• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama: A year to Election Day, numbers good and bad

We know that you constantly try, singlehandely to revive the failed performance of your hero...but sadly.....you'll never convince America that GWB was the economic genius that you try desperately to believe that he is....but keep on believing......never give up hope.
Mr. Bush was a very average president. He was, unfortunately, not a conservative.

This is a false argument. No one is claiming that Mr. Bush was an economic genius. I believe he severely damaged the nation when he took so many people out of their taxpaying role. We are very near the tipping point. If we go the wrong way things will turn bloody. It is only a matter of time.
 
The damage occurred under their watch. Why wouldn't they get the blame? Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act. He's responsible for that just as Republicans are responsible for for drafting, sponsoring, and passing it. Bush then pushed minority homeownership to record levels and levied Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to do it. He is responsible for that. Between 2003 and 2006, when the toxic loans were being written, Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, they are to blame for not passing oversight. When Democrats took over, the damage was done and H.R.3221 which was passed in 2008 was too weak, Democrats are to blame for that.

Only a sycophant would ignore the culpability of the Republicans who did nothing, while they were in charge, to prevent the meltdown. Blame the minority party ... blame the homeowners ... blame Barney Frank ... anything but blame Republicans, right Con?

So Bush levied Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with ACORN to push for low income home ownership. That must have come to a surprise to Franklin Raines and Jaime Gorelick along with the ACORN organization that wasn't a big fan of Bush.

Further as I have stated there is plenty of blame to go around but you choose to blame Republicans only. Read the history of the sub prime loans and housing crisis as you may just learn that you don't know as much as you think.

Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
So Bush levied Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with ACORN to push for low income home ownership. That must have come to a surprise to Franklin Raines and Jaime Gorelick along with the ACORN organization that wasn't a big fan of Bush.

Further as I have stated there is plenty of blame to go around but you choose to blame Republicans only. Read the history of the sub prime loans and housing crisis as you may just learn that you don't know as much as you think.

Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ummm.....


To be clear, no single issue was the cause. Our economy is a complex and intricate system. What caused the crisis? Look:

●Fed Chair Alan Greenspan dropped rates to 1 percent — levels not seen for half a century — and kept them there for an unprecedentedly long period. This caused a spiral in anything priced in dollars (i.e., oil, gold) or credit (i.e., housing) or liquidity driven (i.e., stocks).

●Low rates meant asset managers could no longer get decent yields from municipal bonds or Treasurys. Instead, they turned to high-yield mortgage-backed securities. Nearly all of them failed to do adequate due diligence before buying them, did not understand these instruments or the risk involved. They violated one of the most important rules of investing: Know what you own.

Fund managers made this error because they relied on the credit ratings agencies — Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. They had placed an AAA rating on these junk securities, claiming they were as safe as U.S. Treasurys.

Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument. They are exempt from all oversight, counter-party disclosure, exchange listing requirements, state insurance supervision and, most important, reserve requirements. This allowed AIG to write $3 trillion in derivatives while reserving precisely zero dollars against future claims.

The Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks in 2004. The “Bear Stearns exemption” replaced the 1977 net capitalization rule’s 12-to-1 leverage limit. In its place, it allowed unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. These banks ramped leverage to 20-, 30-, even 40-to-1. Extreme leverage leaves very little room for error.

•Wall Street’s compensation system was skewed toward short-term performance. It gives traders lots of upside and none of the downside. This creates incentives to take excessive risks.

• The demand for higher-yielding paper led Wall Street to begin bundling mortgages. The highest yielding were subprime mortgages. This market was dominated by non-bank originators exempt from most regulations. The Fed could have supervised them, but Greenspan did not.

These mortgage originators’ lend-to-sell-to-securitizers model had them holding mortgages for a very short period. This allowed them to get creative with underwriting standards, abdicating traditional lending metrics such as income, credit rating, debt-service history and loan-to-value.

“Innovative” mortgage products were developed to reach more subprime borrowers. These include 2/28 adjustable-rate mortgages, interest-only loans, piggy-bank mortgages (simultaneous underlying mortgage and home-equity lines) and the notorious negative amortization loans (borrower’s indebtedness goes up each month). These mortgages defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers to traditional 30-year fixed mortgages.

●To keep up with these newfangled originators, traditional banks developed automated underwriting systems. The software was gamed by employees paid on loan volume, not quality.

●Glass-Steagall legislation, which kept Wall Street and Main Street banks walled off from each other, was repealed in 1998. This allowed FDIC-insured banks, whose deposits were guaranteed by the government, to engage in highly risky business. It also allowed the banks to bulk up, becoming bigger, more complex and unwieldy.

Many states had anti-predatory lending laws on their books (along with lower defaults and foreclosure rates). In 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency federally preempted state laws regulating mortgage credit and national banks. Following this change, national lenders sold increasingly risky loan products in those states. Shortly after, their default and foreclosure rates skyrocketed.


What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral - The Washington Post
 

Let's not forget...

In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. Thus began the involvement of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the subprime market.[120] In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[121] From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities. Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990s because of the high risk of default. By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market.[122] The GSE have always been highly leveraged, their net worth as of 30 June 2008 being a mere US$114 billion.[123] When concerns arose in September 2008 regarding the ability of the GSE to make good on their guarantees, the Federal government was forced to place the companies into a conservatorship, effectively nationalizing them at the taxpayers' expense.[124][125]

who were both supported by the...

There is a widespread belief that FHLMC securities are backed by some sort of implied federal guarantee and a majority of investors believe that the government would prevent a disastrous default. Vernon L. Smith, 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics, has called FHLMC and FNMA "implicitly taxpayer-backed agencies." [16] The Economist has referred to "the implicit government guarantee"[17] of FHLMC and FNMA.
The then-director of the Congressional Budget Office, Dan L. Crippen, testified before Congress in 2001, that the "debt and mortgage-backed securities of GSEs are more valuable to investors than similar private securities because of the perception of a government guarantee."[18]

which invariably led to...

Fund managers made this error because they relied on the credit ratings agencies — Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. They had placed an AAA rating on these junk securities, claiming they were as safe as U.S. Treasurys.
 
I stand corrected and apologize for my mistake although it doesn't make sense that the GDP is reported on a calender quarter and the fiscal year of the U.S. runs from October to Sept but according to the BEA in an email I just received the data is listed in a calendar year quarter, Jan-Mar, April-June, July-Sept, Oct-Dec. My error and I apologize. when wrong I admit it.

Unless specified otherwise (in some government tables for example), BEA presents its data on a calendar quarter and calendar year basis with Jan-Mar being quarter 1.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Lisa Mataloni
Economist
National Income and Wealth Division (BE-54)
Bureau of Economic Analysis
tel: (202) 606-5304
fax: (202) 606-5349
e-mail: gdpniwd@bea.gov
 
Funny how GDP growth was going good till republicans took over the house...
I stand corrected and apologize for my mistake although it doesn't make sense that the GDP is reported on a calender quarter and the fiscal year of the U.S. runs from October to Sept but according to the BEA in an email I just received the data is listed in a calendar year quarter, Jan-Mar, April-June, July-Sept, Oct-Dec. My error and I apologize. when wrong I admit it.

Your only error was the quarter reporting which didn't affect the ultimate point. RD attempted to blame the incoming Congress for the failing GDP but upon further investigation the decline began in Q2 of 2010.

2009
Q4 3.8
2010
Q1 3.9
Q2 3.8
Q3 2.5
Q4 2.3
2011
Q1 0.04
Q2 1.3
Q3 2.5

So ultimately the decline began before the 112th Republican House and DEMOCRAT SENATE was seated. Now lets see who else can admit error.
 
Your only error was the quarter reporting which didn't affect the ultimate point. RD attempted to blame the incoming Congress for the failing GDP but upon further investigation the decline began in Q2 of 2010.

2009
Q4 3.8
2010
Q1 3.9
Q2 3.8
Q3 2.5
Q4 2.3
2011
Q1 0.04
Q2 1.3
Q3 2.5

So ultimately the decline began before the 112th Republican House and DEMOCRAT SENATE was seated. Now lets see who else can admit error.

I don't know if you have ever heard of them, but they are called global recessions. Partisan bickering in Congress clearly didn't help the state of the economy either.
 
You would not understand it anyway. Have you ever seen the math behind statistics? Here is a picture of a typical equation in probability and statistics:

Bivariate Normal Distribution
View attachment 67118251

So, as you can, with stats, sometimes "showing the math" is a bit more difficult than usual.

*Edit to add: When discussion whether someone is mutually inclusive or exclusive, it would probably be better to just use logic.
So you agree that the Sheik is really just full of **** then, yes?
 
So you agree that the Sheik is really just full of **** then, yes?
Why don't you just wave a white flag and shout you don't understand what I'm saying?

Oh, wait ... Ya just did. :lamo
 
I don't know if you have ever heard of them, but they are called global recessions. Partisan bickering in Congress clearly didn't help the state of the economy either.

Don't know if you ever heard the term leadership but what you are seeing from this President isn't leadership and that is the problem. Obama blames everyone and everything else other than himself and people like you give him a pass. His resume showed he lacked leadership and executive skills but his rhetoric said he was up to the job. The results say differently.
 
I stand corrected and apologize for my mistake although it doesn't make sense that the GDP is reported on a calender quarter and the fiscal year of the U.S. runs from October to Sept but according to the BEA in an email I just received the data is listed in a calendar year quarter, Jan-Mar, April-June, July-Sept, Oct-Dec. My error and I apologize. when wrong I admit it.
never let it be said i don't give credit where credit is due, you get a 'like' for this one.
 
I don't know if you have ever heard of them, but they are called global recessions. Partisan bickering in Congress clearly didn't help the state of the economy either.

So we were involved in another recession? Wouldn't that have been a double dip (which economist currently state we avoided)? Did the partisan bickering you are referring to occur in 2010 or 2011? Since the decline in GDP began in early/mid 2010 I presume you mean 2010 thus disagreeing with RD's original point.

I though BHO said the economy was sluggish due to the tsunami...
 
I would be with the 60% that say the disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy. And I fully expect to vote for him in 2012.

This poll does not mean Obama will be defeated.
 
I would be with the 60% that say the disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy. And I fully expect to vote for him in 2012.

This poll does not mean Obama will be defeated.

Wow, what a surprise, you voting for Obama! LOL, There is no surprise there as results don't matter and any support for Obama shows the leftwing leanings that you have and your promotion of a massive central govt. that produces the nanny state. This country wasn't built on those principles and the economic conditions in this country TODAY show that.
 
Wow, what a surprise, you voting for Obama! LOL, There is no surprise there as results don't matter and any support for Obama shows the leftwing leanings that you have and your promotion of a massive central govt. that produces the nanny state. This country wasn't built on those principles and the economic conditions in this country TODAY show that.


And it kinda looks like you will be voting for Newt eh?:lamo
 
And it kinda looks like you will be voting for Newt eh?:lamo

If he is the nominee and I doubt he will be I will hold my nose and vote to fire our one term liberal disaster.
 
If he is the nominee and I doubt he will be I will hold my nose and vote to fire our one term liberal disaster.

Oh God!! I’d vote for a rock before I’d vote for that gargle.:( Talk about a weather vane.
 
If he is the nominee and I doubt he will be I will hold my nose and vote to fire our one term liberal disaster.

You seem to be more of a emotional thinker rather than a logical thinker.

"Never hate your enemies. It clouds your judgment." Michael Corleone
 
Oh God!! I’d vote for a rock before I’d vote for that gargle.:( Talk about a weather vane.

With regards to leadership skills and executive experience that is exactly what you did when you voted for Obama and the results speak for themselves.
 
You seem to be more of a emotional thinker rather than a logical thinker.

"Never hate your enemies. It clouds your judgment." Michael Corleone

A logical thinker would look at the Obama results and say to themselves if that is the best he can do with total overwhelming control of Congress then he had his chance and failed. People continue to buy the Obama rhetoric and ignore the Obama results. The logical thinker would say that personally Newt is dispicable but will wipe the floor with Obama in a debate unless Obama gets use of a teleprompter and although I would hate to think of him in the WH, this country cannot afford four more years of Obama. That is logic and common sense
 
With regards to leadership skills and executive experience that is exactly what you did when you voted for Obama and the results speak for themselves.

What leadership skills does Mitt "flip-flop" Romney have, Conservative? He has supported both sides on just about every political issue. And this is "your" guy, Conservative?
 
What leadership skills does Mitt "flip-flop" Romney have, Conservative? He has supported both sides on just about every political issue. And this is "your" guy, Conservative?
he will have an (R) next to his name, that is all that is needed for his support.
 
What leadership skills does Mitt "flip-flop" Romney have, Conservative? He has supported both sides on just about every political issue. And this is "your" guy, Conservative?

Romney balanced a blue state budget and has the business experience that "your" President can only dream about even today. "Your" President is a community agitator not a leader, Romney has proven to have leadership skills and as a Governor actually balanced a budget
 
Romney balanced a blue state budget and has the business experience that "your" President can only dream about even today. "Your" President is a community agitator not a leader, Romney has proven to have leadership skills and as a Governor actually balanced a budget
Romney as CEO of Bain Capital led as a greedy corporate corporate raider.

After a Romney Deal, Profits and Then Layoffs
 
Back
Top Bottom