HISTORY LESSON:
by Greg Wujec
REMEMBER THIS. I MEAN REALLY REMEMBER THIS:
This is just a history lesson. I am sending it to all regardless of party. It is history and nothing can change it.
The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actuallyJanuary 3rd 2007,the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Remember that day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barneyblocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall!)
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!
So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House.. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."
There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!
47 comments:
Spot on, Greg!
true facts are so annoying to the left-tards---
Thank you for them!
Carol-CS
Anyone who thinks anything is "Bush's fault" is even more of an idiot than Bush. He was not competent enough to do anything. He simply did as he was told. Anyone who thinks the economic problems we have today are directly the fault of the Dems taking the congress in 2007 is even more stupid. History does not occur in a vacuum. It is the result of series of events over time. For instance, you can be a simpleton and blame Barney Frank (one of the competent and decent representatives in our country's history) for the mortgage meltdown, or you can be a mature, intelligent adult and recall the repeal of Glass-Steagal, in 1998, or the bankruptcy law changes, in 2005, or our lack of national healthcare, a major cause of bankruptcy and foreclosure, and on and on and on.
So, you can be a simpleton, or you can think like a grown-up. Which would you prefer?
JMJ
Honestly, this post lacks a lot of what it seems to want to promote: truth. The truth is that the recession started long before Obama even arrived in Washington. It was helped along by bad decision making of politicians from BOTH parties.
Lynda, right!
Carol, I am sure it will not compute.
Jersey, just with you mentioning Barney Frank, pretty much, kills your argument. Frank was incompetent, and supported and believed Fannie May and Freddie Mac were fiscally stable, and would not require bail-outs. Right.
Janet, welcome. I found this article enlightening, and basically refutes the Democrats argument that it was all President Bush's fault.
Jersey said: "He simply did as he was told."
He did indeed do what the voters told him to do. Or he tried, anyway. Really can't ask for anything more.
"[Barney Frank is] (one of the competent and decent representatives in our country's history"
Decent? He let a crime ring be run out of his house. A criminal enterprise.
Competenant? In the legislature, he is responsible more than any other person for causing the economic meltdown.
"in 2005, or our lack of national healthcare"
This is a good thing. The government taking over healthcare and ruining it would have made things even worse.
Leticia; YOUR mentioning Bush as not responsible pretty much kills your argument.
Let's tell the truth here. The Dems never had a prefect majority, they compromised with the GOP when Bush was President and voted with them most of the time, the GOP has done nothing but filibuster after filibuster to stonewall the Dems since.
Bush started 2 wars not included in any budget, gave massive tax breaks, ordered banks to lend to those who couldn't afford homes (Barney Frank was acting on Bush's 'orders') and didn't bother to pay for Medicaid part D.
You do the math.
"The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actuallyJanuary 3rd 2007,the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress."
That is true but they didn't have their America hating president yet to make it even worse.
Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
liberal, sorry, wrong again. And for the record, President Bush did NOT start two wars, they were thrust upon us because radical Islamist's killed thousands of innocent people, on 9/11. Think about that.
We had a president who wasn't afraid to stand up to terrorists and didn't care for popularity contests.
Liberaldude said: "Let's tell the truth here."
We are. But you are not joining in.
"The Dems never had a prefect majority"
Let's check this. The definition of "perfect majority" is only found when referring to the age of majority for a person no longer being a minor. I think you whiffed this one. So lets look at a real word: majority.
"The greater number: "in the majority of cases"; "a majority decision"."
That's the definition. The Democrats had a majority in both houses of Congress. There, one of your points completely debunked.
"they compromised with the GOP when Bush was President and voted with them most of the time"
But note they voted against the big bailout. The Republicans voted against it, but the Dems supported it.
"the GOP has done nothing but filibuster after filibuster to stonewall the Dems since."
Which has nothing to do with anything. The Democrats always had enough votes to pass anything. Always enough. Anything. But they could not. Know why? Democrats. Yes, the Democrats did not fall in line.
"Bush started 2 wars not included in any budget"
Incorrect in both counts. The Iraq war was underway long before Bush won election. Saddam Hussein was firing at our air patrols and Clinton was bombing his WMD facilities. Remember? And the Taliban and Al Qeada started the Afghanistan war. And both of these were part of the budget. Accounted for.
"gave massive tax breaks"
The Bush tax breaks, mostly for the middle class, lifted the economy and prevented a post 9/11 recession. Good for him!
"ordered banks to lend to those who couldn't afford homes"
No. As detailed earlier. Bush tried to stop this policy.
"You do the math."
I did. You came up with a big zero.
LibDood: You mean, The Democrats voted for two wars. Bush didn't do it unilaterally.
And making banks give money to people who couldn't pay it back had nothing to do with the mortgage meltdown, right?
Once the government started covering all loans, responsible lending went the way of the dodo. Once again, government enters a market and destroys it...
Silver is correct. Both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, Democrats, and #2 and #3 in the Obama admin, DID vote to fight back against the terrorists in both theatres of combat.
great article Leticia. There is just no changing the minds of the Hope and Change crowd sometimes.
Schooled again libpuke!
"one of the competent and decent representatives in our country's history.."
Arrrrrrrggggg....you owe me a new keyboard. I just spewed beer all over it when you spoke that...decent? Whores in his basement? Him and Spitzer and Weiner ought to form a club. Try again.
"radical Islamist's killed thousands of innocent people, on 9/11...
As I see it ...in the dudes case...they missed one. Yea...I'll live to regret it...yea...just like the rabid islamists do. Dude thinks he's immune from a little bit of decapitation? Cause he's....a swami in their camp?
Defcon 1...was what should have happened...dude.
dmarks said...
KABOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM..... went the libtard....spreading out over 10 miles of putrid debris..
GEEEEZZZZZ.....dmarks.....I almost...not really...feel sorry for the little puke. Complete and utter destruction of the vapid, silly, nasty POS.
Silver Star for you bud.
" Hope and Change crowd sometimes."
Now renamed...The Rope a Dope crowd.
Thanks Ali...you should be proud that the morons act like they were hit more in the head than you were.
Anon, maybe I should have used a disclaimer, "warning, put drink down before reading." Ooops!! I have to thank you for your colorful comments and even though there is humor there is a lot of truth. Spot-on.
what horror they have wrought Letic..UGH! HAPPY NEW YEAR my friend:)
Ummmm...thanks Leticia...didn't mean to be rude...well...not to you anyway.
Rude like an Alan Colmes is understandable to the leftist cruds though.
Clubbing them like protected Peta baby seals is all they get.
Nice Blog...Thanks for tolerating me and my drive bys.
dmarks, just once I would love to read you write something that was true.
Leticia, I've been a C-Span junkie since I was like 12 years old, I've seen Barney Frank in action on the floor of the House hundreds of times. The man is a brilliant legislator. Apparently none of you newbies are familiar with his long and historic reputation as a successful bipartisan negotiator, crafting sound and smart legislation and getting it passed.
Yes, back in the mid-2000's there was some talk of risky loans backed by F&F, Frank and the then Republican chair crafted legislation that might have at least mitigated the already collapsing mortgage market, but the then republican senate killed it.
The bill went back the next year, but it was already too late. '6 was the boom year that made the collapse inevitable. F&F, under congressional scrutiny - thanks to Frank and Oxley - only backed 6% of those bad sub-prime loans that year. The next year the market collapsed.
Why you guys demonize Frank for that is beyond me. I guess Frank is just your latest bogeyman.
You guys also forget Frank was always a critic of the fed, in line with many conservatives and libertarians like yourselves. He was advocating more renting over buying decades ago. He was always in line with the economic realists of all partisan stripes.
Now you've reduced this historically important legislator to some silly cartoon scapegoat.
Know your subject before you form opinions on it.
JMJ
Jersey, first of all, kudos for braving C-Span, I am impressed. I watched a few minutes of it and fell asleep. I am serious, btw. LOL!
I appreciate what you are trying to say, and I respect your opinion about Barney Frank. I only know of what he has done from that last few years, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I am not fan, so, I wasn't going to research his life's history.
Jersey, these morons aren't interested in the truth or critical thinking. They want the latest, racist talking points but Fox News and the GOP who are out to screw the sheeple.
Let's tell the truth here. The Dems never had a prefect majority, they compromised with the GOP when Bush was President and voted with them most of the time, the GOP has done nothing but filibuster after filibuster to stonewall the Dems since.
Bush started 2 wars not included in any budget, gave massive tax breaks, ordered banks to lend to those who couldn't afford homes (Barney Frank was acting on Bush's 'orders') and didn't bother to pay for Medicaid part D.
You do the math.
Debbie said:"...they didn't have their America hating president yet to make it even worse."
Lol, spoken by a true pea brained asswipe!
Jersey said:
"dmarks, just once I would love to read you write something that was true."
OK, a challenge. Tell me what I said that was not true.
Liberal said: "Jersey, these morons aren't interested in the truth or critical thinking. They want the latest, racist talking points but Fox News and the GOP who are out to screw the sheeple.
"The Dems never had a prefect majority"
I can't find prefect majority in any dictionary or anything. So it looks to be a term you made up. The truth is the Dems had an actual complete majority in Congress.
"Bush started 2 wars not included in any budget"
Actually, both wars were started by others, and they were paid for.
"gave massive tax breaks"
True. Bush did 'give' massive tax breaks. Mostly to the middle class. And good for him: this resulted in more tax revenues.
"ordered banks to lend to those who couldn't afford homes (Barney Frank was acting on Bush's 'orders')"
Entirely untrue. Bush tried to stop this program.
When one uses good language and clever prose any point can be pushed. Though there is value in the comments, it all comes down to how far we look back to, context and of course what we as individuals think is important or not.
I read an interesting item by Paul Rosenberg of Random Lengths News whom will put a differnt but similarly well written item about who is to blame for what. I have put a piece from it below. He is obviously strongly left but also critical of Obama and in this case considers him from one perspective to be the "better Conservative".
"Deep down, there is nothing new about this conservative policy failure. Conservative ideas have been failing from the earliest days of the "Reagan Revolution" over 30 years ago. The idea that massive tax cuts would pay for themselves was clearly fallacious, and in Reagan's first year it drove his budget director, David Stockman, nuts trying to cope with the Grand Canyon-sized gap between rhetoric and reality. Things only got worse from there. From the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to a whole slew of economic indicators about the national economy, the American economy as a whole turned south when Reagan took office, except for the top 1 per cent, and it has never recovered since, except for a brief respite for average wages, the debt-to-GDP ratio and a few other indicators under Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
In June 2010, Dave Johnson, who blogs for the Campaign for America's Future, posted a series of charts illustrating this. They covered net international investment, labour's share of non-farm business, wealth concentration, personal savings rate, household debt as percent of GDP, and nominal GDP growth. In February 2011, Terrance Heath - also of CAF - combined Johnson's charts with those from a number of other sources, (including this post by me) to make an even more comprehensive case for the disastrous effects of conservative economic policy over the past 30 years. "
The full item can be easily read on http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/2012138141718516.html but beware, it is very long.
"The idea that massive tax cuts would pay for themselves was clearly fallacious"
That is one huge whopper. Overall tax revenues soared as a direct result of Reagan's tax cuts.
Liberal, right. Bush started two wars? Really? How pray tell did he manage that? From what I recall, 9/11 was thrust upon us. If anything you are incapable of handling or speaking the truth, but are quite affluent in lashing out name-calling like a kindergartner. Sure, I will take you seriously.
Charles, the facts speak for themselves. Reagan was not perfect and made mistakes but nothing compares to the disastrous work of Obama.
Gawd what a bunch of BS.
Name just ONE bill the Dems passed from Jan 2007 to Jan 2008 that changed Dubya's policy's? Just one?
Barney Frank?
The apologetic free market puppets simply can’t accept the facts that the private sector screwed up. It does not follow their belief system
What bill from 1995-2007 did the Repug pass in the House where it takes a simple majority to pass, was on Freddie/Fannie reforms?
Oh ONLY HR1461 in 2005? The one Dubya opposed? The one McSame "signed onto" 10 months after it died in the Senate committee thanks to Dubya's veto threat?
Yeah, he was concerned about it alright, lol
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets DEC 2008
Prior to 2005,
GSE were not permitted to purchase nonconforming loans (aka Alt-A and Subprime). F&F was losing significant market share to big banks, and petitioned for permission to buy the junk. OFHEO granted it to them in late 2005. By the time F&F began buying subprime in large quantities, the boom was already busting.
Fannie/Freddie Market Share Plummeted During Boom
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/02/fannie-freddie-market-share/
GSEs had provided liquidity and standards to the mortgage market for 65 years. Why in 2005 did it suddenly blow up? What had changed?
Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html
White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html
The Reckoning
Agency’s ’04 Rule CHANGE Let Banks Pile Up New Debt
From 12-1 to 33 to 1. In other words, for every dollar in equity, it had $33 of debt.
FBI saw threat of loan crisis
A top official warned of widening mortgage fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere.
They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more
It has the potential to be an epidemic," ... "We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,"
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/25/business/fi-mortgagefraud25
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
REAL CAUSES OF FIN CRISIS:
Free market absolutism becomes the dominant intellectual thought.
- Deregulation of markets, investment houses, and banks becomes a broad goal: This led to Glass Steagall repeal, unfettering of Derivatives, Investing house leverage exemptions, and a new breed of unregulated non bank lenders.
-Legislative actions reduce or eliminate much of the regulatory oversight; SEC funding is weakened.
-Rates come down to absurd levels.
-Bond managers madly scramble for yield.
- Derivatives, non-bank lending, leverage, bank size, compensation levels all run away from prior levels.
-Wall Street securitizes whatever it can to satisfy the demand for higher yields.
-”Lend to securitize” nonbank mortgage writers sell enormous amounts of subprime loans to Wall Street for this purpose.
-To meet this huge demand, non bank lenders collapse lending standards (banks eventually follow), leading to a credit bubble.
-The Fed approves of this “innovation,” ignores risks.
-Housing booms ... then busts
-Credit freezes, the markets collapse, a new recession begins.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/05/rewriting-the-causes-of-the-credit-crisis/
Barney Frank had ZERO pull in the House, like today, from 1995-2007, 2007 is when the Dems passed a F/F (GSE) reform bill!
YOU ARE REWRITING HISTORY THAT THE REPUGS ACTUALLY WANTED "REGULATIONS/REGULATORS" AND FORGET DUBYA HAD HIS ON THE FLOOR OF WALL STREET WITH CHAINSAWS CUTTING THEM UP!
Bush White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie’s purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.
That year, President Bush’s HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C. Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged behind even the private market and “must do more.”
dmarks
Why did Ronnie need to raise taxes 11 times, including the largest biz tax increase ever? And doubled SS taxes?
The Myths of Reaganomics
Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School. He was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher.
The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined
http://mises.org/daily/1544
AND NO TAX REVENUES DIDN'T "SOAR" because of tax cuts, but squeaked up adjusting for inflation and population growth (more in the workforce!)
Leticia
"liberal, sorry, wrong again. And for the record, President Bush did NOT start two wars, they were thrust upon us because radical Islamist's killed thousands of innocent people, on 9/11. Think about that."
So how many were from Iraq? How many from Saudi? Why Iraq?
Why did he be the first leader of a Nation to EVER cut taxes during a war? Why didn't he want to pay for it if it was really to get the "extremists"?
The US has killed 100,000+ AND displaced 4,000,000 thanks to Dubya's excursion, planned BEFORE 9/11, read up on it sometime or keep your head buried in the sand!
dmarks s
WOW you LOVE to rewrite history, lol
We were "at war" with Iraq before Dubya? lol
A MAJORITY in the Senate requires SIXTY, the Dems NEVER had it, therefore no control!
Bailout to save US AFTER 12 YEARS OF REPUGS in CONGRESS AND 8 WITH DUBYA!
AND YOU'RE LYING ABOUT THE DEMS PASSING ANYTHING (only in the House liar!), 60 votes IS REQUIRED to stop a filibuster or threat of one...
Tax breaks Dubya gave did what? Oh cost US $2.8 TRILLION REVENUES!
So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.
That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession.
Average incomes fell. Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts.
Had incomes stayed at 2000 levels, the average taxpayer would have earned almost $21,000 more over those eight years. That's almost $50 per week.
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9
AND DUBYA DIDN'T TRY TO STOP ANYTHING WITH THE BANKS, REGARDLESS OF THE BIG ZOMBIE LIES!
Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851#axzz1UC9nQZvH
THAT'S THE SAME BILL JOHN MCSAME "SIGNED ONTO" 10 MONTHS AFTER IT DIED IN COMMITTEE!
Funny, IF Dubya and company REALLY wanted to reform or regulate them they could have right? But of course the Dems blocked them right?
WHEN YOU PUT THOSE IN CHARGE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOVERNMENT, THEY WORK TO DESTROY IT FROM WITHIN.
"dmarks said...
Jersey said:
"dmarks, just once I would love to read you write something that was true."
OK, a challenge. Tell me what I said that was not true."
OK HOW ABOUT THIS:
"[Barney Frank is] (one of the competent and decent representatives in our country's history"
Competenant? In the legislature, he is responsible more than any other person for causing the economic meltdown."
Barney Frank ? They were the minority party from 1995-2007? What power COULD Barney have in the House in that time? HE WAS THE MINORITY LIKE TODAY, CAN HE STOP ANYTHING BONER WANTS TO PUSH THROUGH? ANYTHING?
Beyond that, only ONE BILL came out of the House from 1995-2007 on GSE's reform (F/F). It was HR 1461/S 109 in 2005. It was OPPOSED BY GEO DUBYA:
Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851#axzz1UC9nQZvH
But nice you're still pushing the meme on Barney, lol
JonC: Try again. Be factual this time. I could tell you were making stuff on the spot when you referred to "Boner" and "Geo Dubya", people who never existed,,,except perhaps in the minds of the same kind of people who call Clinton "Klinton" and Obama "Obammy". No intelligent person does so.
t least you referred to "Barney Frank", someone who is an actual person.
As for me "pushing the meme" on Barney, do you want the links to the "smoking gun" quotes where he refers to everything being fine?
Check this interesting and well-reasoned article, which does not lie and protect Frank.
It also places some of the blame for the problem on racism. The blatant left-wing racism often called "affirmative action", and the creation of the CRI out of the belief that people deserve to be homeowners based on skin color, rather than real qualifications.
Barney Frank in fact resisted reforms, and insisted that we keep the bad policy of having government agencies force banks to make loans to undeserving people.
No memes from me. Just facts.
Including this one:
"For most of his career, Barney Frank was the principal advocate in Congress for using the government's authority to force lower underwriting standards in the business of housing finance."
Yes, the economic meltdown was not caused by government taking a hands off attitude toward the free market. It was caused by over-regulation; the imposition of bad regulations which forced banks to behave in very risky ways.
When it comes to Frank and his efforts to cause the massive financial meltdown of 2008, there's not only a smoking gun or two. There's an armory of them.
JonC: said: "WOW you LOVE to rewrite history"
I just presented what had actually happened.
"We were at war with Iraq before Dubya? lol"
There was no Dubya. Can you at least stop making yourself like a boob and not use 1st grade elementary school playground names?
We were in fact at war with Iraq prior to the election of George W. Bush. The cease fire at the end of the Gulf War had many requirements. Saddam Hussein, mostly during the Clinton Administration, had broken many of them. One of the most serious violations included Saddam Hussein ordering attacks on Americans. An act of war, and a significant violation of the cease fire. And that was just one.
This and other violations and aggressions caused Clinton to bomb Saddam Hussein's WMD facilities. It surely wasn't peace. Aggression from Saddam Hussein, and the necessary military reaction from the US. Under Clinton as under Bush.
It's too bad I had to explain this to you. Apparently you have no knowledge of history in regards to IRaq.
"A MAJORITY in the Senate requires SIXTY, the Dems NEVER had it, therefore no control!"
You are lying. Not only are you making up a brand new definition of "majority" which contradicts any dictionary. You also have no idea about anything with Senate votes
"Bailout to save US AFTER 12 YEARS OF REPUGS in CONGRESS AND 8 WITH DUBYA!"
This wasn't even a sentence, and the presense of nonsense names renders it into an almost sub human babble. Care to try again, and use at least some sort of middle-school composition essay standards? You are unreadable.
"That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession."
You are using this in an argument for repealing the Bush tax cuts and thus raising taxes on the middle class. As part of a very dubious claim that we are in the Great Recession because the middle class is not paying enough in taxes.
"AND DUBYA DIDN'T TRY TO STOP ANYTHING WITH THE BANKS, REGARDLESS OF THE BIG ZOMBIE LIES!"
You are babbling again. And all-caps flames are a sign of boobery, and that you have lost it. Surprised you didn't refer to vampires somewhere in the comments.
"H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect...."
You are lying about this and other laws. It had plenty of necessary key elements.
"WHEN YOU PUT THOSE IN CHARGE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOVERNMENT, THEY WORK TO DESTROY IT FROM WITHIN."
Our Founding Fathers did not believe in government as much as they believed in the rights of the people. That is why I prefer to vote for those who side with the people, and not the ruling elites. Sorry, sane government that does the right thing is not "destroying it from within".
dmarks
ONE MORE TIME:
What power did Barney have in the House from 1995-2007 again? What reforms did he stop? HOW?
You have out of context quotes, most of which were true at the time he said them, don't let FACTS stop you though!
HOW can he "resist reforms" when the Repugs didn't REALLY want any?
He along Oxley the Repug actually tried for YEARS to reform F/F BUT the Repugs resisted!
Jeff Jacoby is a hack, and you're going back to an article that has been debunked, BY MANY!
Frank, worked with committee chairman Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have established the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to replace the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) as overseer of the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
DUBYA OPPOSED IT!
Racism? CRA? LOL
DON'T LET FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF YOUR LIES!
Prior to 2005,
GSE were not permitted to purchase nonconforming loans (aka Alt-A and Subprime). F&F was losing significant market share to big banks, and petitioned for permission to buy the junk. OFHEO granted it to them in late 2005. By the time F&F began buying subprime in large quantities, the boom was already busting.
Fannie/Freddie Market Share Plummeted During Boom
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/02/fannie-freddie-market-share/
GSEs as private companies bought junk because like the rest of Wall Street they were chasing profits — not as Mayor Bloomberg claims, they were ordered to.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/06/fannie-freddie-chasing-profits-market-share/
Deregulation and Private Sector Banks not Fannie and Freddie caused the Housing Bubble:
During those same explosive three years [2004-2006], private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
The CRA Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: "The CRA Was Not A Significant Factor In Subprime Lending Or The Crisis." In its final report, submitted in January 2011, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf
Federal Reserve: "We Find Little Evidence That Either the CRA Or The GSE [Government-Sponsored Enterprise] goals played a significant role in the subprime crisis."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2011/201136/201136pap.pdf
Bernanke: The CRA Was Not "At The Root Of, Or Otherwise Contributed In Any Substantive Way To, The Current Mortgage Difficulties."
Most Subprime Mortgages Not Issued By Institutions Under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005, "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible."
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/cra/community_reinvestment_emerging_from_housing_crisis.pdf#page=3
SF Reserve Bank's Yellen: "[S]tudies Have Shown That The CRA Has Increased The Volume Of Responsible Lending To Low- And Moderate-Income Households."
Conservative think tanks spend days crafting thousands of essays blaming Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Fannie and Freddie who forced Banks and Private Lending Firms to loan to those shiftless lazy Poor Deadbeats. Not Deadbeats like Joe Walsh mind you, but *cough* minorities *cough* deadbeats...
http://disaffectedanditfeelssogood.blogspot.com/2011/11/joe-walsh-blames-his-passion-for-being.html
Almost 83% of the subprime loans to low-income and moderate-income borrowers were made by UNREGULATED private lenders.
The apologetic free market puppets simply can’t accept the facts that the private sector screwed up. It does not follow their belief system.
House Flippers Caused the Housing Crisis
A recent report from the Feds states that aggressive real estate investors investors played a major role in today’s housing crisis which has led to record amounts of foreclosure across the country, especially in hard-hit states like California, Florida, Nevada, and Arizona. In these states the average home price nearly doubled in just six years from 2000 to 2006.
http://www.loansafe.org/house-flippers-caused-the-housing-crisis-says-feds
Konczal: “The CRA wasn’t nearly big enough to cause these problems.”
It wasn’t just about size (although most everything else seems to be):
Former FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair on CRA
“I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty,”
And “Let me ask you,” she proceeded. “Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? Nowhere.” The facts are simple, Bair said. The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices.
BUT HERE IS BARNEY FRANK:
Here is one of the "Republican Housing incentive programs"
American Family Funds (AFF) administers The Dove Foundation, a non-profit charity offering down payment and/or closing cost assistance to qualified American home buyers. The program features:
A simple application completed by your loan officer.
No credit check.
No income requirements.
No limit on the amount of down payment assistance and/or closing costs.
Made possible by the 2003 Bush inspired Legislation:
S. 811: American Dream Downpayment Act
Sen. Wayne Allard [R-CO]
Cosponsors:
Samuel Brownback [R-KS]
Conrad Burns [R-MT]
Ben Campbell [R-CO]
Michael Crapo [R-ID]
Michael Enzi [R-WY]
Charles Hagel [R-NE]
Lisa Murkowski [R-AK]
Richard Santorum [R-PA]
Jefferson Sessions [R-AL]
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-811
OOPS.
We weren't at war with Iraq UNTIL Dubya went to Congress remember? The same Congress who he went to while we were at war (and going to another) to cut taxes for the rich?
How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich
The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109
Jon Wrote:
"H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect...."
Dummy wrote:
"You are lying about this and other laws. It had plenty of necessary key elements."
Funny, THAT WAS DUBYA'S REJECTION OF HR1461, IN 2005, THE ONLY BILL TO COME OUT OF THE HOUSE (WITH SUPER BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, LOL), ON FREDDIE/FANNIE REFORMS!
Don't worry in 2007 after Barney Frank got in the majority, he finally pushed one through that Dubya FINALLY signed on F/F reforms, lol
Our Founders LOVED federal gov actually, they got rid of the Articles of Confederation, read about it sometime!
I'm out of this"christian" right wing, Faux Noise talking points "forum" that uses neither critical thinking NOR honesty, while "being Christians" lol
Deregulation and Private Sector Banks not Fannie and Freddie caused the Housing Bubble:
During those same explosive three years [2004-2006], private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
Conservative think tanks spend days crafting thousands of essays blaming Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Fannie and Freddie who forced Banks and Private Lending Firms to loan to those shiftless lazy Poor Deadbeats. Not Deadbeats like Joe Walsh mind you, but *cough* minorities *cough* deadbeats...
http://disaffectedanditfeelssogood.blogspot.com/2011/11/joe-walsh-blames-his-passion-for-being.html
Almost 83% of the subprime loans to low-income and moderate-income borrowers were made by UNREGULATED private lenders.
Some pesky details worth considering:
-The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non bank lenders not covered by the CRA;
-The majority of the underwriting, at least for the first few years of the boom (2001-05), were by these same non-bank lenders
-When the big banks began chasing subprime, it was due to the profit motive, not any mandate from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw.
-Prior to late 2005, nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street — NOT Fannie & Freddie. Why? Because prior to 2005, the GSEs were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages.
-After 2005, Fannie & Freddie changed their own rules to start buying these non-conforming mortgages — in order to maintain market share and compete with Wall Street for profits.
JonC said: "I should add that when one uses the word "cult" it usually means they are one of them.."
"HOW can he "resist reforms" when the Repugs didn't REALLY want any?"
What's a Repug?
What is Faux Noise? I don't know about talking points. I avoid them. I guess you use them. You also insist on referring to "right wing" etc. Stuck in a partisan divide. I stick to the facts instead.
And my quotations about Barney Frank were fully in context. Yes, they were true at the time, of course, because at the time, these events being discussed were taking place.
Your last paragraph, by the way, was rather damning. You mention two government agencies "competing with Wall Street for profits". These government agencies should not even exist, let alone seek "profits". No wonder the wheels came off the mortgage system.
Actually, I realized after replying to you that your paragraphs are plagiarized. Lifted without attribution, presented as if they were your own arguments. The last one in particular was some mindless cut-and-paste from some comments from a nutty partisan blog. I guess you don't have the strength to make stuff up on your own: you let others do it for you.
Dmarks, I thank you for responding to JonC, because I honestly believe he has no idea what he is trying to say.
JonC, It's okay to use other websites to make your point, but you also need to have your own opinion, it's okay to think for yourself and to also be mistaken.
Leticia said: "Dmarks, I thank you for responding to JonC, because I honestly believe he has no idea what he is trying to say."
It's true. Entire swaths of his dubious comments are lifted from blogs like Daily Kos, and are never attributed. I'd call him an unoriginal thinker, if not for the fact that the comments are dubious uncritical and don't really represent thinking. If anything here is "talking points", it is his bullet lists.
Leticia, to see what I am talking about, just put this phrase in Google, with the quotes around it
"The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non bank lenders not covered by the CRA;"
See all the other places where it occurs.
On the slim chance it is JonC actually posting these statements in all these blogs, then he is doing something else that many consider to be a bannable offense: spamming the blogs.
He's similar to LiberalDude, who has been caught presenting his opinion in comments that turned out to word for word editorials from somewhere else (also unattributed).
dmarks, a true difference between us and those that follow like sheep, and whom are incapable of articulating their own thoughts. Sad.
Sorry I responded to this so late. I am perusing my blog.
dmarks, a true difference between us and those that follow like sheep, and whom are incapable of articulating their own thoughts. Sad.
Sorry I responded to this so late. I am perusing my blog.
Post a Comment