Another Good Month On The Jobs Front...unemployment Drops To 5.9%

[Dad2three]

In right wing speak, that means you can't refute FACTUAL data and prefer to live in right wing world of spin, distortion and lies

Sonny, I read your thread and I understand you want to blame the black man for the recession, but it's just not true. The housing market (IE mostly black sub prime loans) collapsed because the economy collapsed and people who were sub prime to begin with had NO savings to continue paying their mortgages which only made things worse.

This is proven by the fact that foreclosures didn't start exploding until 2009 almost 2 years AFTER the recession started.

12/19/2006

The Center for Responsible Lending has released a new report: Losing Ground: Foreclosures in the Subprime Market and Their Cost to Homeowners.


Report: 2.2 Million Subprime Borrowers Face Foreclosure

Calculated Risk: Report: 2.2 Million Subprime Borrowers Face Foreclosure



Losing Ground: Foreclosures in the Subprime Market and Their Cost to Homeowners


Losing Ground: Foreclosures in the Subprime Market and Their Cost to Homeowners




November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market


Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%


Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:

1 in 5



Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%


Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%

FACTS on Dubya s great recession Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


THE BLACK MAN? Nope, it wasn't the black man, the Asian, Mexicans, the poor, it was DUBYA AND THE BANKSTERS DUMMY!

If you honestly think the whole recession was Bush's fault after all the information made available to the public, then you are an ignorant partisan and there is no point reasoning with the ignorant.
Take care and I hope you learn to quit following partisan crap and think for yourself.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

Weird how conservatives HATE to actually critically think OR be honest. Like Reagan ignoring the S&L warnings that started in 1984, Dubya did the same thing, ignoring the FBI warnings that started in 2004 of an 'EPIDEMIC' of mortgage fraud that could rival the S&L crisis, he gutted them by 1,800+ agents. He was fighting ALL 50 states on who regulated 'predatory' lenders since 2003, invoking a civil war era rule saying feds did, THEN in 2004 he allowed the five investment banks to go from 12-1 leverage to more than 40-1


From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that 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.”


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

There were lots of reasons for the recession of 2008 and they go all the way back to the 40's. Many bills and regs and stimulus packages, add to it all the bubbles over the decades. Over spending, no one saving. In the 90's mortgage companies were lending 125% of the value of property, really stupid. Going of the gold standard, easy credit, spending with nothing to back and then 9/11 should have been the end of the bubbles but instead of making the hard decisions, just like in the past, we as America doubled down on spending and inventing new bubbles. No matter the President or the party is was going to happen, and because we haven't righted the ship, it will happen again soon.

So play all the games and gloss over all the bullshit, the next hot to the economy is coming and it will be greater than 2008. Economist were predicting 2008 in the 90's, they are looking ahead to trouble again.

LIBERTARIAN BULLSHIT!!!

The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along. The big investment banks simply connected the investors to the originators, helped by the AAA ratings.



Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money



November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market


Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%


Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%


Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Papageorgio]

Like I said, until you quit being a partisan hack and examine history, you will find all the things that led up to 2008. It has been discussed time and time again, you have your opinion and I have mine. I don't debate with those of a closed mind.

I do know the recession was predicted as early as the early 90's, long before Bush took office and I followed it from then, all the way to 2008 and though Bush did not do what had to be done to stop the 2008 recession, he is no more guilty than FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. Also included is Congress from the FDR era, all the way to 2008. I'm not a libertarian, I have issues with their platform. I just started to study the reasons behind economists predictions in the 90's and was very surprised it didn't topple in 2001, but the another bubble kept us going.

I'm looking at the recession from the predictions of the 90's and both parties are to blame.

 

[Dad2three]

Like I said, until you quit being a partisan hack and examine history, you will find all the things that led up to 2008. It has been discussed time and time again, you have your opinion and I have mine. I don't debate with those of a closed mind.

I do know the recession was predicted as early as the early 90's, long before Bush took office and I followed it from then, all the way to 2008 and though Bush did not do what had to be done to stop the 2008 recession, he is no more guilty than FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. Also included is Congress from the FDR era, all the way to 2008. I'm not a libertarian, I have issues with their platform. I just started to study the reasons behind economists predictions in the 90's and was very surprised it didn't topple in 2001, but the another bubble kept us going.

I'm looking at the recession from the predictions of the 90's and both parties are to blame.

LOL, Libertarian BULLSHIT, Not a libertarian

It was a WORLD WIDE credit bubble and bust. IN the US aided on by Dubya and his 'home ownership society' AND his 'belief; in 'free markets' will self regulate, JUST like Reagan's AND Coolidge/Hardings first GOP crash!!!

Weird, we elect those guys who don't 'believe in' Gov't, then are shocked when Gov't fucks US over!
'
'
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that 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.”



BUSH DOUBLED US HOUSEHOLD DEBT IN HIS FIRST 7 YEARS!!!!

Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf







The biggest culprits in the housing fiasco came from the private sector, and more specifically from a mortgage industry that was out of control. These included lenders who originated home loans, investment bankers who packaged them into securities, rating agencies that misjudged these securities, and global investors who bought them without much, if any, study.

In other words, America’s mortgage securitization machine was fundamentally broken. It created millions of mortgage loans that, even under reasonable economic assumptions, stood little chance of being repaid — and were not.




Also to blame, of course, were regulators, who gave the private mortgage market little, if any, oversight. The market’s watchdogs were lulled to sleep by a misplaced view that self-interested private financial institutions would regulate themselves. This flawed thinking was most pervasive at the nation’s most important financial regulatory agency, the Federal Reserve.



By Mark Zandi


Fannie and Freddie don t deserve blame for bubble - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

Like I said, until you quit being a partisan hack and examine history, you will find all the things that led up to 2008. It has been discussed time and time again, you have your opinion and I have mine. I don't debate with those of a closed mind.

I do know the recession was predicted as early as the early 90's, long before Bush took office and I followed it from then, all the way to 2008 and though Bush did not do what had to be done to stop the 2008 recession, he is no more guilty than FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. Also included is Congress from the FDR era, all the way to 2008. I'm not a libertarian, I have issues with their platform. I just started to study the reasons behind economists predictions in the 90's and was very surprised it didn't topple in 2001, but the another bubble kept us going.

I'm looking at the recession from the predictions of the 90's and both parties are to blame.

Like I said, until you quit being a partisan hack and examine history, you will find all the things that led up to 2008. It has been discussed time and time again, you have your opinion and I have mine. I don't debate with those of a closed mind.

I do know the recession was predicted as early as the early 90's, long before Bush took office and I followed it from then, all the way to 2008 and though Bush did not do what had to be done to stop the 2008 recession, he is no more guilty than FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. Also included is Congress from the FDR era, all the way to 2008. I'm not a libertarian, I have issues with their platform. I just started to study the reasons behind economists predictions in the 90's and was very surprised it didn't topple in 2001, but the another bubble kept us going.

I'm looking at the recession from the predictions of the 90's and both parties are to blame.

PREDICTIONS FROM RIGHT WING WACK JOB 'ECONOMISTS'? LOL


eorge W. Bush

From the start, Bush embraced a governing philosophy of deregulation. That trickled down to federal oversight agencies, which in turn eased off on banks and mortgage brokers

SEC head William Donaldson tried to boost regulation of mutual and hedge funds, he was blocked by Bush's advisers at the White House as well as other powerful Republicans and quit.

Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble. Their lending strategies fueled and fed off the housing bubble, and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.

The basic structure of the adjustable-rate mortgages that lenders used to grow the subprime market was premised on continued house appreciation. Once the housing bubble peaked subprime ARM loans suddenly became extremely prone to default.

 

[Dad2three]

Like I said, until you quit being a partisan hack and examine history, you will find all the things that led up to 2008. It has been discussed time and time again, you have your opinion and I have mine. I don't debate with those of a closed mind.

I do know the recession was predicted as early as the early 90's, long before Bush took office and I followed it from then, all the way to 2008 and though Bush did not do what had to be done to stop the 2008 recession, he is no more guilty than FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. Also included is Congress from the FDR era, all the way to 2008. I'm not a libertarian, I have issues with their platform. I just started to study the reasons behind economists predictions in the 90's and was very surprised it didn't topple in 2001, but the another bubble kept us going.

I'm looking at the recession from the predictions of the 90's and both parties are to blame.

Alan Greenspan has famously testified before Congress that the reason he did nothing to stop this rapid growth in unconventional mortgages is that he believed banks would not have made these loans if they thought they were too risky.


There were two main reasons banks pursued these risky subprime loans so aggressively. The first, which we discuss at greater length below, is that there were fewer and fewer loans left to sell in the saturated prime market. The other reason is that subprime origination and securitization turned out to be enormously profitable

According to a study by the consulting firm Mercer Oliver Wyman, nonconventional lending accounted for approximately half of originations in 2005, but over 85% of profits



...The American mortgage market was about $500 billion in 1990. During the 1990s, it went up to nearly $1 trillion in 1993, peaked in 1998 at around $1.5 trillion. In 2000, it stood at $1 trillion a year. The real surge in the mortgage market began in 2001 (the year of the stock market crash). From 2000 -2004, residential originations the U.S. climbed from about $1 trillion to almost $4 trillion.


After 2003, the major banks' strategies pointed increasingly toward subprime and other non-conventional mortgage segments.


In 2004, for the first time, these four categories of loans exceeded the prime market or conventional market. In 2001, the largest conventional (prime, government-insured) originator did 91% of its origination business in the conventional market, and only 9% in the non-prime market.


By 2005 the largest conventional originator was doing less than half of its origination business within the conventional sector (Inside Mortgage Finance 2009). In the peak of the mortgage craze in 2006, fully 70% of all loans that were made were unconventional mortgages.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

 

[Papageorgio]

Like I said, until you quit being a partisan hack and examine history, you will find all the things that led up to 2008. It has been discussed time and time again, you have your opinion and I have mine. I don't debate with those of a closed mind.

I do know the recession was predicted as early as the early 90's, long before Bush took office and I followed it from then, all the way to 2008 and though Bush did not do what had to be done to stop the 2008 recession, he is no more guilty than FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. Also included is Congress from the FDR era, all the way to 2008. I'm not a libertarian, I have issues with their platform. I just started to study the reasons behind economists predictions in the 90's and was very surprised it didn't topple in 2001, but the another bubble kept us going.

I'm looking at the recession from the predictions of the 90's and both parties are to blame.

Alan Greenspan has famously testified before Congress that the reason he did nothing to stop this rapid growth in unconventional mortgages is that he believed banks would not have made these loans if they thought they were too risky.


There were two main reasons banks pursued these risky subprime loans so aggressively. The first, which we discuss at greater length below, is that there were fewer and fewer loans left to sell in the saturated prime market. The other reason is that subprime origination and securitization turned out to be enormously profitable

According to a study by the consulting firm Mercer Oliver Wyman, nonconventional lending accounted for approximately half of originations in 2005, but over 85% of profits



...The American mortgage market was about $500 billion in 1990. During the 1990s, it went up to nearly $1 trillion in 1993, peaked in 1998 at around $1.5 trillion. In 2000, it stood at $1 trillion a year. The real surge in the mortgage market began in 2001 (the year of the stock market crash). From 2000 -2004, residential originations the U.S. climbed from about $1 trillion to almost $4 trillion.


After 2003, the major banks' strategies pointed increasingly toward subprime and other non-conventional mortgage segments.


In 2004, for the first time, these four categories of loans exceeded the prime market or conventional market. In 2001, the largest conventional (prime, government-insured) originator did 91% of its origination business in the conventional market, and only 9% in the non-prime market.


By 2005 the largest conventional originator was doing less than half of its origination business within the conventional sector (Inside Mortgage Finance 2009). In the peak of the mortgage craze in 2006, fully 70% of all loans that were made were unconventional mortgages.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

The subprime loans were part of a problem, I never said it wasn't, however the causes were started in the 40's and culminated in 2001 and then 2008 when it could not survive any longer. When people in the 90's were charging up their credit limits, and then take out 125% mortgage on their home and payoff loans, then go out and take out more loans and more bad debt, it is going to snowball. 2000 and 2001's economic issues were coming to a head and 9/11 should have been the end.

Again, I don't dispute what happened in the year preceding 2008, I am saying it was not the start. It started decades before.

Also you last links targets the change was in 93, long before Bush.

 

[KissMy]

The labor participation rate peaked under President Clinton.

So all you RWnuts obsessing on the labor participation rate have to concede that the best president in that regard would be to elect another Bill Clinton.

Or elect a republican house and senate who controlled Clintons spending for 7 of his 8 years.

You fucking morons not admitting that there was a bipartisan reason for the real estate bubble are the fucking hacks.

You are all pieces of shit.

I am still waiting for you assholes to tell me how many of those jobs are fulltime and how many are in the private sector.

I am also still trying to figure out how the recipients of those on food stamps have not reduced, at all. Considering how great and better off the economy is.

Meanwhile, the debt is still climbing exponentially.

Liberals are pathetic.

Bush #1 & #2 both exploded food-stamps the most in history making "The Great Society" of the 1960's & 1970's look like chump change.

Clinton had to reel in the outrageous Repubtard spending spree & pay down their debts. Obama has greatly reduced Bush #2 deficit spending blowout & is now reducing their food-stamp fiesta

Bush's reckless deficit spending & subprime lending caused massive price inflation.
All Commodities Prices

Obama is the first president since Carter to shrink the size of government employment, pay, compensation & spending. Repubtards lie about everything.

Bush destroyed 18 Million Jobs. Obama has restored 10.3 Million Jobs.

 

[AceRothstein]

The Bushshit just keeps on coming.

When Bush left office there were 153,445,000 in the labor force and there are 155,903,000 now.

Tell another lie
There was no decline until after obama
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Another wing-nut pretending to be too stupid to know the difference between PEOPLE and a %.

Stupid follow thew numbers from 2004 until 2008 participation numbers hovered around the 66 mark
From 2009+ until 2014 the participation rate has declined without fluctuating back up. In 2009 it was 65.7 in Sept. 2014 it was 62.7 without going up at any time during those years.

OH and dumb ass the participation rate does represent PEOPLE you dumb mother fucker.

There are 1,458,000 more PEOPLE in the workforce now than when Bush left office. You said Bush had "more PEOPLE" in the work force. I love how the Right plays dumb so they can lie with impunity, because thanks to St Ronnie they have convinced themselves that they are not lying if they are too stupid to know they are lying.

Look at the GOVERNMENT CHART ONE MORE TIME DUMB ASS

YOU SHOULD STOP NOW BUT YOU NEVER DO

Do you realize that you are referencing a chart that starts 3 years after Bush took office? The LFPR was 67.2% in Jan 01 and down to 65.7% in Jan 09.

 

[Dad2three]

Like I said, until you quit being a partisan hack and examine history, you will find all the things that led up to 2008. It has been discussed time and time again, you have your opinion and I have mine. I don't debate with those of a closed mind.

I do know the recession was predicted as early as the early 90's, long before Bush took office and I followed it from then, all the way to 2008 and though Bush did not do what had to be done to stop the 2008 recession, he is no more guilty than FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. Also included is Congress from the FDR era, all the way to 2008. I'm not a libertarian, I have issues with their platform. I just started to study the reasons behind economists predictions in the 90's and was very surprised it didn't topple in 2001, but the another bubble kept us going.

I'm looking at the recession from the predictions of the 90's and both parties are to blame.

Alan Greenspan has famously testified before Congress that the reason he did nothing to stop this rapid growth in unconventional mortgages is that he believed banks would not have made these loans if they thought they were too risky.


There were two main reasons banks pursued these risky subprime loans so aggressively. The first, which we discuss at greater length below, is that there were fewer and fewer loans left to sell in the saturated prime market. The other reason is that subprime origination and securitization turned out to be enormously profitable

According to a study by the consulting firm Mercer Oliver Wyman, nonconventional lending accounted for approximately half of originations in 2005, but over 85% of profits



...The American mortgage market was about $500 billion in 1990. During the 1990s, it went up to nearly $1 trillion in 1993, peaked in 1998 at around $1.5 trillion. In 2000, it stood at $1 trillion a year. The real surge in the mortgage market began in 2001 (the year of the stock market crash). From 2000 -2004, residential originations the U.S. climbed from about $1 trillion to almost $4 trillion.


After 2003, the major banks' strategies pointed increasingly toward subprime and other non-conventional mortgage segments.


In 2004, for the first time, these four categories of loans exceeded the prime market or conventional market. In 2001, the largest conventional (prime, government-insured) originator did 91% of its origination business in the conventional market, and only 9% in the non-prime market.


By 2005 the largest conventional originator was doing less than half of its origination business within the conventional sector (Inside Mortgage Finance 2009). In the peak of the mortgage craze in 2006, fully 70% of all loans that were made were unconventional mortgages.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

The subprime loans were part of a problem, I never said it wasn't, however the causes were started in the 40's and culminated in 2001 and then 2008 when it could not survive any longer. When people in the 90's were charging up their credit limits, and then take out 125% mortgage on their home and payoff loans, then go out and take out more loans and more bad debt, it is going to snowball. 2000 and 2001's economic issues were coming to a head and 9/11 should have been the end.

Again, I don't dispute what happened in the year preceding 2008, I am saying it was not the start. It started decades before.

Also you last links targets the change was in 93, long before Bush.

NONSENSE. That's just right wing bullshit,m the DIRECT cause of the WORLD WIDE bubble was the Banksters ability to create loans early 2000's WORLD WIDE, using 'financialization' of new loan products, think derivatives and MBS's. In the US, it was Dubya allowing household debt to double in his first 7 years, as wages stagnated. In 2006 for the first time ever, the US spent more than we actually made


ONCE MORE:

In 2001, the largest conventional (prime, government-insured) originator did 91% of its origination business in the conventional market, and only 9% in the non-prime market.

By 2005 the largest conventional originator was doing less than half of its origination business within the conventional sector (Inside Mortgage Finance 2009). In the peak of the mortgage craze in 2006, fully 70% of all loans that were made were unconventional mortgages.


This meant in a very short period of time, banks reoriented housing finance–one of the largest industries in the economy–around securitizations of highly risky loans. This astounding change in the character of the mortgage market was noticed by regulators and Congress. But, the Federal Reserve, Congress and the Executive branch chose to ignore what was going on


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


NO, IT WASN'T THE 1940'S, FDR, REAGAN, CLINTON, ETC. Grow a brain


The same exact thing happened at the exact same time in the sub prime auto finance business. And it was done by the same exact people. Difference is that there are buybacks in auto finance ABSs much stricter than in the mortgage industry.

The big players all went down. HSBC lost billions and went out of the business. Americredit all but went bankrupt and only survived with a buyout. Cap One went through the basement and was only kept alive because of their credit card profits. Dozens of others, some backed by huge corps, went under.

 

[Dad2three]

Tell another lie
There was no decline until after obama
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Another wing-nut pretending to be too stupid to know the difference between PEOPLE and a %.

Stupid follow thew numbers from 2004 until 2008 participation numbers hovered around the 66 mark
From 2009+ until 2014 the participation rate has declined without fluctuating back up. In 2009 it was 65.7 in Sept. 2014 it was 62.7 without going up at any time during those years.

OH and dumb ass the participation rate does represent PEOPLE you dumb mother fucker.

There are 1,458,000 more PEOPLE in the workforce now than when Bush left office. You said Bush had "more PEOPLE" in the work force. I love how the Right plays dumb so they can lie with impunity, because thanks to St Ronnie they have convinced themselves that they are not lying if they are too stupid to know they are lying.

Look at the GOVERNMENT CHART ONE MORE TIME DUMB ASS

YOU SHOULD STOP NOW BUT YOU NEVER DO

Do you realize that you are referencing a chart that starts 3 years after Bush took office? The LFPR was 67.2% in Jan 01 and down to 65.7% in Jan 09.

Yes, he does, I pointed it out and he ignored it. lol

 

[Papageorgio]

Like I said, until you quit being a partisan hack and examine history, you will find all the things that led up to 2008. It has been discussed time and time again, you have your opinion and I have mine. I don't debate with those of a closed mind.

I do know the recession was predicted as early as the early 90's, long before Bush took office and I followed it from then, all the way to 2008 and though Bush did not do what had to be done to stop the 2008 recession, he is no more guilty than FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. Also included is Congress from the FDR era, all the way to 2008. I'm not a libertarian, I have issues with their platform. I just started to study the reasons behind economists predictions in the 90's and was very surprised it didn't topple in 2001, but the another bubble kept us going.

I'm looking at the recession from the predictions of the 90's and both parties are to blame.

Alan Greenspan has famously testified before Congress that the reason he did nothing to stop this rapid growth in unconventional mortgages is that he believed banks would not have made these loans if they thought they were too risky.


There were two main reasons banks pursued these risky subprime loans so aggressively. The first, which we discuss at greater length below, is that there were fewer and fewer loans left to sell in the saturated prime market. The other reason is that subprime origination and securitization turned out to be enormously profitable

According to a study by the consulting firm Mercer Oliver Wyman, nonconventional lending accounted for approximately half of originations in 2005, but over 85% of profits



...The American mortgage market was about $500 billion in 1990. During the 1990s, it went up to nearly $1 trillion in 1993, peaked in 1998 at around $1.5 trillion. In 2000, it stood at $1 trillion a year. The real surge in the mortgage market began in 2001 (the year of the stock market crash). From 2000 -2004, residential originations the U.S. climbed from about $1 trillion to almost $4 trillion.


After 2003, the major banks' strategies pointed increasingly toward subprime and other non-conventional mortgage segments.


In 2004, for the first time, these four categories of loans exceeded the prime market or conventional market. In 2001, the largest conventional (prime, government-insured) originator did 91% of its origination business in the conventional market, and only 9% in the non-prime market.


By 2005 the largest conventional originator was doing less than half of its origination business within the conventional sector (Inside Mortgage Finance 2009). In the peak of the mortgage craze in 2006, fully 70% of all loans that were made were unconventional mortgages.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

The subprime loans were part of a problem, I never said it wasn't, however the causes were started in the 40's and culminated in 2001 and then 2008 when it could not survive any longer. When people in the 90's were charging up their credit limits, and then take out 125% mortgage on their home and payoff loans, then go out and take out more loans and more bad debt, it is going to snowball. 2000 and 2001's economic issues were coming to a head and 9/11 should have been the end.

Again, I don't dispute what happened in the year preceding 2008, I am saying it was not the start. It started decades before.

Also you last links targets the change was in 93, long before Bush.

NONSENSE. That's just right wing bullshit,m the DIRECT cause of the WORLD WIDE bubble was the Banksters ability to create loans early 2000's WORLD WIDE, using 'financialization' of new loan products, think derivatives and MBS's. In the US, it was Dubya allowing household debt to double in his first 7 years, as wages stagnated. In 2006 for the first time ever, the US spent more than we actually made


ONCE MORE:

In 2001, the largest conventional (prime, government-insured) originator did 91% of its origination business in the conventional market, and only 9% in the non-prime market.

By 2005 the largest conventional originator was doing less than half of its origination business within the conventional sector (Inside Mortgage Finance 2009). In the peak of the mortgage craze in 2006, fully 70% of all loans that were made were unconventional mortgages.


This meant in a very short period of time, banks reoriented housing finance–one of the largest industries in the economy–around securitizations of highly risky loans. This astounding change in the character of the mortgage market was noticed by regulators and Congress. But, the Federal Reserve, Congress and the Executive branch chose to ignore what was going on


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


NO, IT WASN'T THE 1940'S, FDR, REAGAN, CLINTON, ETC. Grow a brain


The same exact thing happened at the exact same time in the sub prime auto finance business. And it was done by the same exact people. Difference is that there are buybacks in auto finance ABSs much stricter than in the mortgage industry.

The big players all went down. HSBC lost billions and went out of the business. Americredit all but went bankrupt and only survived with a buyout. Cap One went through the basement and was only kept alive because of their credit card profits. Dozens of others, some backed by huge corps, went under.

Now jump to insults. Typical for the left when they are losing.

 

[Dad2three]

Like I said, until you quit being a partisan hack and examine history, you will find all the things that led up to 2008. It has been discussed time and time again, you have your opinion and I have mine. I don't debate with those of a closed mind.

I do know the recession was predicted as early as the early 90's, long before Bush took office and I followed it from then, all the way to 2008 and though Bush did not do what had to be done to stop the 2008 recession, he is no more guilty than FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. Also included is Congress from the FDR era, all the way to 2008. I'm not a libertarian, I have issues with their platform. I just started to study the reasons behind economists predictions in the 90's and was very surprised it didn't topple in 2001, but the another bubble kept us going.

I'm looking at the recession from the predictions of the 90's and both parties are to blame.

Alan Greenspan has famously testified before Congress that the reason he did nothing to stop this rapid growth in unconventional mortgages is that he believed banks would not have made these loans if they thought they were too risky.


There were two main reasons banks pursued these risky subprime loans so aggressively. The first, which we discuss at greater length below, is that there were fewer and fewer loans left to sell in the saturated prime market. The other reason is that subprime origination and securitization turned out to be enormously profitable

According to a study by the consulting firm Mercer Oliver Wyman, nonconventional lending accounted for approximately half of originations in 2005, but over 85% of profits



...The American mortgage market was about $500 billion in 1990. During the 1990s, it went up to nearly $1 trillion in 1993, peaked in 1998 at around $1.5 trillion. In 2000, it stood at $1 trillion a year. The real surge in the mortgage market began in 2001 (the year of the stock market crash). From 2000 -2004, residential originations the U.S. climbed from about $1 trillion to almost $4 trillion.


After 2003, the major banks' strategies pointed increasingly toward subprime and other non-conventional mortgage segments.


In 2004, for the first time, these four categories of loans exceeded the prime market or conventional market. In 2001, the largest conventional (prime, government-insured) originator did 91% of its origination business in the conventional market, and only 9% in the non-prime market.


By 2005 the largest conventional originator was doing less than half of its origination business within the conventional sector (Inside Mortgage Finance 2009). In the peak of the mortgage craze in 2006, fully 70% of all loans that were made were unconventional mortgages.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

The subprime loans were part of a problem, I never said it wasn't, however the causes were started in the 40's and culminated in 2001 and then 2008 when it could not survive any longer. When people in the 90's were charging up their credit limits, and then take out 125% mortgage on their home and payoff loans, then go out and take out more loans and more bad debt, it is going to snowball. 2000 and 2001's economic issues were coming to a head and 9/11 should have been the end.

Again, I don't dispute what happened in the year preceding 2008, I am saying it was not the start. It started decades before.

Also you last links targets the change was in 93, long before Bush.

NONSENSE. That's just right wing bullshit,m the DIRECT cause of the WORLD WIDE bubble was the Banksters ability to create loans early 2000's WORLD WIDE, using 'financialization' of new loan products, think derivatives and MBS's. In the US, it was Dubya allowing household debt to double in his first 7 years, as wages stagnated. In 2006 for the first time ever, the US spent more than we actually made


ONCE MORE:

In 2001, the largest conventional (prime, government-insured) originator did 91% of its origination business in the conventional market, and only 9% in the non-prime market.

By 2005 the largest conventional originator was doing less than half of its origination business within the conventional sector (Inside Mortgage Finance 2009). In the peak of the mortgage craze in 2006, fully 70% of all loans that were made were unconventional mortgages.


This meant in a very short period of time, banks reoriented housing finance–one of the largest industries in the economy–around securitizations of highly risky loans. This astounding change in the character of the mortgage market was noticed by regulators and Congress. But, the Federal Reserve, Congress and the Executive branch chose to ignore what was going on


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


NO, IT WASN'T THE 1940'S, FDR, REAGAN, CLINTON, ETC. Grow a brain


The same exact thing happened at the exact same time in the sub prime auto finance business. And it was done by the same exact people. Difference is that there are buybacks in auto finance ABSs much stricter than in the mortgage industry.

The big players all went down. HSBC lost billions and went out of the business. Americredit all but went bankrupt and only survived with a buyout. Cap One went through the basement and was only kept alive because of their credit card profits. Dozens of others, some backed by huge corps, went under.

Now jump to insults. Typical for the left when they are losing.

How is losing pointing out YOUR premises is BULLSHIT based on right wing nonsense that only kooks who follow the likes of the Pauls or Savage believes is credible? I bet the intersts rates are taking off soon now, heard that for over a decade from you Klowns too, lol


Out of Control Financial Innovation


By now the litany is familiar: the old model of banking, in which banks held on to the loans they made, was replaced by the new practice of originate-and-distribute. Mortgage originators—which in many cases had no traditional banking business—made loans to buy houses, then quickly sold those loans off to other firms. These firms then repackaged those loans by pooling them, then selling shares of these pools of securities; and rating agencies were willing to label the resulting product chicken—that is, to bestow their seal of approval, the AAA rating, on the more senior of these securities, those that had first claim on interest and principal repayment.

Everyone ignored both the risks posed by a general housing bust and the degradation of underwriting standards as the bubble inflated (that ignorance was no doubt assisted by the huge amounts of money being made). When the bust came, much of that AAA paper turned out to be worth just pennies on the dollar.




The Slump Goes On Why by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells The New York Review of Books


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that 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.”

 

[Lovebears65]

And even that the Labor force is at a 36 yr low doesnt even take in the fact back in 1978 the norm was for mothers to stay at home . Now more then ever it is usually a 2 person income family if they can find jobs that is

And the standard of living was much lower. Again, my issue here is that, people don't have to do this. You can sacrifice having all the bells and whistles, and all your extra stuff, and not have the wife work.

People choose to have three jobs, so they can afford all this crap, that doesn't make them happy.

My sister is a stay-at-home mom, and loves it. Does she have all the new cars, and big screen TVs, and 15 bedroom home, and the walk in closet with 800 outfits, so she can ware two outfits every day, and still have ones never worn at the end of the year? No.

But she's a happy married girl with a wonderful family. It's a choice. Make better choices.

Sorry... I rant sometimes. This issue bugs me. People sacrifice everything on the alter of lifestyle, and then complain they are depressed.

I was a stay at home mom until my kids got way older ... I work now .. All my kids are considered adults ..

 

[Papageorgio]

Like I said, until you quit being a partisan hack and examine history, you will find all the things that led up to 2008. It has been discussed time and time again, you have your opinion and I have mine. I don't debate with those of a closed mind.

I do know the recession was predicted as early as the early 90's, long before Bush took office and I followed it from then, all the way to 2008 and though Bush did not do what had to be done to stop the 2008 recession, he is no more guilty than FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. Also included is Congress from the FDR era, all the way to 2008. I'm not a libertarian, I have issues with their platform. I just started to study the reasons behind economists predictions in the 90's and was very surprised it didn't topple in 2001, but the another bubble kept us going.

I'm looking at the recession from the predictions of the 90's and both parties are to blame.

Alan Greenspan has famously testified before Congress that the reason he did nothing to stop this rapid growth in unconventional mortgages is that he believed banks would not have made these loans if they thought they were too risky.


There were two main reasons banks pursued these risky subprime loans so aggressively. The first, which we discuss at greater length below, is that there were fewer and fewer loans left to sell in the saturated prime market. The other reason is that subprime origination and securitization turned out to be enormously profitable

According to a study by the consulting firm Mercer Oliver Wyman, nonconventional lending accounted for approximately half of originations in 2005, but over 85% of profits



...The American mortgage market was about $500 billion in 1990. During the 1990s, it went up to nearly $1 trillion in 1993, peaked in 1998 at around $1.5 trillion. In 2000, it stood at $1 trillion a year. The real surge in the mortgage market began in 2001 (the year of the stock market crash). From 2000 -2004, residential originations the U.S. climbed from about $1 trillion to almost $4 trillion.


After 2003, the major banks' strategies pointed increasingly toward subprime and other non-conventional mortgage segments.


In 2004, for the first time, these four categories of loans exceeded the prime market or conventional market. In 2001, the largest conventional (prime, government-insured) originator did 91% of its origination business in the conventional market, and only 9% in the non-prime market.


By 2005 the largest conventional originator was doing less than half of its origination business within the conventional sector (Inside Mortgage Finance 2009). In the peak of the mortgage craze in 2006, fully 70% of all loans that were made were unconventional mortgages.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

The subprime loans were part of a problem, I never said it wasn't, however the causes were started in the 40's and culminated in 2001 and then 2008 when it could not survive any longer. When people in the 90's were charging up their credit limits, and then take out 125% mortgage on their home and payoff loans, then go out and take out more loans and more bad debt, it is going to snowball. 2000 and 2001's economic issues were coming to a head and 9/11 should have been the end.

Again, I don't dispute what happened in the year preceding 2008, I am saying it was not the start. It started decades before.

Also you last links targets the change was in 93, long before Bush.

NONSENSE. That's just right wing bullshit,m the DIRECT cause of the WORLD WIDE bubble was the Banksters ability to create loans early 2000's WORLD WIDE, using 'financialization' of new loan products, think derivatives and MBS's. In the US, it was Dubya allowing household debt to double in his first 7 years, as wages stagnated. In 2006 for the first time ever, the US spent more than we actually made


ONCE MORE:

In 2001, the largest conventional (prime, government-insured) originator did 91% of its origination business in the conventional market, and only 9% in the non-prime market.

By 2005 the largest conventional originator was doing less than half of its origination business within the conventional sector (Inside Mortgage Finance 2009). In the peak of the mortgage craze in 2006, fully 70% of all loans that were made were unconventional mortgages.


This meant in a very short period of time, banks reoriented housing finance–one of the largest industries in the economy–around securitizations of highly risky loans. This astounding change in the character of the mortgage market was noticed by regulators and Congress. But, the Federal Reserve, Congress and the Executive branch chose to ignore what was going on


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


NO, IT WASN'T THE 1940'S, FDR, REAGAN, CLINTON, ETC. Grow a brain


The same exact thing happened at the exact same time in the sub prime auto finance business. And it was done by the same exact people. Difference is that there are buybacks in auto finance ABSs much stricter than in the mortgage industry.

The big players all went down. HSBC lost billions and went out of the business. Americredit all but went bankrupt and only survived with a buyout. Cap One went through the basement and was only kept alive because of their credit card profits. Dozens of others, some backed by huge corps, went under.

Now jump to insults. Typical for the left when they are losing.

How is losing pointing out YOUR premises is BULLSHIT based on right wing nonsense that only kooks who follow the likes of the Pauls or Savage believes is credible? I bet the intersts rates are taking off soon now, heard that for over a decade from you Klowns too, lol


Out of Control Financial Innovation


By now the litany is familiar: the old model of banking, in which banks held on to the loans they made, was replaced by the new practice of originate-and-distribute. Mortgage originators—which in many cases had no traditional banking business—made loans to buy houses, then quickly sold those loans off to other firms. These firms then repackaged those loans by pooling them, then selling shares of these pools of securities; and rating agencies were willing to label the resulting product chicken—that is, to bestow their seal of approval, the AAA rating, on the more senior of these securities, those that had first claim on interest and principal repayment.

Everyone ignored both the risks posed by a general housing bust and the degradation of underwriting standards as the bubble inflated (that ignorance was no doubt assisted by the huge amounts of money being made). When the bust came, much of that AAA paper turned out to be worth just pennies on the dollar.




The Slump Goes On Why by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells The New York Review of Books


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that 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.”

Don't know who Pauls or Savage are and I don't much care, your links contradict each other, and you are calling me names. So, at this point I figure you don't know much about the 90's or what really happened nor do you care because your links reference the start of the 90's as the issue. Try going beyond 2000 for some answers. Until you do, you are pointless to discuss the matter as you only want to blame Bush.

https://thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/the-causes-of-the-great-recession.pdf

What Really Spurred the Great Recession - Globalization and the U.S. dollar are as much to blame as banks

 

[KissMy]

Also remember that working at Burger King is classified as a "manufacturing job" because according to Dept. of Labor your ate manufacturing a Whopper.

You Lie!

Link?

 

[The Rabbi]

The labor participation rate peaked under President Clinton.

So all you RWnuts obsessing on the labor participation rate have to concede that the best president in that regard would be to elect another Bill Clinton.

Or elect a republican house and senate who controlled Clintons spending for 7 of his 8 years.

You fucking morons not admitting that there was a bipartisan reason for the real estate bubble are the fucking hacks.

You are all pieces of shit.

I am still waiting for you assholes to tell me how many of those jobs are fulltime and how many are in the private sector.

I am also still trying to figure out how the recipients of those on food stamps have not reduced, at all. Considering how great and better off the economy is.

Meanwhile, the debt is still climbing exponentially.

Liberals are pathetic.

Bush #1 & #2 both exploded food-stamps the most in history making "The Great Society" of the 1960's & 1970's look like chump change.

Clinton had to reel in the outrageous Repubtard spending spree & pay down their debts. Obama has greatly reduced Bush #2 deficit spending blowout & is now reducing their food-stamp fiesta

Bush's reckless deficit spending & subprime lending caused massive price inflation.
All Commodities Prices

Obama is the first president since Carter to shrink the size of government employment, pay, compensation & spending. Repubtards lie about everything.

Bush destroyed 18 Million Jobs. Obama has restored 10.3 Million Jobs.

I love it when you post graphs.
They never say what you think they say. You completely misinterpret them. It's wonderful. Like watching America's Biggest Fails over and over.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Rabid, considering what Bush gave us in his two terms, and where we are at today in the market and employment, I would have to say that President Obama is a resounding success when compared to his predessor. In fact, given what the President was facing when he took office, a resounding success compared to just about any President.

 

[Theowl32]

Hey Rabid, considering what Bush gave us in his two terms, and where we are at today in the market and employment, I would have to say that President Obama is a resounding success when compared to his predessor. In fact, given what the President was facing when he took office, a resounding success compared to just about any President.

Yeah, except the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent and the dow was over 14000 (not driven by ZIRP Zero Interest Rate policy but you have no clue what that even means) the last time the republicans had majority of the power.

The democrats took over majority of the power and have had it since 2007. The democrats DELIBERATELY ignored ALL of the presidents warnings (17 of them in 2008 alone). The congress controls the spending which means they control the purse strings.

The economy took a shit under democrat control, regardless of who was in the white house. This may come as a shock to obamabots, but the president is not a KING. He has limited powers. At least that was the way it was before obama took over.

Bush, in his last two years was a lame duck president who also did not have republican majority in the House or Senate.

Every single one of you liberals are ignorant as hell for blaming ONLY BOOOOOOSH for the collapse of 2008. ALL OF YOU are brainwashed sacks of shit. All of you are in the same boat. All of you are morons.

I think it is funny how you all believe anything that comes out of this administration, considering how they have lied about EVERYTHING.

You can keep your plan. You can keep your doctor. You will save $2500 from obamacare. It was all spontaneous because of a video. Ebola is unlikely to come here.

You are all wastes of shit, no exceptions.

 

[NoNukes]

Economy gains 248 000 jobs as hiring rebounds

The labor market rebounded sharply in September as employers added 248,000 jobs, the second largest gain for any month this year.
The unemployment rate fell to 5.9% from 6.1%, lowest since July 2008, the Labor Department said Friday.

Hey, you should know by now that Obama does nothing right.

 

[Bush92]

Also remember that working at Burger King is classified as a "manufacturing job" because according to Dept. of Labor your ate manufacturing a Whopper.

Liar. CREDIBLE link?

In the New Economics Fast-Food Factories - New York Times
There ya go fucko. Well...fast food workers have been going on strike and wearing red ...identifying with socialist party USA. Hmmmmmm, what a coincidence. Gotta keep union dues and $$$$$$ rolling into Democrats somehow.