Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What? Supporting evidence? Where have you been..on a mission to mars or something?
Did you miss Silverado savings and loan? Did you miss the bond market bailout? Did you miss Enron? Did you miss TARP?
Chief..if we are talking economics..please come to the table with a little more then your hypothetical fairy tales.
Because it's tiresome.
Well let's see dumb ass...when did I ever say that there were not companies who took advantage of situations or acted in illegal or unethical manners? When the fuck did I ever say that regulations should be reduced to zero? When the hell did I ever support "too big to fail" bailouts?
If you have been paying attention to what I have actually said instead of salivating at a chance to attack a conservative without even bothering to pay attention to what the fuck you were arguing you might have caught that part where I argued that taxes, regulations, and worker protections are vital to our economic health so long as they do not exceed their mandate or base purpose.
And as far as only Republicans chipping away at regulations I might suggest you educate yourself on Bush, Oxley, and Shelby's attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie from as early as 2003 while Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and other liberals (many of whom were getting paid off by those institutions) worked to block those efforts and denied any impending problems.
Fucking hypocrite
What? Supporting evidence? Where have you been..on a mission to mars or something?
Did you miss Silverado savings and loan? Did you miss the bond market bailout? Did you miss Enron? Did you miss TARP?
Chief..if we are talking economics..please come to the table with a little more then your hypothetical fairy tales.
Because it's tiresome.
Well let's see dumb ass...when did I ever say that there were not companies who took advantage of situations or acted in illegal or unethical manners? When the fuck did I ever say that regulations should be reduced to zero? When the hell did I ever support "too big to fail" bailouts?
If you have been paying attention to what I have actually said instead of salivating at a chance to attack a conservative without even bothering to pay attention to what the fuck you were arguing you might have caught that part where I argued that taxes, regulations, and worker protections are vital to our economic health so long as they do not exceed their mandate or base purpose.
And as far as only Republicans chipping away at regulations I might suggest you educate yourself on Bush, Oxley, and Shelby's attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie from as early as 2003 while Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and other liberals (many of whom were getting paid off by those institutions) worked to block those efforts and denied any impending problems.
Fucking hypocrite
It doesnt really matter whos saying it, its bullshit. Does BP honestly believe business have the money to hire, but simply wont because theyre worried about the president?
Because thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard.
BP stands for BRITISH Petroleum genius. And you are God damn right industry worries about the policies of the next president. Where do you think the phrase "election year recession" comes from?
BP stands for BluePhantom you tool. Cant even recognize your name?
So in your view of the world, businesses have enough money to hire people, but just wont?
ok you got me on the BP thing.
What? Supporting evidence? Where have you been..on a mission to mars or something?
Did you miss Silverado savings and loan? Did you miss the bond market bailout? Did you miss Enron? Did you miss TARP?
Chief..if we are talking economics..please come to the table with a little more then your hypothetical fairy tales.
Because it's tiresome.
Well let's see dumb ass...when did I ever say that there were not companies who took advantage of situations or acted in illegal or unethical manners? When the fuck did I ever say that regulations should be reduced to zero? When the hell did I ever support "too big to fail" bailouts?
If you have been paying attention to what I have actually said instead of salivating at a chance to attack a conservative without even bothering to pay attention to what the fuck you were arguing you might have caught that part where I argued that taxes, regulations, and worker protections are vital to our economic health so long as they do not exceed their mandate or base purpose.
And as far as only Republicans chipping away at regulations I might suggest you educate yourself on Bush, Oxley, and Shelby's attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie from as early as 2003 while Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and other liberals (many of whom were getting paid off by those institutions) worked to block those efforts and denied any impending problems.
Fucking hypocrite
Whoa whoa whoa.
claims that bush tried to regulate fannie and freddie are wrong. bush was perhaps the biggest advocate of home ownership. i can find you videos of bush saying every american should own a home as late as 2006.
There were certainly people concerned about fannie and freddie and trying to regulate them. Bush was not among them.
Ah so your own Hypothetical scenario that predicts the ruin of a fairy tale company due to taxes, regulations and unions is now bullshit?
You've been owned, son.
Ah so your own Hypothetical scenario that predicts the ruin of a fairy tale company due to taxes, regulations and unions is now bullshit?
You've been owned, son.
Really? Well back here on Earth Prime (I guess we will call it that now as opposed to the alternate reality you seem to live in) I would say it's far different. Just because you state "you've been owned" doesn't make it so except in your own mind. Sorry to break the news to you.
Well let's see dumb ass...when did I ever say that there were not companies who took advantage of situations or acted in illegal or unethical manners? When the fuck did I ever say that regulations should be reduced to zero? When the hell did I ever support "too big to fail" bailouts?
If you have been paying attention to what I have actually said instead of salivating at a chance to attack a conservative without even bothering to pay attention to what the fuck you were arguing you might have caught that part where I argued that taxes, regulations, and worker protections are vital to our economic health so long as they do not exceed their mandate or base purpose.
And as far as only Republicans chipping away at regulations I might suggest you educate yourself on Bush, Oxley, and Shelby's attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie from as early as 2003 while Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and other liberals (many of whom were getting paid off by those institutions) worked to block those efforts and denied any impending problems.
Fucking hypocrite
Whoa whoa whoa.
claims that bush tried to regulate fannie and freddie are wrong. bush was perhaps the biggest advocate of home ownership. i can find you videos of bush saying every american should own a home as late as 2006.
There were certainly people concerned about fannie and freddie and trying to regulate them. Bush was not among them.
Bush created the housing bubble.
You've back peddled on your initial OP. I don't know how to break it to you any other way.
BP stands for BRITISH Petroleum genius. And you are God damn right industry worries about the policies of the next president. Where do you think the phrase "election year recession" comes from?
BP stands for BluePhantom you tool. Cant even recognize your name?
So in your view of the world, businesses have enough money to hire people, but just wont?
Oh....
And yes....businesses have PLENTY of money to hire people. It's not that they can't, it's that they won't. I own a business for God's sake. I could hire right now but there's NO WAY I am hiring anyone until I know what the business environment is going to be. Hiring and training is expensive as hell. I am not going to spend that money until I know for damned sure whether or not I can keep them.
You've back peddled on your initial OP. I don't know how to break it to you any other way.
No actually I didn't. How many fucking times in this thread have I said the situation was a simple example of basic principles designed to establish a baseline before progressing to a discussion exploring more advanced elements that support or contradict those basic principles.
If you were as interested in the topic as you are of picking a fight you might have caught that point I have made over and over and over and over and over.
BP stands for BRITISH Petroleum genius. And you are God damn right industry worries about the policies of the next president. Where do you think the phrase "election year recession" comes from?
BP stands for BluePhantom you tool. Cant even recognize your name?
So in your view of the world, businesses have enough money to hire people, but just wont?
Oh....
And yes....businesses have PLENTY of money to hire people. It's not that they can't, it's that they won't. I own a business for God's sake. I could hire right now but there's NO WAY I am hiring anyone until I know what the business environment is going to be. Hiring and training is expensive as hell. I am not going to spend that money until I know for damned sure whether or not I can keep them.
Whoa whoa whoa.
claims that bush tried to regulate fannie and freddie are wrong. bush was perhaps the biggest advocate of home ownership. i can find you videos of bush saying every american should own a home as late as 2006.
There were certainly people concerned about fannie and freddie and trying to regulate them. Bush was not among them.
Bush created the housing bubble.
Read 'em and weep dumb fucks....and note the date.
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com
BP stands for BluePhantom you tool. Cant even recognize your name?
So in your view of the world, businesses have enough money to hire people, but just wont?
Oh....
And yes....businesses have PLENTY of money to hire people. It's not that they can't, it's that they won't. I own a business for God's sake. I could hire right now but there's NO WAY I am hiring anyone until I know what the business environment is going to be. Hiring and training is expensive as hell. I am not going to spend that money until I know for damned sure whether or not I can keep them.
Exactly. Every business has only so much venture capital. Without some assurance of a reasonable profit, nobody with a brain would put that capital at risk.
Under Fearless Leader's leadership (or lack thereof), the following uncertainties exist:
1. What will the tax burden be? That has been a huge moving target for some time now and without some assurance of what to expect, nobody can realistically place an order for merchandise or schedule a job.
2. What rules, mandates, and regulations are going to be in play? So far the current administration has been strongly anti-business and with numerous new regulations and threats of regulation, it is difficult to know what the cost of those will be.
3. What will the ramifications of Obamacare be just in case we don't get a GOP majority in Congress and a Republican president who will sign the bill to rescind it? Nobody knows because the rules and regs for it haven't even been written yet.
4. Who is going to be named among the 'rich' that Obama seems almost frantic to hit with higher taxes? The suggested guidelines for that also change with the weather these days.
5. How much can we trust the current administration to keep its word when it has failed to do so so many times or failed to produce the promised results or policy again and again?
6. How much is the current spending that exceeds revenues by $4 billion every single day going to continue? It is crushing the economy and putting the nation's credit rating at further risk and the inevitable printing of more and more money backed by nothing could cause costs of almost everything to sky rocket any time. And the President is out making speech after speech wanting to spend hundreds of billions more.
There are trillions in investment capital currently sidelined both here in America or sheltered overseas that could be freed up if our current leadership had a clue about ecnomics and what business needs to get back to work. Many have tried to tell them. So far they aren't listening.
2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005
April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
2007
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)
2008
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
◦"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
◦"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that and Congress is making progress on this is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
◦"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
WASHINGTON When US Representative Barney Frank spoke in a packed hearing room on Capitol Hill seven years ago, he did not imagine that his words would eventually haunt a reelection bid.
The issue that day in 2003 was whether mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fiscally strong. Frank declared with his trademark confidence that they were, accusing critics and regulators of exaggerating threats to Fannies and Freddies financial integrity. And, the Massachusetts Democrat maintained, even if there were problems, the federal government doesnt bail them out.
Now, its clear he was wrong on both points and that his words have become a political liability as he fights a determined challenger to win a 16th term representing the Fourth Congressional District. Fannie and Freddie collapsed in 2008, forcing the federal government to buy $150 billion worth of stock in the enterprises and $1.36 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities.
Frank, in his most detailed explanation to date about his actions, said in an interview he missed the warning signs because he was wearing ideological blinders. He said he had worried that Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration were going after Fannie and Freddie for their own ideological reasons and would curtail the lenders mission of providing affordable housing.
I was late in seeing it, no question, Frank said about the lenders descent into insolvency.
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie - The Boston Globe
President George W. Bush is responsible for many things that I think are indefensible, he was not the one responsible for the housing bubble crash of 2008.
Because if Fannie and Freddie had been re-regulated when President Bush requested they be and had been stopped from backing trillions in questionable loans, none of the other financial institutions would have gotten into the trouble they did.
This is really basic elementary economics folks. I despair thinking what the schools are NOT teaching these days.
