Obama P&N job approval poll.

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
What did bush change that made it easier to pile up bad debt?

Interest rates were cut and kept low. Too low for way too long. More new money was created from the years 2000-2007 than ever before in our history. This was done to "stimulate" the economy, as Bush didn't want the much-needed recession on his watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

That would be the fed, not bush. But I agree the fed did probably keep interest rates too low for too long.

Bamacre beat me to it. While true it's the fed's call, they work hand in hand. Fannie and Freddie were small, small parts of what happened to our economy, and his weak attempts to regulate the GSE's while ignoring the freight train that was the private banks, doesn't really help his case much.

Yes ignore the fact that fanny and freddie were a buyer for a large chunk of those private loans.
Fannie and freedie and the government
encouragine homeownership was a large chunk of this meltdown.

But dont worry, the fed has interest rates even lower now....

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
What did bush change that made it easier to pile up bad debt?

Interest rates were cut and kept low. Too low for way too long. More new money was created from the years 2000-2007 than ever before in our history. This was done to "stimulate" the economy, as Bush didn't want the much-needed recession on his watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

That would be the fed, not bush. But I agree the fed did probably keep interest rates too low for too long.

Bamacre beat me to it. While true it's the fed's call, they work hand in hand. Fannie and Freddie were small, small parts of what happened to our economy, and his weak attempts to regulate the GSE's while ignoring the freight train that was the private banks, doesn't really help his case much.

Yes ignore the fact that fanny and freddie were a buyer for a large chunk of those private loans.
Fannie and freedie and the government
encouragine homeownership was a large chunk of this meltdown.

But dont worry, the fed has interest rates even lower now....

Interest rates under the fed are the same now as they were under the Bush administration, the difference is that the Bush administration had them this low in good economic times.

Fannie and Freddie were responsible for a small percentage of the subprime loans. Private banks were responsible for about 85%+ of them. Like I said, they were small parts of what happened to our economy.

 

[heyheybooboo]

It's official.

The Right Wing Noise and Propaganda Machine at AT P&N has hit a new high ...











(in lows).

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
What did bush change that made it easier to pile up bad debt?

Interest rates were cut and kept low. Too low for way too long. More new money was created from the years 2000-2007 than ever before in our history. This was done to "stimulate" the economy, as Bush didn't want the much-needed recession on his watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

That would be the fed, not bush. But I agree the fed did probably keep interest rates too low for too long.

Bamacre beat me to it. While true it's the fed's call, they work hand in hand. Fannie and Freddie were small, small parts of what happened to our economy, and his weak attempts to regulate the GSE's while ignoring the freight train that was the private banks, doesn't really help his case much.

Yes ignore the fact that fanny and freddie were a buyer for a large chunk of those private loans.
Fannie and freedie and the government
encouragine homeownership was a large chunk of this meltdown.

But dont worry, the fed has interest rates even lower now....

Interest rates under the fed are the same now as they were under the Bush administration, the difference is that the Bush administration had them this low in good economic times.

Fannie and Freddie were responsible for a small percentage of the subprime loans. Private banks were responsible for about 85%+ of them. Like I said, they were small parts of what happened to our economy.

You're half way there. If you'd keep an open mind and listen to the "moron" Schiff, you might get a little further. Of course, that would mean you'd have to see the fallacies of the Democrats as well as the Republicans. Because the Dem's certainly share a big part of the blame.

charrison, you may want to read Thomas Wood's Meltdown.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bamacre

You're half way there. If you'd keep an open mind and listen to the "moron" Schiff, you might get a little further. Of course, that would mean you'd have to see the fallacies of the Democrats as well as the Republicans. Because the Dem's certainly share a big part of the blame.

charrison, you may want to read Thomas Wood's Meltdown.

I've listened to him many times. He has a history of making really really wrong predictions, and he also made a single right one. He was sure right about a pretty big thing, but I've seen no evidence that he was right due to a judicious examination of reality, and more that he was right because he had been predicting the same thing for years and years and years and was bound to be right sooner or later.

Of course the Democrats had their hand in screwing things up too, I've explicitly stated that god knows how many times. He was talking about Bush, so I talked about Bush.

 

[ProfJohn]

Wow barely over 50% approve.

We must have a lot of conservative lurkers.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Wow barely over 50% approve.

We must have a lot of conservative lurkers.

They probably aren't conservative. Internet message boards are well known to have far more libertarians, people like that than the general population. (probably by an order of magnitude or more). That's why RON PAUL tends to win all internet polls. I would imagine straight libertarians wouldn't like Obama much more than conservatives.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Wow barely over 50% approve.

We must have a lot of conservative lurkers.

They probably aren't conservative. Internet message boards are well known to have far more libertarians, people like that than the general population. (probably by an order of magnitude or more). That's why RON PAUL tends to win all internet polls. I would imagine straight libertarians wouldn't like Obama much more than conservatives.

how much did he win the election by? sounds about right since everything is so polarized now days

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Paddington
Obama has jacked up the national debt more in one year than Bush did in 8 years. There's a magnitude of difference. Bush also inherited an economy heading towards recession and did a decent job preventing it from spiraling out of control, as well as turning it around. I have not yet seen that from Obama.

Wow. Talk about fvcking delusional.

LOL - I know. as if Bush's January 2009 economy was under control and it just took a crap in February when Obama took the wheel.

Don't be surprised.

I recently sat down with my brother in law who very proudly proclaimed that it was all Obama and Clinton's fault....the crashing economy that is....

and very conveniently left our GWB all together from his warped revisionist history.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Wow barely over 50% approve.

We must have a lot of conservative lurkers.

I guess AT P&N isn't as far left fringe as some people think?

 

[Xellos2099]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
What did bush change that made it easier to pile up bad debt?

Interest rates were cut and kept low. Too low for way too long. More new money was created from the years 2000-2007 than ever before in our history. This was done to "stimulate" the economy, as Bush didn't want the much-needed recession on his watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

That would be the fed, not bush. But I agree the fed did probably keep interest rates too low for too long.

Bamacre beat me to it. While true it's the fed's call, they work hand in hand. Fannie and Freddie were small, small parts of what happened to our economy, and his weak attempts to regulate the GSE's while ignoring the freight train that was the private banks, doesn't really help his case much.

Yes ignore the fact that fanny and freddie were a buyer for a large chunk of those private loans.
Fannie and freedie and the government
encouragine homeownership was a large chunk of this meltdown.

But dont worry, the fed has interest rates even lower now....

Interest rates under the fed are the same now as they were under the Bush administration, the difference is that the Bush administration had them this low in good economic times.

Fannie and Freddie were responsible for a small percentage of the subprime loans. Private banks were responsible for about 85%+ of them. Like I said, they were small parts of what happened to our economy.

They are part of the problem yes, however, if the they were being regulated according to Bush, then the private bank won't be able to do as they does the past 4 years. Thne the housing meltdown might not have happen.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
What did bush change that made it easier to pile up bad debt?

Interest rates were cut and kept low. Too low for way too long. More new money was created from the years 2000-2007 than ever before in our history. This was done to "stimulate" the economy, as Bush didn't want the much-needed recession on his watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

That would be the fed, not bush. But I agree the fed did probably keep interest rates too low for too long.

Bamacre beat me to it. While true it's the fed's call, they work hand in hand. Fannie and Freddie were small, small parts of what happened to our economy, and his weak attempts to regulate the GSE's while ignoring the freight train that was the private banks, doesn't really help his case much.

Yes ignore the fact that fanny and freddie were a buyer for a large chunk of those private loans.
Fannie and freedie and the government
encouragine homeownership was a large chunk of this meltdown.

But dont worry, the fed has interest rates even lower now....

Interest rates under the fed are the same now as they were under the Bush administration, the difference is that the Bush administration had them this low in good economic times.

Fannie and Freddie were responsible for a small percentage of the subprime loans. Private banks were responsible for about 85%+ of them. Like I said, they were small parts of what happened to our economy.

You're half way there. If you'd keep an open mind and listen to the "moron" Schiff, you might get a little further. Of course, that would mean you'd have to see the fallacies of the Democrats as well as the Republicans. Because the Dem's certainly share a big part of the blame.

charrison, you may want to read Thomas Wood's Meltdown.

I have read about 1/2 of it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Interest rates under the fed are the same now as they were under the Bush administration, the difference is that the Bush administration had them this low in good economic times.

Fannie and Freddie were responsible for a small percentage of the subprime loans. Private banks were responsible for about 85%+ of them. Like I said, they were small parts of what happened to our economy.

Interest rates dropped down to about 1% in 2004 and then climbed back to about 5% in 2006. And as i recall the liberals we still screaming about a jobless recovery at that time, not good economic times. Interest rates now are basically and zero and the fed is handing out money like candy.

Freddi and fanny at one point held about 50% of the sub prime loans. They played a key part in generating demand for these loans.

 

[bozack]

F- and only going to get worse

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: OCguy
A+ Money printing

A+ Union pandering

you get an F for knowing what the hell you are talking about.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

But nobody said Bush's overspending was the cause of our current problems? (probably because it had nothing to do with it) Beattie just trotted out a standard ultra-right list of talking points, it doesn't even really merit a response because it's pretty clear that he's made up his mind.

His spending was often noted a big problem, so the assumption was made. If Bush ruined the economy, what exactly did he do to ruin it?

I think that the monetary policy encouraged by the Bush administration made it a lot easier to pile up bad debt, the poor regulation of investment banks that happened under his watch helped set this crisis in motion, things like that. The government racking up some debt in no way caused this mess. Not even close.

But for the most part Bush did not change any policy reguarding te housing industry and he did try to e reign in freddy and fanny and was shot down by congress.

So Bush tried to rre-egulate, but was stopped by congress.

What did bush change that made it easier to pile up bad debt?

what good would that have done? (rhetorical question: nothing)

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Wow barely over 50% approve.

We must have a lot of conservative lurkers.

libertopians don't like him, and there are a disproportionate number of them here.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Interest rates under the fed are the same now as they were under the Bush administration, the difference is that the Bush administration had them this low in good economic times.

Fannie and Freddie were responsible for a small percentage of the subprime loans. Private banks were responsible for about 85%+ of them. Like I said, they were small parts of what happened to our economy.

Interest rates dropped down to about 1% in 2004 and then climbed back to about 5% in 2006. And as i recall the liberals we still screaming about a jobless recovery at that time, not good economic times. Interest rates now are basically and zero and the fed is handing out money like candy.

Freddi and fanny at one point held about 50% of the sub prime loans. They played a key part in generating demand for these loans.

that ratio fell as the bubble grew, it used to be in the 70's

edit: i need to start condensing my posts :-\

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

But nobody said Bush's overspending was the cause of our current problems? (probably because it had nothing to do with it) Beattie just trotted out a standard ultra-right list of talking points, it doesn't even really merit a response because it's pretty clear that he's made up his mind.

His spending was often noted a big problem, so the assumption was made. If Bush ruined the economy, what exactly did he do to ruin it?

I think that the monetary policy encouraged by the Bush administration made it a lot easier to pile up bad debt, the poor regulation of investment banks that happened under his watch helped set this crisis in motion, things like that. The government racking up some debt in no way caused this mess. Not even close.

But for the most part Bush did not change any policy reguarding te housing industry and he did try to e reign in freddy and fanny and was shot down by congress.

It could have slowed or stopped bubble from expanding.

So Bush tried to rre-egulate, but was stopped by congress.

What did bush change that made it easier to pile up bad debt?

what good would that have done? (rhetorical question: nothing)

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: OCguy
A+ Money printing

A+ Union pandering

you get an F for knowing what the hell you are talking about.

And you know what you're talking about? Enlighten us please...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Interest rates under the fed are the same now as they were under the Bush administration, the difference is that the Bush administration had them this low in good economic times.

Fannie and Freddie were responsible for a small percentage of the subprime loans. Private banks were responsible for about 85%+ of them. Like I said, they were small parts of what happened to our economy.

Interest rates dropped down to about 1% in 2004 and then climbed back to about 5% in 2006. And as i recall the liberals we still screaming about a jobless recovery at that time, not good economic times. Interest rates now are basically and zero and the fed is handing out money like candy.

Freddi and fanny at one point held about 50% of the sub prime loans. They played a key part in generating demand for these loans.

Freddie and Fannie most certainly did not issue 50% of the subprime loans. They issued less than 20%. This is not something that can be argued. Whether or not the recovery was jobless or not, interest rates for the last several years before the economic collapse under Bush were most certainly at the same rates they are at now. They were at these rates when the administration was talking about how fabulous our economic growth was. (lies) None of this is really in dispute.

Face it, private banks destroyed the economy. Sure Fannie and Freddie played their part, but the primary culprits were on Wall Street. Nobody disputes this other than free market dead-enders.

 

[BarrySotero]

Private bankers made risky loans because it was assumed the private/public gov programs that pushed subprimes on lenders were going to cover loses. The excuse making and rationalizations are astounding.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Private bankers made risky loans because it was assumed the private/public gov programs that pushed subprimes on lenders were going to cover loses. The excuse making and rationalizations are astounding.

I knew that the people making greater than 85% of the loans weren't at fault, I just wasn't sure why.

Thanks Winnar!

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Private bankers made risky loans because it was assumed the private/public gov programs that pushed subprimes on lenders were going to cover loses. The excuse making and rationalizations are astounding.

mlyp

 

[Red Dawn]

Given the cards he was dealt he's doing a decent job. I can only imagine how bad it would be if McCain or any other of the leading Republicans would be President now.