dems, of course, who are Godlike in all their aspects, and their feces are nonodoriferous), and all the other leftist cant. I’m sick of hearing it all.
Nobody has yet explained why the noble Dems have been persuaded to go along with all of the ‘moronic’ Bush’s major initiatives, however. (“We voted against [insert economic or defense bill of choice], before we voted for it.”)
Present bailout excepted, which is a good thing, but then the Republicans didn’t, either–also good.
“Dems, of course, who are Godlike in all their aspects, and their feces are nonodoriferous”
Well, ya got that right!
Come! Let’s all sing along with the Obama childrens choir! Form orderly lines people, don’t trouble our Dear Leader! (click my name)
Isn’t it kinda scary how Obama gets treated like Kim Il junior ? He can do no wrong , the press worships him and children sing about him. It’s getting creepy!
Creepy doesn’t describe it.
Try again. The message on Iraq is that it was a dumb move to go in there in the first place, and any outcome is not going to have been worth the price we paid. Nobody (besides you) is saying that the islamic fanatics are “misunderstood.” Obama is on record saying that we should divert our resources in the area to killing them, even if it means incursions into Pakistan.
The Dems aren’t proving capitalism doesn’t work, but the market IS proving that unregulated capitalism leads to disasters. To repeat: the Dems aren’t your opponent on that one, REALITY is. We’re all in the same boat on that one, trying to figure out which way to paddle.
Are there any more straw-men I can demolish for you?
He says that now anyway.
And the Dems have proven that they need to let the Republicans get the regulations in place that should have been there since day 1.
Again: if that is so, then why wasn’t it accomplished during the 1994 to 2006 period wherein the Repubs enjoyed almost complete control over the legislative and executive branches?
“[Republican] control over the executive branch” from 1994 to 2000? Hoo, that musta been some good sh** one a us was smokin’.
You too, since you didn’t read the actual sentence. I’ll add some emphasis for you.
“…during the 1994 to 2006 period wherein the Repubs enjoyed ALMOST complete control over the LEGISLATIVE and executive branches?”
Yes, emphasis on the legislative for that time period, with large overlaps with the executive.
I have faith, and only that, that we went into Iraq for the sort of reasons–good ones–that are not likely to be revealed for the next 50 years.
“Nobody besides me is saying that the islamic fanatics are โmisunderstood.โ:”
Hmm. I am in relationship with a member of IVAW. (I can’t reveal his name, but if you’ve watched the news or listened to public radio since the first of the year, you’ve seen or heard him. He was on camera at the DNC (outside) and has been a speaker at numerous prominent left-wing functions.) He makes that precise claim, and I know that he speaks for *many* who feel–AS OBAMA SAID UNTIL HIS HANDLERS CHANGED HIS TUNE–that “further discussion” is needed. When you do that with your enemies, it’s called “negotiation”.
You can’t negotiate with feral animals. The ones with whom we are at war (who are NOT limited to Iraq, BTW) are not going to have their minds changed by anything but high explosives. I am pleased to report that we are killing them by the tens of thousands there, as well as diverting them from other pastimes, such as sawing your head off because you eat bacon (assuming you do). I may disagree with what you say, but I firmly assert your right to have a mouth with which to say it.
There are far more important and *positive* reasons for which we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I wouldn’t attempt to go there with you in light of your overweening cynicism about this country’s ability to Do Right.
I WILL agree with you that godless capitalism has as little to recommend it as godless communism. Like gun laws, there are plenty of regulations out there–in the case of Sarbanes-Oxley, far too much. There does need to be oversight, but there need to be sensible controls, and those enforced. The pendulum has swung from overregulation to the present state.
Again, I agree that we are in the same boat, and I really believe that both parties are trying to find a safe course through the mines, despite extremists (Paulsen, Pelosi) on both sides.
There–no straw men at all, were there?
Made me think of a TMBG lyric: “A man came up to me and said I’d like to change your mind by hitting it with a rock, he said, though I am not unkind.”
Everybody wants prosthetic forehead on their real forehead? Heh!
Before a few years ago, I thought that no country could ever again fight a prolonged war, because the only way to get the support of your nation is to dehumanise your opponent. People like you prove that wrong.
You refer to them as “feral animals”, thereby dehumanising and justifying death an destruction by US forces.
Dude, you are delusional. Just keep telling yourself there is no problem, because that has worked so well in the past. The house of cards ponzi scheme is tumbling, because it was never about creating real value in the first place. It was a con, made by rich bastards who didn’t want to invest their money in real businesses that would grow the American economy, and you swallowed it like a drunken co-ed at a frat party. Congratulations, chummmmm-p, you are part of the problem.
“. . . it was never about creating real value in the first place.”
No, it was about issuing Democrat-mandated loans to people who did not have the means to repay them, then selling the aggregate loans as bonds to people who weren’t particularly choosy and didn’t do their *own* due diligence. Don’t blame it on deregulation, blame it on 26-year-old MBAs who haven’t been through a few cycles *and* who do not have parental oversight.
Growing an economy has to do with real people who have real money. It is not about helping someone move from a single-wide into a mansion who doesn’t belong there. (The Clintons would be a shining example.)
What is the default rate on CRA loans?
Which one of Clinton’s buddies made $52,000,000 in BONUSES by cooking the books at Fannie Mae? And is now Obama’s chief economic advisor?
I thought we were talking about the CRA? Oh yeah, you are a parrot. When your talking points are challenged, you can’t think for yourself and present your own ideas, because you don’t have any. All you can do is whip out another talking point, hoping it will distract people so they won’t realize you have no intellectual grasp on the things you are parroting back.
We (well, I) were/am talking about the economy as a whole. *You* are the one who keeps parroting one note. SQUAWK! *Sigh* Yes, Polly kan haz kracker. Here you go.
CRA was the camel’s nose in the tent. Here’s some more of the camel:
“Franklin Raines was Clintonโs former UMB Director, is a former CEO of Fannie May, was paid a total of $90 MILLION for his tenure at Fannie May, who was forced to resign due to a $6.3 billion accounting debacle he oversaw in 2004, and James Johnson former Vice-Chair of Fannie Mae and Managing Director of Lehman Brothersโฆ.. Raines and Johnson are the current economic advisors for Barack Obama. Raines was in charge when most of these high risk, sub prime rate loans were being given away; the primary catalyst to Fannie Maeโs collapse.”
Raines and Johnson are two of Obie’s economic advisors, though he (through a hired mouthpiece) recently denied it, LOL! Can’t wait to see them led off in cuffs.
Heck, even Clinton’s saying it was always the Democrats that kept him from putting the regulations in place.
one quote cut in half and out of context.
The rest of that was saying that now is not time for blame but if blame were to be laid it would be equal. He expounded on the republican part too. Of course only the snippet in the middle was used.
Maybe only part of the quote, but even with the whole thing it doesn’t change the fact that it was the Democrats at fault. Just means he’s doing a C.Y.A. at the same time and trying to spread the blame to others. It’s the Democrats saying they’re innocent.
The equal thing is probably him trying to be gracious by the way…. like Obama agreeing with McCain in the debate. Decency and good manners taken out of context and used against the people trying to be polite.
The CRA is a red herring, I’ve shown that. Now you have to backpedal and bring up completely unrelated points, which have the same dubious authenticity as your points about the CRA. You can claim I am one note all you like, but I won’t stop saying, “You are wrong about the CRA, and I can prove it,” until you stop parroting back your lies.
You know, Seth, you’re right, in an EXTREMELY limited way.
Here are excerpts from the article linked below: ” . . . a 9% default rate on CRA loans doesnโt even begin to approach the aggregate value in total defaulted home mortgages.”
HOWEVER–same article ALSO says: “It was a mistake to change CRA compliance requirements to be measured on a quantitative basis and away from a qualitative value judgement. This forced lending institutions to require meet an annual lending quota [they did this by paying the loan originator an incentive, not by lowering credit standards] or risk jeopardizing government benefits. The CRA most definitely encouraged lending to those who could not afford.”
http: / / http://www.healthiertalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=13464&sid=52764cfbaa69ed82ad1fadf28b10a269
Clinton’s admin goosed this in ‘94 or so with some additional perqs for the unworthy which I haven’t fully researched yet. But here’s some info from the NYT:
“The default rate jumped for loans made in 2006, as lenders allowed more borrowers to take out loans without documenting their incomes or making a down payment.”
Ah, 2006. That would be the year that Clinton’s buddy bailed from Fannie Mae, knowing that it was about to go south based on billions in bad paper.
http: / / http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/business/22lend.html
And, yes, *combined* with deregulation overseen by Republicans, and ARMs which were going to slam the least creditworthy (and which should never have been issued in the first place), well . . . here we are.
NOW can you step back and look at the whole picture?
And you might want to be careful about whom you ascribe intent to–or call a liar. Your ‘mindreading’ is why I broke off dialogue with you in the first place.
Uh ohs!!! No more diatribe for you Seth!
He knew that. (mindreading)
It’s hard to find good info on the CRA loans, but I think the default rate is the same as a regular loan, with a slightly higher rate of delinquency. But that was like, 2 years ago, so I can’t say what its like today. I can only imagine its gone up at least a little bit.
You think wrong. The regulation and oversight of the CRA guarantee that it has LOWER than normal default rates, but yeah, I think you are right about the delinquency rate. That is not going to create toxic debt. No higher default rate, no issue. So I can expect you to back me up when Republicans on this site try to use it to cast blame where it doesn’t belong?
Well with regards to the rate going up, I mean relative to what its own rate used to be, not relative to regular loans. But if you think about it is it any surprise that a lot of Republicans want to pin stuff on Carter? Clinton seemed to be healthy for the economy, and Carter is the next further back Democrat to blame.
I think more to blame than any particular administration is the financial institutions themselves. No one forced them to make poor decisions, at least not the poor decisions that led to this calamity. To Bush’s credit, he did try to make some token efforts to regulate these institutions, but I think this would have occurred anyway.
But basically I agree that the CRA has very little to do with whats going on now.
The highest defaults in my area – Northern VA are the McMansions (so called because they are all the same – no connection to McCain) that were being bought and flipped by yuppies. They bought in on ridiculous ARMS with little or no money down and tried to flip for a profit but the market crashed and they got stuck with huge payments on second and third houses.
The people buying one reasonably sized house to actually live in are mostly ok. The CRA loans wouldn’t have been made for million dollar homes I am assuming?
Set sail for fail!
It’s just like the US economy:
Fundamentally sound, but with idiots behind the wheel.
Not to mention that it’s HUGE
It segregates people into first class and steerage sections.
There are guys with guns to make sure you don’t sneak from steerage into first class.
Some cheap businessmen went and used inferior rivets to construct it, and it will come apart at the seams the first bump it hits.
Yup, sounds about right to me.
Idiots, or evil geniuses? The people that caused the problems did so intentionally, and made a lot of money doing so.
Of course the irony here is that the picture is of a BRITISH ship.
Yeh, those lousy Republicrat Limeys. Vote ‘em out, I say!
All I’ve seen is a blame game from both parties. Piss on both of em, I’m going independent.
Welcome to the not-quite-as-dark side, we has cheezburgers.
Again, I know (or think I do) that we’re on opposite sides of the fence, but I believe I’ve agreed with everything you’ve posted here so far. Keep up the good work!
Well I don’t agree with you on the CRA thing for one… but other than that
MMM…cheezburgers, I like them, had one for lunch today. Cheezburgers>hope, change and POW references
I suppose moderate is about the same grey area as independent. *noms cheezburger*
I’m probably closer to center than far right, hand me one of those! Food always brings folks together.
Until you run out… then it degrades into a war.
Guess we have to look for happiness somewhere else, cause things always run out…
But not my love for you!
This is one of the Kodak moments.
Which is far better than a Kodiak moment. Run! Bears!
Where’s Sarah Palin when you need her? She’ll protect us!
WWIII-The battle for Cheezburgers?
they are essential…
I will man the machine gun.
Better call Bob for proper tripod support.
You can be my Bob.
I’ll be your huckleberry.
HHAHA nice.
Or, more accurately: “America-01/20/01″
America is King of the World !!!!
….for awhile.
Nah. They’re just for looks. You can tell it’s safe by counting the smokestacks.