How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

is it true you touted Obama's "brilliant" handling of slick willie blythe's financial ticking time bomb?

Employees of General Motors should be thankful that Obama

1. Forced out the prior CEO
2. Forced GM to STOP making Hummers & Saturans (funny looking Cars that no one in America would buy).
3. Assembly line workers making $25 - $30 per hour could stay on the job and not go on unemployment to lean a new skill most of them would never be able to learn like JAVA programming.

Obama cleaned up the mess that Bush and Dick Cheney left behind. Bush43 did Not clean up his own Mess.

All you have to do is read the timeline in the wicki link provided by Captain Midnight. It's all there.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Employees of General Motors should be thankful that Obama

1. Forced out the prior CEO
2. Forced GM to STOP making Hummers & Saturans (funny looking Cars that no one in America would buy).
3. Assembly line workers making $25 - $30 per hour could stay on the job and not go on unemployment to lean a new skill most of them would never be able to learn like JAVA programming.

Obama cleaned up the mess that Bush and Dick Cheney left behind. Bush43 did Not clean up his own Mess.

All you have to do is read the timeline in the wicki link provided by Captain Midnight. It's all there.

slick willie blythe lit the fuse.



i told you that. the facts are .. undeniable .. unless you are .. in DA NILE

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

you mean the mess slick willie blythe lit the fuse on. like many other things young padawan .. you seem lacking on facts.


under who's watch did HUD mandate more minority lending? slick willie blythe. that fuse took about 10 years to blow up in the Government's face. the bailout ... was really the Government bailing themselves out over their "woke" lending policy at HUD.


"HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing."


How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...060902626.html


By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 10, 2008


In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.


Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more "affordable" loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.


Housing experts and some congressional leaders now view those decisions as mistakes that contributed to an escalation of subprime lending that is roiling the U.S. economy.


The agency neglected to examine whether borrowers could make the payments on the loans that Freddie and Fannie classified as affordable. From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans.


Today, 3 million to 4 million families are expected to lose their homes to foreclosure because they cannot afford their high-interest subprime loans. Lower-income and minority home buyers -- those who were supposed to benefit from HUD's actions -- are falling into default at a rate at least three times that of other borrowers.


"For HUD to be indifferent as to whether these loans were hurting people or helping them is really an abject failure to regulate," said Michael Barr, a University of Michigan law professor who is advising Congress. "It was just irresponsible."


Congress is expected to vote before its Fourth of July recess on legislation that would strip HUD of its regulatory authority over Fannie and Freddie and give it to a stronger regulator.


Fannie and Freddie finance about 40 percent of all U.S. mortgages, with $5.3 trillion in outstanding debt. Owned by private shareholders but chartered by Congress, they are exempt from state and local taxes and receive an estimated $6.5 billion-a-year federal subsidy because they can borrow money more cheaply than other investors. In return, they are expected to serve "public purposes," including helping to make home buying more affordable.


HUD officials dispute allegations that the agency encouraged abusive lending and sloppy underwriting standards that became the hallmark of the subprime industry. Spokesman Brian Sullivan said the agency and Congress wanted to increase homeownership among underserved families and could not have predicted that subprime lending would dominate the market so quickly.


"Congress and HUD policy folks were trying to do a good thing," he said, "and it worked."


Since HUD became their regulator in 1992, Fannie and Freddie each year are supposed to buy a portion of "affordable" mortgages made to underserved borrowers. Every four years, HUD reviews the goals to adapt to market changes.


In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders.


Banks typically back prime loans with customers' deposits. But subprime lenders often rely on money from Wall Street investors , who buy packages of loans as investments called mortgage-backed securities.


In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications.


HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.


That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans; Fannie did not disclose its number.


In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime loans.


"Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern," an agency report said.


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."


For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still, their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.


"That was a huge, huge mistake," said Patricia McCoy, who teaches securities law at the University of Connecticut. "That just pumped more capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a disaster."


In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more heavily on the securities to meet goals.


"The market knew we needed those loans," said Sharon McHale, a spokeswoman for Freddie Mac. The higher goals "forced us to go into that market to serve the targeted populations that HUD wanted us to serve," she said.

[Salty Again]

... Crikey! ... Looks like the truth is right there.

### Salty

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

slick willie blythe lit the fuse.



i told you that. the facts are .. undeniable .. unless you are .. in DA NILE

The wall street meltdown was not caused soly by Clinton signing the Gram Rudd act. It played a small part in an indirect way. The wall street meltdown was caused by two things:

1. Republicans did not want have a Dodd Frank type of bill on the books at the time.

2. Due to lack of regulations the Banks and others participated in an elaborate SCAM to make money. They were not trying to make money the old fashioned way and earn it. They tried to make money by cheating. It all backfired when the billons of dollars of risky credit default swap bets went sideways. The banks teamed up with rating houses Moody's and Standard and Poor to run a scam. Several financial institutions payed Billions of dollars in fines. No one went to Jail (although they easily could have).

3. Obama cleaned most of this up not Bush43. Got to run now don't have time to post all the links. Just Google Moody's.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

The wall street meltdown was not caused soly by Clinton signing the Gram Rudd act. It played a small part in an indirect way. The wall street meltdown was caused by two things:

1. Republicans did not want have a Dodd Frank type of bill on the books at the time.

2. Due to lack of regulations the Banks and others participated in an elaborate SCAM to make money. They were not trying to make money the old fashioned way and earn it. They tried to make money by cheating. It all backfired when the billons of dollars of risky credit default swap bets went sideways. The banks teamed up with rating houses Moody's and Standard and Poor to run a scam. Several financial institutions payed Billions of dollars in fines. No one went to Jail (although they easily could have).

3. Obama cleaned most of this up not Bush43. Got to run now don't have time to post all the links. Just Google Moody's.

what? you ain't got Veteran's day off? i got till 9 am Friday to post.


who helped reduce those reg's? slick willie blythe who signed off on repealing Glass-Steagall (which really only had a minor role) .. it was HUD's decision to lend to assholes who really couldn't afford a house that caused the mess. under slick willie blythe's watch. prove me wrong.


what did Obama accomplish? Solyndra


BAHHSHAAAAAAAAA

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

This isn't about me or my "economic prowess" ."

You economic prowess?



.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

slick willie blythe lit the fuse.



i told you that. the facts are .. undeniable .. unless you are .. in DA NILE

Just because you say something, does not make it true.

https://www.thebalance.com/what-caus...crisis-3305696

Another myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act created the crisis. That's because it pushed banks to lend more to poor neighborhoods. That was its mandate when it was created in 1977.9

In 1989, Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) strengthened the CRA by publicizing banks' lending records. It prohibited them from expanding if they didn't comply with CRA standards. In 1995, President Clinton called on regulators to strengthen the CRA even more.10

But, the law did not require banks to make subprime loans. It didn't ask them to lower their lending standards. They did that to create additional profitable derivatives

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what? you ain't got Veteran's day off? i got till 9 am Friday to post.


who helped reduce those reg's? slick willie blythe who signed off on repealing Glass-Steagall (which really only had a minor role) .. it was HUD's decision to lend to assholes who really couldn't afford a house that caused the mess. under slick willie blythe's watch. prove me wrong.


what did Obama accomplish?


BAHHSHAAAAAAAAA

Last three years of Obama economy just as good as Trumps first three.

https://money.com/trump-vs-obama-economy/

[WTF]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Last three years of Obama economy just as good as Trumps first three.

https://money.com/trump-vs-obama-economy/

Lustylad will try and go back further on Obama to try and skew the numbers in his Lord and Saviour,DJT's favor.

But yes....I've explained to Tiny and Lustylad that Trumps economy was nothing more than an extension of Obama's plus a tax cut that exploded the deficit before Covid really exploded it.

[rexdutchman]

The economy is falling part faster then a Saturan car ,, Gas up 49.9 % AP today Hmm Go job Brandon
cancel more pipelines drilling.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

Lustylad will try and go back further on Obama to try and skew the numbers in his Lord and Saviour,DJT's favor.

But yes....I've explained to Tiny and Lustylad that Trumps economy was nothing more than an extension of Obama's plus a tax cut that exploded the deficit before Covid really exploded it.

What can I say that I haven't already said, here and elsewhere,

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1062642555

If you could predict the future based on the past with simple trend lines we'd all be billionaires. In 2019 the unemployment rate went to the lowest level since the late 1960's and real median household income jumped demonstrably above the levels in the Clinton administration for the first time. I believe the tax cuts, which were implemented a year earlier on January 1, 2018, and deregulation had something to do with that. True, they weren't totally responsible, but they played a part.

As to the national debt, it's risen from $20.2 trillion at the end of 2017, when the tax cuts took effect, to $28.4 trillion now. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was projected by the CBO to result in $1.9 trillion lower federal revenues over 10 years. Lusty Lad, or maybe a WSJ article he posted, showed that government revenues are way up from where they were, so maybe the true number will be lower. But anyway if you assume the CBO was reasonably accurate, to date, less than 4 years after the tax cuts, I doubt you could attribute much over $1 trillion in revenue loss to the tax cuts, if that much. But the national debt has gone up by $8 trillion. Most of that was authorized by spending bills that were initiated in a House controlled by Democrats.

And look what's happening this year. We were out of the woods with COVID, and had already overstimulated the economy with COVID relief. But this year Democrats look to pass about $4.8 trillion in additional spending out of the blue, with the American Rescue Plan, the infrastructure bill, and the Build Back Better bill. And it would be more like $6.5 trillion if not Sinema, Manchin, and a few moderate House Democrats.

And if these tax cuts were so evil, why aren't the Democrats, who now control the presidency, the House and the Senate, repealing them? Why did Obama want to lower the corporate income tax rate from the ridiculous level it was at prior to the TCJA? (The reason he didn't do it: Because it wasn't politically expedient, as the Democratic politicians love to fire up the base by demonizing the corporations and the wealthy that purportedly don't pay their fair share.) Why did Biden only want to raise it back to 28%?

And the idea that the tax cuts "cost" us money is bull shit. I'm no economist but I'm sure any one of them worth his salt will tell you there's a correlation between lower taxes and higher GDP growth. Tax cuts leave more money in the private sector, to be invested in ways that will grow the economy, and more money in the pockets of the people, to spend as they wish.

I don't know about you, but all the Federal Government does for me is fuck me over. It's like a mafia that not only makes you pay up without providing anything in return, but also makes you spend huge chunks of your time on paperwork. I am very thankful for my city and state governments, which are efficient and provide things I need. Not so with the Feds.

[WTF]

There is a bunch of bs in your assumptions there Tiny.

The House may have been in Dem control but a Republican President signed off along with a shitload of Republican congressional in the passage of the bill.

So that is one bs point.

The party line vote is proposed...meaning it hasn't taken place and is at present not responsible for a dime of the deficit.

I'm not accusing you of being an economist nor am I but I will tell you something I learnt long ago....from Art Laffer. The optimum tax rate is fluid. Both a too high or too low tax rate can be a negative to the economy. Remember that a tax rate that is too low can not fund roads, military, courts and basic services. That is not a good thing. Rates too high have the same negative effect.

You need to get that false belief that tax cuts are always good out of your belief system.

That is why they have suggested the rate to return to 28%. It means the Dems agreed it was too high at 39% but think it is too low at 20%.

I'm suprised you are turning into this partisan wack.

Both parties are responsible for this debt. Equally.

We will never fix this problem if we do not diagnosis the problems correctly. Definitely will not if we point the blame incorrectly.

Lastly lustylad knows nothing but how to parrot talking points from 1980....Reagan supercharged debt. Bush thought it irresponsible and got booted out of office. Clinton got lucky with low oil prices, no wars to speak of and the dor.com boom.

Bush, Obama, Trump and it looks like Biden have been horrible as far as debt is concerned but I do not blame them. I blame the greed and ignorance of the voting public. Both Parties. Equally.

[Tiny]

I agree with you WTF, both parties are responsible, and we have a debt problem. You want to solve the problem with higher taxes, probably levied in ways that won't affect you. I want spending to decrease. Since that will never happen perhaps you are more realistic. But if you're not going to do anything about spending and continue on the course charted by Biden et al, then you're not going to solve the problem just by raising tax rates on the corporations and the rich. You're going to have to jack up taxes on the middle class and upper middle class, a lot.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I agree with you WTF, both parties are responsible, and we have a debt problem. You want to solve the problem with higher taxes, probably levied in ways that won't affect you. I want spending to decrease. Since that will never happen perhaps you are more realistic. But if you're not going to do anything about spending and continue on the course charted by Biden et al, then you're not going to solve the problem just by raising tax rates on the corporations and the rich. You're going to have to jack up taxes on the middle class and upper middle class, a lot.

Raising taxes on poor and middle class is what spurred this spending spree in the first place...when Reagan talked Tippy into bumping up SS and Medicare in the 1980's. This ushered in a whole generation of shithouse economist who attributed all this extra revenue to cutting the taxes on the rich. (And to be perfectly fair...they needed cutting at that point) but look at the revenue haul that small uptick brought in. It even made it seem as if Clinton balanced the budget.

Bush junior took care of that though....as has every President that has followed.

So that is probably what will happen in 10-15 years when those programs start paying less.

Now follow me on this....what President is going to follow through on spending LESS after elected? Trump?

We can't do it with our current form of government...and total selfishness and ignorance if our citizenry.

So we will puddle along with the gap between the rich and poor widening and oeb popping up like clockwork every 30 minutes screaming "DPST , from my cold dead hands".

So there it is...my secret sauce, they will raise taxes on the poor and middle class and upper middle in the form of higher SS taxes....only this time it will not work because there are fewer workers coming into the system than out of it.

Partly cloudy to bleak long term....party like it's 1999 short term!

[oeb11]

Democraticommunists - have no plan to pay for any of their spending spree
They plan to bankrupt the American representative democracy - and install a marxisst totalitarian tyranny
They will abandon any debts - except to themselves and cronies.

The nomenklatura plans a coup and absolute power.



Buck fiden
From our cold dead hands!