I'm a recovered Demokrat, and I'm not surprised you have no interest in a political discussion that is direct.... bare knuckles. Welcome to the real world.zimmer,
i understand that you're a passionate Republican. i'm a left leaning independent who doesn't much GAF. when you get into political discussions, you mostly post cartoonish hyperpartisan bumpersticker slogans. given this, i'm just not interested in having a political discussion with you unless you're willing to stop doing that and just talk.
Once again, the TRUTH is not hyper-partisan.i will talk with you about anything else, though. i don't dislike you at all; i just really dislike the inflammatory hyperpartisan stuff. i spent much of the 2000s on a couple right wing partisan purity boards, and i just got burned out on it.
What happened?Zimmer: I was once a Lib too.
Ouch! Looks like I overwrote one my posts. Luckily it was a snippet and not one of my great American novels. Here is is again, for prosperity's sake:
I encourage you guys to read every word of this very brief note, so I won't quote from it: It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA.
Boom goes the dynamite!Start with the folly of the financiers.
The years before the crisis saw a flood of irresponsible mortgage lending in America.
Loans were doled out to “subprime” borrowers with poor credit histories who struggled to repay them.
These risky mortgages were passed on to financial engineers at the big banks, who turned them into supposedly low-risk securities by putting large numbers of them together in pools. Pooling works when the risks of each loan are uncorrelated.
The big banks argued that the property markets in different American cities would rise and fall independently of one another.
But this proved wrong. Starting in 2006, America suffered a nationwide house-price slump.
The origins of the financial crisis: Crash course | The Economist
I grew up. That's what happened.
earning your world view is so very wrong isn't fun. Being held up as an example of ignorance even less so.
Ignorance has massive costs, and folks like Helix, are a large part of the problem. I would say folks like Helix ARE the problem, especially if they vote. Either Helix is ignorant of the truth, or choses to ignore it.
Either way... big, big problem.
One simply has to stop lying to oneself, or escape the shackles of ignorance and become a well-rounded, informed citizen. … Of course, ignorants and bitter clingers... hyper-partisans fail to recognize the obvious... and that only adds to our problems.
It's the fact Jack. Travel, growing up, meeting people who ran businesses... and reading. Maturing as a person.Is that what you call it?
I've never denied I am a partisan, but an educated one. An open minded one. One who used to be on the other side of the isle. IIf you don't think yer comments are partisan, you oughta look the word up in the dictionary.
You're not being polite? ROTFLOL...The word I'd use is arrogant. That is, if I were being polite.
Ignorance abounds and we are paying the price for it. "Spreading the wealth around" is not a winning economic system.Yer favourite descriptor for yer political opponents seems to be "ignorant."
I've posted what the politicians stated about it. Obama... Clinton... Cuomo. Barney Frank oughta be in there somewhere too. Cuomo/Clinton admitted the coming failures, but like most LIb schemes could never imagine how badly their forecasts would be or the massive collapse that would ensue.You've had a lot to say here about the CRA. My guess is you wouldn't recognize it if you tripped over it. Does that mean yer ignorant?
Ouch! Looks like I overwrote one my posts. Luckily it was a snippet and not one of my great American novels. Here is is again, for prosperity's sake:
I encourage you guys to read every word of this very brief note, so I won't quote from it: It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA.
It's the fact Jack. Travel, growing up, meeting people who ran businesses... and reading. Maturing as a person.
Nonsense, It WAS FnF and the CRA.
You must be one of the low information Obama supporters.
Just a lot of talk.
>>I've never denied I am a partisan, but an educated one. An open minded one.
With all due respect, I haven't noticed anything in yer comments that strikes me as "educated," and certainly nothing open-minded.
>>I know the Left and their lies. Why would I (or anyone) want to be associated with failure and the lies and deceits used to sell these failures and pervert society?
Pervert? Is that an expression of bigotry? Why would I want to be associated with the lies and deceits of the Right?
"92 million Americans can't find a job."
"Climate Change is a hoax."
"Illegal immigrants are too lazy to work, and they're stealing our jobs."
"Minimum-wage earners are almost all teenagers."
"Obama is a Muslim, Kenyan, commie, terrorist sympathizer who hates America and wants to destroy it. He wasn't really a law professor, he didn't write those books, he did poorly in school, he's paid millions of dollars to have his records sealed, his law license has been revoked, his wife goes on million-dollar shopping sprees with government credit cards, and he murdered both his grandmother and his gay lover."
>>You're not being polite? ROTFLOL...
I don't understand. I'd say I am being polite, as least compared to you.
>>"Spreading the wealth around" is not a winning economic system.
And it's not Obama's policy. That's just right-wing rhetoric. Are you happy with the way income has been distributed in this country for the past thirty years?
>>I've posted what the politicians stated about it.
But what do you know about it?
Ah, the classic two-word argument: "it was." Here are three words: "I'm not convinced."
You must be one of the misinformation voters.
The recession ended in June 2009
Well it IS nonsense NOT to blame the CRA and Democrats AND the GSEs on the Sub-Prime Bubble.
Nonsense in what way?
>>Most liberals are ignorant when it comes to how our economy works and how to properly build a economy but when it comes to the Sub-Prime bubble their ignorance is willfull.
I'm a liberal. Maybe you could explain it to me.
>>The economic results don't agree with you and this list is being given credit for something that no one can quantify.
Which results are those? The 9.2 million private-sector jobs that have been added in four-and-a-half years? The decline in deficits from 10% of GDP to 2.8%. A profit on TARP?
>>QE has done more for Wall Street than any economic policies to help the American people.
For one thing, I don't see a sharp distinction between them. And moreover, I think QE has benefited the economy broadly. It certainly has helped the government control the deficit. As I see things, we the People are the government. Government accounts belong to us.
>>The rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer.
The rich have gotten much richer. This is due largely to tax policies in place for the past thirty years, made worse by the Bush-era tax cuts, that I expect you support.
In 2010, as the nation continued to recover from the recession, a dizzying 93 percent of the additional income created in the country that year, compared to 2009 — $288 billion — went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with at least $352,000 in income. That delivered an average single-year pay increase of 11.6 percent to each of these households.
Still more astonishing was the extent to which the super rich got rich faster than the merely rich. In 2010, 37 percent of these additional earnings went to just the top 0.01 percent, a teaspoon-size collection of about 15,000 households with average incomes of $23.8 million. These fortunate few saw their incomes rise by 21.5 percent.
The bottom 99 percent received a microscopic $80 increase in pay per person in 2010, after adjusting for inflation. The top 1 percent, whose average income is $1,019,089, had an 11.6 percent increase in income. — The Rich Get Even Richer, NYT, March 25, 2012
Obama has indeed been unable to reverse this trend, and for a very simple reason — opposition to his policies by the Republican majority in the House. To anyone concerned about this, and I agree we should be very concerned, my suggestion would be to vote for Democrats in the mid-term.
>>What people want to ignore is that Bush took over an economy in recession, had 9/11, had a Democrat Congress from 2007-2009 and yet grew GDP 4.5 trillion dollars.
He also had a federal budget that was in much better shape.
Yer choice of a passive verb — "had" 9/11 — is an interesting one. He also "had" a clear wraning presented to him in a PDB that Al Qaeda was "determined to strike inside the US." Fwiw, I blame Chaingang, Mr. National Security, more than I blame Bush.
$4.4 trillion, to be more precise, and only $1.7 trillion if you adjust for inflation. He did a lot better than Mr. Reagan on deficits — the per capita national debt under Mr. Bush increased by only 45%, half of Reagan's number.
>>The stimulus plan was a payoff to Obama economic supporters, ie unions. Tell me how much of a tax cut did you get?
The tax cuts in that legislation went mostly to businesses and investors. I guess I missed out on those. I did get a check for, what was it, $300? I don't where yer getting the union stuff? Construction projects? I suppose we could have had the Girl Scouts do the work.
>>Again, you buy what you are told
Pretty funny coming from the Right.
>>how many House passed bills are sitting in Harry Reid's desk and not being debated? Reid is much more of a problem than the House.
How is the Senate more of a problem? Those House bills are largely tax give-aways. The American people don't support that nonsense anymore.
>>That is a pipe dream. We have a 17.3 trillion dollar debt and this adds to it thus the debt service is going up. How does a bill that costs this much and yet leaves 31 million people uninsured benefit the economy and American People?
It's true that the ACA is projected to add to the deficits in the future. This should be balanced out, at least in part, by reduced healthcare costs. And in my view, there is a societal benefit involved in providing millions of Americans affordable health insurance. In general, it will be very difficult to determine the costs and benefits.
>>Ask the people of W. Va. about regulations on Coal production. How could a Democrat state of W. Va. be so anti Obama now? How about the Keystone Pipeline? I could go on.
Poeple are always telling me they could go on about the terrible regulations. My guess is they don't have any to talk about.
West Virginia. Isn't that the state where all those people had their water supply contaminated by a chemical spill from a coal mining company? About 100K people got sick. I hear that the Right blames the EPA because the chemical that was leaked is used in washing clay and rock from coal so that it will burn cleaner.
WV voted for Bush in 2004. Should Democrats "pay off their economic supporters" by favouring the coal industry at the expense of the health of human beings and the environment in general?
>>So what? Is the cost of living the same in each state? States can raise the minimum wage so why is this something the Federal Govt. should get involved in?
Because it's in the national interest. The feds should set a minimum and states with a higher cost-of-living can set a higher level.
>>You think it is the Federal Responsibility to tell a private sector business what to pay its worker? What investment does the Federal Govt. have in that business in terms of actual dollars?
Is it a federal responsibility to tell a private-sector business that it can't legally operate with unsafe working conditions? Minimum wage standards protect workers from exploitation, like other labor laws.
>>Global Warming is a hoax
Not according to 97% of climatologists. I suppose you know better.
>>What you show are examples of brainwashing.
Not the most convincing argument.
>>You don't think Obama has lied? Wow, you haven't been paying attention and are going to believe exactly what you want to believe. This is the most corrupt Administration and one of the least transparent in history. IRS, Benghazi, ACA, Economic predictions, again I could go on but you are only going to believe what you want to believe.
You could go on and on, and yet you don't list a single alleged "lie." It's all rhetoric.
Nonsense in what way?
>>Most liberals are ignorant when it comes to how our economy works and how to properly build a economy but when it comes to the Sub-Prime bubble their ignorance is willfull.
I'm a liberal. Maybe you could explain it to me.
Why do you think a sample size of 60,000 households could possibly be more accurate than a sample of 144,000 businesses (554,000 worksites)?
How does that math work?
the CPS is broader and more inclusive, and the two measure different things, but as far as accuracy? CES is more accurate.
No problem, I'm thick-skinned.I apologize as I was too harsh with you.
Easy. There are 2 kinds of error: sampling and non-sampling error. Sampling error is the math on how much the sample could be off. For the employment level from the CPS, the standard error is approximately +/- 323,000. And the month to month change error is +/- 265,000. The 90th percentile confidence level is 1.645 standard errors, so the level error would be +/- 531,000 and the change is +/- 436,000. http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdfIf you have links to unbiased facts that disproves what I said, please provide them and I will look at them.
I don't get that…accuracy is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that the FED is more accurate. But keep in mind that they do not measure the same thing. An article on the differences http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/02/art2full.pdfOtherwise, let's just agree to disagree?
No problem, I'm thick-skinned.
Easy. There are 2 kinds of error: sampling and non-sampling error. Sampling error is the math on how much the sample could be off. For the employment level from the CPS, the standard error is approximately +/- 323,000. And the month to month change error is +/- 265,000. The 90th percentile confidence level is 1.645 standard errors, so the level error would be +/- 531,000 and the change is +/- 436,000. http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf
The CES standard error is about +/- 0.1% and the change is +/- 57,494. At 90th percentile 1.645 standard errors) so that's +/- 0.1645% (227,000) and +/- 95,000 for the level All Employees Standard Error Tables
Furthermore, for the CES only, we can find out the non-s molding error (mistakes, misunderstandings, lies, etc) because the CES is benchmarked to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages… the Unemployment Insurance tax records. So the actual numbers (adjusted for slight differences in scope) averages about 0.3% off from the CES estimate CES Tables and Charts
I don't get that…accuracy is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that the FED is more accurate. But keep in mind that they do not measure the same thing. An article on the differences http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/02/art2full.pdf
If something is not clear, I'll do my best to a newer.
Please learn how to respond to posts. I will not correct this one for you. If you want a response, post the quotes accurately and properly.
In a way, I want to give you credit for being original. But I very quickly must decide that that is the weakest, most pathetic example of excuse-making I've even seen in a discussion group. There isn't even a tone of defiance, just an avoidant-dismissive withdrawal.
There is no realistic way to know who said what.
First, I do not even begin to care what the BLS sites as the accuracy of their claims. That is like a corporation doing an internal audit...totally bias and completely useless.
are you going to even keep an open mind ?
In a way, I want to give you credit for being original. But I very quickly must decide that that is the weakest, most pathetic example of excuse-making I've even seen in a discussion group. There isn't even a tone of defiance, just an avoidant-dismissive withdrawal.
Please proceed, Governor.
>>I've got all the proof I need ready to go with links.
Loaded for bear, are ya? I anticipate nothing but rhetoric and links to right-wing sites. Since it's all so clear to you, and you've been over this material so many times, why not just tell me what you know?
>>the typical blame the banks and Bush nonsense that typifies the Liberal account of what happened in 2008
If you read my earlier post and see that as "the typical blame" account, perhaps you should spare yerself the effort. I said "[y]ou can join me in blaming Clinton, Bush, Greenspan, and those in Congress who voted to gut the mortgage lending regulations." Apparently, you want Mr. Bush's name removed for that list. As I recall, he was in office for a few years before the crisis hit.
Mr. Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Mr. Bush chose to oversee them — an old prep school buddy — pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.
As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; as recently as February, for example, Mr. Bush was still calling it a “rough patch.”
The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.
“There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems,” said Al Hubbard, Mr. Bush’s former chief economics adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. “Had we, we would have attacked them.”
Looking back, Keith B. Hennessey, Mr. Bush’s current chief economics adviser, says he and his colleagues did the best they could “with the information we had at the time.” But Mr. Hennessey did say he regretted that the administration did not pay more heed to the dangers of easy lending practices. And both Mr. Paulson and his predecessor, John W. Snow, say the housing push went too far.
“The Bush administration took a lot of pride that homeownership had reached historic highs,” Mr. Snow said in an interview. “But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost.” — White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire, NYT, Dec 20, 2008
Believe it or not, I tried to limit the amount of material I quoted from that article. As far as Mr. Bush's responsibility goes, I'd say those reporters did a pretty thorough job.
If banks had no responsibility, why are they settling for tens of billions of dollars in fines?
In any event , I await yer "proof" regarding the central role played by the CRA in precipitating the crisis. Please recall that this has been my focus (#1170). I put up one link to a very brief argument that included F & F along with the CRA as institutions being held to a level of undeserved culpability. If you think you can present an informed indictment of F & F, I'll look it over, but my point has been to defend the CRA for a very simple reason: some on the Right love to hammer on it because it's associated with … BLACKS! Ya know, those horrible, lazy, shiftless people that the Democrat party bribes into voting for them with freebies and giveaways funded by taxes collected from the upstanding, God-fearing whites who built this country.
The information provided by pinqy in that post is just an outline of the potential error involved in the results of these surveys. As he noted, "accuracy is not a matter of opinion."
>>Second, the BLS has apparently, on occasion, been pressured (and agreed) to cook the numbers for political higher ups.
Apparently? This very quickly becomes a dead end. People who don't like the numbers from BLS can claim that "the books are cooked," point to one employee among thousands who falsified a very tiny amount of data, and claim that the survey results should be ignored, or even better held up as an example of vile corruption.
The Census Bureau spends some of those hard-earned taxpayer dollars we're all justifiably concerned about verifying the accuracy of the CPS survey, and I can say that I have a 100% confidence level that no supervisor ever told a field rep to "just go ahead and fabricate it." What would be the point? If someone can't get the work done, the office will easily find someone who can. Why anyone would believe this story from the "very ambitious" Mr. Buckmon is beyond me.
>>Third, as I believe I have stated before - the CES is NOT a stright tabulation. There is a TON of creative math and modelling going on. The Net Birth/Death Model is just one of them.
So you want the Bureau to contact every single employer in the country every month to collect more accurate data? The statisticians at BLS are world-class; they could make a lot more money working in the private sector. They're public servants and their work is both highly respected and very carefully scrutinized.
There's a real irony involved here. To gain the desired level of statistical validity, the CPS requires a ninety percent response rate. In recent years, the agency has struggled to get that, and in a number of months has fallen short.
Government-haters are a large percentage of those who initially refuse to participate. And they are in fact the most difficult to persuade. Time constraints can be dealt with fairly easily, as can concerns about privacy and confidentiality. But what can you do with a Tea Partier who slams the door in yer face when they find yer a federal employee, or with some nut that grabs a shotgun or a baseball bat to "defend liberty"?
>>even the CPS is open to flat out fraud
And what in this world isn't?
>>I say the BLS regularly fudges the numbers through usually legal tabulation/modelling processes to get the result their superiors desire.
Well, I guess you win that argument. I mean if you "say it," how could anyone question it? And I assume that under a Republican administration they "fudge the numbers" in the opposite direction, to make their superiors look bad. The fact that only Democrats are employed by the agency must go a long way in furthering this massive conspiracy.
>>nothing you have provided has factually proven me wrong as I asked for links to unbiased, factual proof that what I said was wrong.
Not everyone can rely on sources like the New York Post and Zero Hedge to back them up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?