• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If Republicans do get back into power, what are they going to do?

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
12,593
Reaction score
3,785
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Translation: Oh ****. I don't have an argument. Therefore I'm going to criticize him in the hopes that it subsitutes for my total lack of actual relevant reply.



Freddie Mac (FHLMC)(FRE) Annual Report (10K) Quarterly Report (10Q)
Buckmaster Annual Stockholder Reports - Company Detail: Freddie Mac

Way to fail there Conservative.

You do know what a 10k is no? I bet not.

Good luck proving that my argument is wrong. Not that you ever can. To anyone.



Most actually. Considering the subsidization of the American market by the government from agriculture to energy, it's rampant.



Yeah...cuz I base my arguments on facts. Like $10 billion budgetary deficit is not a surplus.

Can less than 1/2 a percent of the economy cause the entire economy to virtually collapse? Well, Conservative thinks so.

I have just looked at a few posts, so perhaps am off point. As far as Fannie and Freddie being profitable or not, currently they are in conservatorship because they are effectively insolvent. Estimates are that losses for these companies, will be in the neighborhood of $400-500 billion. So just like wall street firms that booked profits and then found that they were going broke, looking at historical 10Ks dooes not tell the final story of profitability for these companies.

As you probably know Fannie, Freddie, FHA etc make up something like 90 percent of the current mortgage market. That is why the administration is so fearful of letting them go away. Not sure what in 1/2 of 1% of the economy is referring to so I will skip that one.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I have just looked at a few posts, so perhaps am off point. As far as Fannie and Freddie being profitable or not, currently they are in conservatorship because they are effectively insolvent. Estimates are that losses for these companies, will be in the neighborhood of $400-500 billion. So just like wall street firms that booked profits and then found that they were going broke, looking at historical 10Ks dooes not tell the final story of profitability for these companies.

That's because you didn't read most of the recent activity.

Conservative was arguing that the CRA was the problem from the start and the loans were never profitable. After I showed him studies from 2000 showing that CRA were in fact profitable, he demanded evidence that Fannie and Freddie who held some of them were profitable as well over time. I then linked to historical 10Ks for both showing that both were in fact profitable. Basically, you, like the rest of us got taken for Conservative's use of the exceedingly dishonest use of the Gish Gallop. Keep changing arguments in the hopes no one pins you to your original statement.

Not sure what in 1/2 of 1% of the economy is referring to so I will skip that one.

The .5% is referring to the CRA loans in respect to the economy.

Conservative is a user of the Gish Gallop so it really helps to read the full thread.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners. This is not merely offensive, but entirely wrong.


The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to which the CRA likewise didn't apply. There's much more. As Barry Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt.

Second, many of the biggest flameouts in real estate have had nothing to do with subprime lending. WCI Communities, builder of highly amenitized condos in Florida (no subprime purchasers welcome there), filed for bankruptcy in August. Very few of the tens of thousands of now-surplus condominiums in Miami were conceived to be marketed to subprime borrowers, or minorities—unless you count rich Venezuelans and Colombians as minorities. The multiyear plague that has been documented in brilliant detail at IrvineHousingBlog is playing out in one of the least-subprime housing markets in the nation.

Third, lending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently risky. There's plenty of evidence that in fact it's not that risky at all. That's what we've learned from several decades of microlending programs, at home and abroad, with their very high repayment rates. And as the New York Times recently reported, Nehemiah Homes, a long-running initiative to build homes and sell them to the working poor in subprime areas of New York's outer boroughs, has a repayment rate that lenders in Greenwich, Conn., would envy. In 27 years, there have been fewer than 10 defaults on the project's 3,900 homes. That's a rate of 0.25 percent.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
127,143
Reaction score
13,133
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have anything to do with subprime mortgages? If you are so concerned about big business where is your outrage over Fannie and Freddie not being part of the Financial Reform Law?

You want so badly to believe what this Administration tells you that you ignore the lies they tell you. Then you broadbrush everything and ignore reality. There are members of the right, just like there are members of the left that distort the cause of any crisis just like they distort the accomplishments to support their position. I have pointed out that clinton didn't have a surplus but that doesn't stop supporters from believing his statements and that from the media.

I have pointed out actual results of GW Bush that the left wants to ignore because it doesn't advance their agenda. The left has been very successful in generating hatred for GW Bush and Conservative policies by focusing on the very few that violate the trust of Americans while ignoring how their policies hurt the 80% of the small businesses in this country that actually create most of the jobs.

There are a lot of reasons that the financial crisis occurred and the subprime mortgage was one of them. there is also greed playing a role here but to ignore what is going on right now with Govt. greed is a travisty. That is what you control, just like you control where you spend your money or get your financing. No such luck with the govt. Pay your taxes and shut up seems to be what liberals promote.

We have a President today whose basic agenda destroys the very foundation upon which our economy was built. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" is what the Obama Administration promotes and they are milking that as you and others continue to buy it. The crisis was averted in 2008 so why are things not improving now. 4 million more Americans unemployed today than when he took office, every month this year unemployment is higher, 3 trillion added to the debt and yet you continue to all him to step on the gas spending more and expanding govt. more. One of these days you will wake up, hopefully not too late.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have anything to do with subprime mortgages? .
Sure it had a role, but the nutcases on the right say the whole breakdown was because of minorities, when in fact they were better risks than others. To blame the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is shear stupidity on steroids. Did you read the whole article at link I posted or just the excerpt?

Why was it that Bush had to bail out the banks? Because of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Why did Bush's daddy need to bailout the Savings and Loans?
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
127,143
Reaction score
13,133
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sure it had a role, but the nutcases on the right say the whole breakdown was because of minorities, when in fact they were better risks than others. To blame the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is shear stupidity on steroids. Did you read the whole article at link I posted or just the excerpt?

Why was it that Bush had to bail out the banks? Because of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Why did Bush's daddy need to bailout the Savings and Loans?

Why does any of this matter now? how long are you going to blame Bush? Didn't you hire OBama to "clean up the Bush mess?" What you and others totally ignore is that Bush didn't create the problem by himself but instead had Congressional help yet according to Obama the TARP bailout worked and brought us back from the brink yet today we have more unemployed than we had when he took office, we have 3 trillion added to the debt, and we have massive expansion of govt. yet you still blame Bush. How can you blame Bush for a financial crisis that Obama says is over. Is he lying again?
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
127,143
Reaction score
13,133
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Good Lord, Bush did this, Bush did that, Bush is the Devil! Don't you get tired of bashing Bush or is this just another diversion from the disaster in the WH right now? We are 20 months into the Obama Administration, he has added 4 million to the unemployment roles, 3 trillion to the debt and none of that has anything to do with Bush. When are Obama supporters ever going to take responsibility for hiring this incompetent individual for the Oval Office.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,676
Reaction score
4,282
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
At least as long as we heard it was Clinton's fault. :lamo ;)

But you simply can't remove Bush from his actions. Just leaving office doesn't make him no longer respsonsible for what he did.

Yeah, but when does Obama's responsibility start?
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
127,143
Reaction score
13,133
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

LOL, CBO again? You mean the same CBO that claims all the Obama spending is bankrupting the country? The same CBO that backtracked on their cost of Obamacare? Have you bothered to check the accuracy of the CBO? The more you post CBO as your source the less credibility you have and the more foolish you look.

Since the CBO told you the recession is over then I wonder why you continue to bash Bush? I wonder if those 16 million unemployed that the CBO seems to be ignoring believe the recession is over? Wonder how your great grandkids are going to pay for the Obama Debt. You ought to be ashamed.

YouTube - I'm Taking Action - Michael Berry
 
Top Bottom