Democrats caused recession in 2007

[pinqy]

You are conflating discouraged with not in the labor force. That the Labor Force Participation rate has been going down (since 1999) has nothing at all to do with the number of discouraged. And "underemployment?" This is the first you're using that term talking to me, and whatever you mean by underemployment has nothing to do with labor force participation.

I didn't use the term "discouraged" in the post you just responded to. The post was clear. Labor participation rate combines everyone who's not working who is of working age

I know. But you had so far made no distinction between the two and were definitely trying to link them. The labor force participation rate is the number of people in the labor force (employed plus unemployed) divided by the adult civilian non-institutional population (those age 16 and older excluding active duty military, prisoners, and those in long term health care or nursing homes)

You are thinking instead of Not in the Labor Force, which is everyone who is neither working nor looking for work. That number is mostly people who do not want to work, and the majority are old, disabled, students, or stay home spouses. Also included would be the independently wealthy, many criminals, and potheads living in mom's basement.

Most of the changes to the participation rate are demographic, not economic.

"mostly" LOL. Therein lies where your argument falls apart

How do you figure? I'll rephrase: Most can definitely be identified as demographic, while the rest is uncertain. But if you want to look at contributing factors, give me some time frames...preferably comparison of annual averages or the same month in different years. (otherwise we'd have to use seasonally adjusted data and not as much is available)

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you just saying everyone who wants a job can get one whether they are unemployed, discouraged or gave up and quit? That's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you could possibly get that interpretation from anything I've said.

Here is what I am saying:

• The number of jobs has been going up
• The number of people employed has been boing up.
• The percent of the population employed has been going up.
• The Labor force has been going up.
• The percent of the population in the labor force has been going down since 1999.
• Some of that decline, during the recession, was due to economic factors.
• Most of it, especially in the last few years, has been due to demographic changes such as an aging population, more students, and more disabled. (mostly age)
• Discouragement (those "giving up") has been going steadily down in level and percentage.

Do you claim anything I have said is incorrect?

Let's make clear first though what you are even arguing. If it's that employment is good in this country, then I just invite you to spend more time out on the street meeting real people

Are you saying I don't know real people? And employment in my area is around 3.6% I know one person involuntarily out of work, and she's retirement age and might choose not to return to work.

 

[kaz]

No it wasn't

Let's say arbitrarily for three years there are only three variables that affect currency.

Year 1
Economic growth: +2%
Productivity: +1%
Printing money: -2%

Year 2
Economic growth: -2%
Productivity: -1%
Printing money: -2%

Year 1
Economic growth: +3%
Productivity: +5%
Printing money: -2%

Note that printing money in this example devalued the currency 2% each year. Let's assume that the inflation numbers are additive and not cumulative just to make the math easier, doesn't change the point

You're saying, the value of money in this case grew by 2%! Printing money didn't devalue the currency! Yes, it did.

Why? Economic growth and productivity had a net +8% increase while printing money was net -6%.

​

Show me which number was derived rather than given.

Here's an interesting word for you to learn:

Definition of ARBITRARY

I was explaining the concept of this to Skylar who didn't understand it, not making an argument with those numbers:

Ceteris paribus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the numbers are now "arbitrary"?

So what are you " holding constant"?

How would that make any of them "dependent"?

The example was using arbitrary numbers to define ceteris paribus to Skylar who thought it meant there are no other factors, which is not what it means.

All the variables I said in that description were dependent variables, we hadn't started the discussion yet. Neither you or he ever grasped what ceteris paribus means and you don't know what a definition is, so we're stuck in purgatory since neither of you understand how to analyze dependent and independent variables to have a discussion. You just want to keep arguing the arbitrary numbers I made up in explaining the concept to Skylar even though I said they were arbitrary the first time.

That's where we are

If they are " arbitrary", on what are they "dependent" (other than your whim)?

I have no problem understanding any of the terms employed so far........you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no idea what you are yammering about.

No ... you don't. Clearly

 

[kaz]

I didn't use the term "discouraged" in the post you just responded to. The post was clear. Labor participation rate combines everyone who's not working who is of working age

I know. But you had so far made no distinction between the two and were definitely trying to link them. The labor force participation rate is the number of people in the labor force (employed plus unemployed) divided by the adult civilian non-institutional population (those age 16 and older excluding active duty military, prisoners, and those in long term health care or nursing homes)

You are thinking instead of Not in the Labor Force, which is everyone who is neither working nor looking for work. That number is mostly people who do not want to work, and the majority are old, disabled, students, or stay home spouses. Also included would be the independently wealthy, many criminals, and potheads living in mom's basement.

Most of the changes to the participation rate are demographic, not economic.

"mostly" LOL. Therein lies where your argument falls apart

How do you figure? I'll rephrase: Most can definitely be identified as demographic, while the rest is uncertain. But if you want to look at contributing factors, give me some time frames...preferably comparison of annual averages or the same month in different years. (otherwise we'd have to use seasonally adjusted data and not as much is available)

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you just saying everyone who wants a job can get one whether they are unemployed, discouraged or gave up and quit? That's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you could possibly get that interpretation from anything I've said.

Here is what I am saying:

• The number of jobs has been going up
• The number of people employed has been boing up.
• The percent of the population employed has been going up.
• The Labor force has been going up.
• The percent of the population in the labor force has been going down since 1999.
• Some of that decline, during the recession, was due to economic factors.
• Most of it, especially in the last few years, has been due to demographic changes such as an aging population, more students, and more disabled. (mostly age)
• Discouragement (those "giving up") has been going steadily down in level and percentage.

Do you claim anything I have said is incorrect?

Let's make clear first though what you are even arguing. If it's that employment is good in this country, then I just invite you to spend more time out on the street meeting real people

Are you saying I don't know real people? And employment in my area is around 3.6% I know one person involuntarily out of work, and she's retirement age and might choose not to return to work.

"The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent"

Where Are All the Workers?

Article was from July, 2015

 

[pinqy]

I know. But you had so far made no distinction between the two and were definitely trying to link them. The labor force participation rate is the number of people in the labor force (employed plus unemployed) divided by the adult civilian non-institutional population (those age 16 and older excluding active duty military, prisoners, and those in long term health care or nursing homes)

You are thinking instead of Not in the Labor Force, which is everyone who is neither working nor looking for work. That number is mostly people who do not want to work, and the majority are old, disabled, students, or stay home spouses. Also included would be the independently wealthy, many criminals, and potheads living in mom's basement.

Most of the changes to the participation rate are demographic, not economic.

"mostly" LOL. Therein lies where your argument falls apart

How do you figure? I'll rephrase: Most can definitely be identified as demographic, while the rest is uncertain. But if you want to look at contributing factors, give me some time frames...preferably comparison of annual averages or the same month in different years. (otherwise we'd have to use seasonally adjusted data and not as much is available)

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you just saying everyone who wants a job can get one whether they are unemployed, discouraged or gave up and quit? That's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you could possibly get that interpretation from anything I've said.

Here is what I am saying:

• The number of jobs has been going up
• The number of people employed has been boing up.
• The percent of the population employed has been going up.
• The Labor force has been going up.
• The percent of the population in the labor force has been going down since 1999.
• Some of that decline, during the recession, was due to economic factors.
• Most of it, especially in the last few years, has been due to demographic changes such as an aging population, more students, and more disabled. (mostly age)
• Discouragement (those "giving up") has been going steadily down in level and percentage.

Do you claim anything I have said is incorrect?

Let's make clear first though what you are even arguing. If it's that employment is good in this country, then I just invite you to spend more time out on the street meeting real people

Are you saying I don't know real people? And employment in my area is around 3.6% I know one person involuntarily out of work, and she's retirement age and might choose not to return to work.

"The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent"

Where Are All the Workers?

Article was from July, 2015

And? Why is that bad, and what were the causes. You're not countering anything I've said

 

[kaz]

"mostly" LOL. Therein lies where your argument falls apart

How do you figure? I'll rephrase: Most can definitely be identified as demographic, while the rest is uncertain. But if you want to look at contributing factors, give me some time frames...preferably comparison of annual averages or the same month in different years. (otherwise we'd have to use seasonally adjusted data and not as much is available)

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you just saying everyone who wants a job can get one whether they are unemployed, discouraged or gave up and quit? That's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you could possibly get that interpretation from anything I've said.

Here is what I am saying:

• The number of jobs has been going up
• The number of people employed has been boing up.
• The percent of the population employed has been going up.
• The Labor force has been going up.
• The percent of the population in the labor force has been going down since 1999.
• Some of that decline, during the recession, was due to economic factors.
• Most of it, especially in the last few years, has been due to demographic changes such as an aging population, more students, and more disabled. (mostly age)
• Discouragement (those "giving up") has been going steadily down in level and percentage.

Do you claim anything I have said is incorrect?

Let's make clear first though what you are even arguing. If it's that employment is good in this country, then I just invite you to spend more time out on the street meeting real people

Are you saying I don't know real people? And employment in my area is around 3.6% I know one person involuntarily out of work, and she's retirement age and might choose not to return to work.

"The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent"

Where Are All the Workers?

Article was from July, 2015

And? Why is that bad, and what were the causes. You're not countering anything I've said

Long term lackluster economy has inflated underemployment and made a lot of workers give up and quit looking

 

[owebo]

Big Mac Index - Published July 16, 2009
United States $3.57

2009 Big Mac Index

Current price

$3.99

Implied annual inflation rate 2009-2016

1.6%

Why even waste time on this? Big Mac does not well represent what people buy. PERIOD.

It doesn't represent rent, or electronics, transportation or even produce costs.

It just represents a profit maximizing price point McDonalds thinks it can sell Big Mac at.

What an uneducated liberal fucktard you are....I thought you were going to ignore me...at least stand by your word you stupid liberal tool..

 

[owebo]

Big Mac Index - Published July 16, 2009
United States $3.57

2009 Big Mac Index

Current price

$3.99

Implied annual inflation rate 2009-2016

1.6%

Why even waste time on this? Big Mac does not well represent what people buy. PERIOD.

It doesn't represent rent, or electronics, transportation or even produce costs.

It just represents a profit maximizing price point McDonalds thinks it can sell Big Mac at.

Indisputably..... Inflation is generally measured using a basket of goods.....

I just find it amusing how these idiots uncritically swallow whatever they are fed by meme....

You mean like a Big Mac?

And I see you're still having difficulty understanding what a chart is.....

 

[owebo]

"mostly" LOL. Therein lies where your argument falls apart

How do you figure? I'll rephrase: Most can definitely be identified as demographic, while the rest is uncertain. But if you want to look at contributing factors, give me some time frames...preferably comparison of annual averages or the same month in different years. (otherwise we'd have to use seasonally adjusted data and not as much is available)

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you just saying everyone who wants a job can get one whether they are unemployed, discouraged or gave up and quit? That's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you could possibly get that interpretation from anything I've said.

Here is what I am saying:

• The number of jobs has been going up
• The number of people employed has been boing up.
• The percent of the population employed has been going up.
• The Labor force has been going up.
• The percent of the population in the labor force has been going down since 1999.
• Some of that decline, during the recession, was due to economic factors.
• Most of it, especially in the last few years, has been due to demographic changes such as an aging population, more students, and more disabled. (mostly age)
• Discouragement (those "giving up") has been going steadily down in level and percentage.

Do you claim anything I have said is incorrect?

Let's make clear first though what you are even arguing. If it's that employment is good in this country, then I just invite you to spend more time out on the street meeting real people

Are you saying I don't know real people? And employment in my area is around 3.6% I know one person involuntarily out of work, and she's retirement age and might choose not to return to work.

"The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent"

Where Are All the Workers?

Article was from July, 2015

And? Why is that bad, and what were the causes. You're not countering anything I've said

You've said nothing.....

 

[Faun]

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

I didn't say "take out"..... You should pay attention... It will save us both a lot of time.

Yes you did

To compare 2009- present to 1981-1989, and 2001-2009, you would add 0.85% and 0.5% respectively.


You lied.

No I didn't

What word do you use to describe "asserting something which is demonstrably false"?

It's called, "kazzing." It's what he does because he can't win an argument.

 

[Faun]

I know. But you had so far made no distinction between the two and were definitely trying to link them. The labor force participation rate is the number of people in the labor force (employed plus unemployed) divided by the adult civilian non-institutional population (those age 16 and older excluding active duty military, prisoners, and those in long term health care or nursing homes)

You are thinking instead of Not in the Labor Force, which is everyone who is neither working nor looking for work. That number is mostly people who do not want to work, and the majority are old, disabled, students, or stay home spouses. Also included would be the independently wealthy, many criminals, and potheads living in mom's basement.

Most of the changes to the participation rate are demographic, not economic.

"mostly" LOL. Therein lies where your argument falls apart

How do you figure? I'll rephrase: Most can definitely be identified as demographic, while the rest is uncertain. But if you want to look at contributing factors, give me some time frames...preferably comparison of annual averages or the same month in different years. (otherwise we'd have to use seasonally adjusted data and not as much is available)

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you just saying everyone who wants a job can get one whether they are unemployed, discouraged or gave up and quit? That's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you could possibly get that interpretation from anything I've said.

Here is what I am saying:

• The number of jobs has been going up
• The number of people employed has been boing up.
• The percent of the population employed has been going up.
• The Labor force has been going up.
• The percent of the population in the labor force has been going down since 1999.
• Some of that decline, during the recession, was due to economic factors.
• Most of it, especially in the last few years, has been due to demographic changes such as an aging population, more students, and more disabled. (mostly age)
• Discouragement (those "giving up") has been going steadily down in level and percentage.

Do you claim anything I have said is incorrect?

Let's make clear first though what you are even arguing. If it's that employment is good in this country, then I just invite you to spend more time out on the street meeting real people

Are you saying I don't know real people? And employment in my area is around 3.6% I know one person involuntarily out of work, and she's retirement age and might choose not to return to work.

"The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent"

Where Are All the Workers?

Article was from July, 2015

So what? It was lower in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Big Mac Index - Published July 16, 2009
United States $3.57

2009 Big Mac Index

Current price

$3.99

Implied annual inflation rate 2009-2016

1.6%

Why even waste time on this? Big Mac does not well represent what people buy. PERIOD.

It doesn't represent rent, or electronics, transportation or even produce costs.

It just represents a profit maximizing price point McDonalds thinks it can sell Big Mac at.

Indisputably..... Inflation is generally measured using a basket of goods.....

I just find it amusing how these idiots uncritically swallow whatever they are fed by meme....

You mean like a Big Mac?

And I see you're still having difficulty understanding what a chart is.....

A Big Mac is a "basket of goods"?

What, according to McDonald's, is the current price of a Big Mac?

 

[IcebergSlim]

I didn't say "take out"..... You should pay attention... It will save us both a lot of time.

Yes you did

To compare 2009- present to 1981-1989, and 2001-2009, you would add 0.85% and 0.5% respectively.


You lied.

No I didn't

What word do you use to describe "asserting something which is demonstrably false"?

It's called, "kazzing." It's what he does because he can't win an argument.

Whatever Kaz is, it's an idiot...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

In the aftermath of the US Treasury’s decision to seize control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, critics have hit at lax oversight of the mortgage companies.


The dominant theme has been that Congress let the two government-sponsored enterprises morph into a creature that eventually threatened the US financial system. Mike Oxley will have none of it.

Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.


The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of
Nasdaq.


He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

Oxley hits back at ideologues - FT.com

Public record accounts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as they occurred, and the concerns that were shared.


September 1999

With pressure from the Clinton Administration, Fannie Mae eased credit requirements on loans it would purchase from lenders, making it easier for banks to lend to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. Raines explained that "there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market," reported the New York Times.

With this action, Fannie Mae put itself at substantial risk in the event of an economic downturn. "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," warned Peter Wallison. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." The danger was known.


March 2000

Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana) proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight in a House Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts) dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."


June 2000

Rep. Marge Roukema (R-New Jersey): "very few banks or S&Ls could, even in this day and age, even now, meet the stress-testing requirements which Fannie and Freddie are required to meet."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) regarding the Treasury Department line of credit: "It is really symbolic, it is obsolete, it has never been used." "Would you explain why it would be important to repeal something that seems to be of little use?"

Smith: "as long as the pipeline is there, it is like it is very expandable. . . . It is only $2 billion today. It could be $200 billion tomorrow."

Because of Democrat obfuscation, Smith's "tomorrow" arrived in 2008 when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship.


February 2003

OFHEO reports that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations . . . the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them," warning that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market, according to a White House release.


June 2003

Freddie Mac reported it had understated its profits by $6.9 billion. OFHEO director Armando Falcon Jr. requested that the White House audit Fannie Mae.


July 2003

Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) and John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) introduced legislation to address Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill was blocked by Democrats.


September 2003

In an interview with Ron Insana for CNN Money, Rep. Baker warned, "I have concerns that if appropriate resources aren't allocated for internal risk management, the consequences will be far more severe than just a real estate slowdown. The losses would fall quickly through the capital these companies have and down to shareholders and taxpayers. These companies have some of the lowest capital margins of any financial institution in the nation, yet, at the same time, they are two of the largest. The concern is that if something doesn't work out the way they predict, the American taxpayer could be called on to pay off the debt in some sort of bailout."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "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."


October 2003

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.


November 2003

Council of the Economic Advisers Chairman Greg Mankiw warned, "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole. This risk is a systemic issue also because the debt obligations of the housing GSEs are widely held by other financial institutions. The importance of GSE debt in the portfolios of other financial entities means that even a small mistake in GSE risk management could have ripple effects throughout the financial system," from a White House release.


February 2004

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," says a White House release.

OFHEO reported that Fannie Mae and CEO Raines had manipulated its accounting to overstate its profits.Congress and the Bush administration sought strong new regulation and authority to put the GSEs under conservatorship if necessary. As the Washington Post reports, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responded by orchestrating a major campaign "by traditional allies including real estate agents, home builders and mortgage lenders. Fannie Mae ran radio and television ads ahead of a key Senate committee meeting, depicting a Latino couple who fretted that if the bill passed, mortgage rates would go up." Again, GSE pressure prevailed.


October 2004

In a subcommittee testimony, Democrats vehemently reject regulation of Fannie Mae in the face of dire warning of a Fannie Mae oversight report. A few of them, Black Caucus members in particular, are very angry at the OFHEO Director as they attempt to defend Fannie Mae and protect their CRA extortion racket.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines."

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): "In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks."

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri): "This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines."

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): "There is a very simple solution. Congress must create a new regulator with powers at least equal to those of other financial regulators, such as the OCC or Federal Reserve."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "Uh, I, this, you, you, you seem to me saying, ‘Well, these are in areas which could raise safety and soundness problems.' I don't see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 Act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "Mr. Raines, 1.1 million bonus and a $526,000 salary. Jamie Gorelick, $779,000 bonus on a salary of 567,000. This is, what you state on page eleven is nothing less than staggering."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "The 1998 earnings per share number turned out to be $3.23 and 9 mills, a result that Fannie Mae met the EPS maximum payout goal right down to the penny."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "Fannie Mae understood the rules and simply chose not to follow them that if Fannie Mae had followed the practices, there wouldn't have been a bonus that year."

"The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006," reports the Wall Street Journal.

Greenspan testified that the size of GSE portfolios "poses a risk to the global financial system. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to bail out the lenders [GSEs] . . . should one get into financial trouble." He added, "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis . . . We put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership."

Greenspan warned that if the GSEs "continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road . . . We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."

Bloomberg writes, "If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. . . . But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then."



April 2007

In "A Nightmare Grows Darker," the New York Times writes that the "democratization of credit" is "turning the American dream of homeownership into a nightmare for many borrowers." The "newfangled mortgage loans" called "affordability loans" "represent 60 percent of foreclosures."


2007-2008

The housing bubble began to burst, bad mortgages began to default, and finally the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac portfolios were revealed to be what they were, in collapse. And the testimony is evident as to why. As Wallison noted, "Fannie and Freddie were, I would say, the poster children for corporate welfare."


Archived-Articles: Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened

Did you see any reference to the 2005 proposals in that purge?

Actually the bill that prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator, was from 2005. However democrats announced that this would be a partisan issue and they wouldn't play a part in it

Not exactly...

Here is the Republican co-sponsor (again)....

In October 2005 the House, by a vote of 331-90, passed a bill to establish a new federal regulator created for Fannie, Freddie and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The new regulator was authorized to set capital standards and, if it deemed necessary, require reductions in mortgage portfolios. The White House opposed the proposed legislation and instead supported the pending Senate bill. But the Senate bill never came up for a vote, and the legislation died.


In other words, the Republicans failed to negotiate a deal when they were in charge, and now place the blame on others. And once again, Fox News treats their distortions of history as reportable fact.

One Republican has a different take on events. Rep. Michael Oxley claimshis bill was opposed by White House “ideologues” who wanted to privatize Fannie and Freddie and who opposed a bigger government role.



Fox News: Barney Frank Escaped Blame for Fannie Mae's Problems Because He Is Gay

Actually the democrats repeated resisted government oversight because that would mean tighter restrictions.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines."

She and Barney Frank were opposed to reigning in both government Giants that would go against President Clinton's efforts of lossening restrictions on those who qualify under changes to ACA in 1995. Allowing those who don't have a good established credit history, denied by banks through basic credit references, is a way to reward more of the lower income with home ownership.

It's more than just one measure of failed compromise in 1995, you have to be familiar with what happened as far back as 1995, to get a true broader scope overview of what's been going on. What you are bringing attention to is quite honestly just a tip of the iceberg.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

In the aftermath of the US Treasury’s decision to seize control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, critics have hit at lax oversight of the mortgage companies.


The dominant theme has been that Congress let the two government-sponsored enterprises morph into a creature that eventually threatened the US financial system. Mike Oxley will have none of it.

Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.


The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of
Nasdaq.


He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

Oxley hits back at ideologues - FT.com

July 2003

Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) and John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) introduced legislation to address Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill was blocked by Democrats.

That would be S. 1508: Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003

A bill you claim was blocked by Democrats.

But let's take a look at what actually happened to that bill, shall we...?

Last action:
Reported by Committee
A committee has issued a report to the full chamber recommending that the bill be considered further. Only about 1 in 4 bills are reported out of committee.​

So the bill was sent to Senate leadership with the recommendation of further consideration, which had Senate leadership wanted, could have put the bill on the Senate's legislative calendar to be put to an up/down vote by the full Senate.

That never happened.

So who blocked the bill from being put to an up/.down vote by the full Senate? You claim it was Democrats. But were Democrats in charge of the Senate in 2003/2004? No, of course not. Republicans were and Bill Frist R-TN was the Senate Majority Leader who squashed that bill.

We'll just file this under 'A' -- for Another brain dead conservative regurgitating bullshit on the forum.

Again several key Democrats saw nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There was not one ounce of "documented reported rhetoric" coming from among the party, particularly Barnie Frank and Maxine Waters. Why wasn't Democrats really all that concerned with these two government giants that they had to try and convince the rest of congress, and the American people, that they were really quite solid and no kind of economic impact could result from a lack of oversight?


WHO BENEFITED IN PROHIBITING OVERSIGHT OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDY MAC?
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the form of Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

( 1 ) Dodd, Christopher Sen - CT D $133,900
( 2 ) Kerry, John Sen - MA D $111,000
( 3 ) Obama, Barack Sen - IL D $105,849
( 4 ) Clinton, Hillary Sen - NY D $75,550

OpenSecrets | Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats - Capital Eye

 

[owebo]

Big Mac Index - Published July 16, 2009
United States $3.57

2009 Big Mac Index

Current price

$3.99

Implied annual inflation rate 2009-2016

1.6%

Why even waste time on this? Big Mac does not well represent what people buy. PERIOD.

It doesn't represent rent, or electronics, transportation or even produce costs.

It just represents a profit maximizing price point McDonalds thinks it can sell Big Mac at.

Indisputably..... Inflation is generally measured using a basket of goods.....

I just find it amusing how these idiots uncritically swallow whatever they are fed by meme....

You mean like a Big Mac?

And I see you're still having difficulty understanding what a chart is.....

A Big Mac is a "basket of goods"?

What, according to McDonald's, is the current price of a Big Mac?

Not sure if serious...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Big Mac Index - Published July 16, 2009
United States $3.57

2009 Big Mac Index

Current price

$3.99

Implied annual inflation rate 2009-2016

1.6%

Why even waste time on this? Big Mac does not well represent what people buy. PERIOD.

It doesn't represent rent, or electronics, transportation or even produce costs.

It just represents a profit maximizing price point McDonalds thinks it can sell Big Mac at.

Indisputably..... Inflation is generally measured using a basket of goods.....

I just find it amusing how these idiots uncritically swallow whatever they are fed by meme....

You mean like a Big Mac?

And I see you're still having difficulty understanding what a chart is.....

A Big Mac is a "basket of goods"?

What, according to McDonald's, is the current price of a Big Mac?

I don't recall Big Macs being listed on the CPI inflation calculator.

 

[owebo]

Big Mac Index - Published July 16, 2009
United States $3.57

2009 Big Mac Index

Current price

$3.99

Implied annual inflation rate 2009-2016

1.6%

Why even waste time on this? Big Mac does not well represent what people buy. PERIOD.

It doesn't represent rent, or electronics, transportation or even produce costs.

It just represents a profit maximizing price point McDonalds thinks it can sell Big Mac at.

Indisputably..... Inflation is generally measured using a basket of goods.....

I just find it amusing how these idiots uncritically swallow whatever they are fed by meme....

You mean like a Big Mac?

And I see you're still having difficulty understanding what a chart is.....

A Big Mac is a "basket of goods"?

What, according to McDonald's, is the current price of a Big Mac?

I don't recall Big Macs being listed on the CPI inflation calculator.

They hate my Big Mac graph because it makes them look like the idiot liberals they are....

 

[Faun]

In the aftermath of the US Treasury’s decision to seize control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, critics have hit at lax oversight of the mortgage companies.


The dominant theme has been that Congress let the two government-sponsored enterprises morph into a creature that eventually threatened the US financial system. Mike Oxley will have none of it.

Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.


The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of
Nasdaq.


He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

Oxley hits back at ideologues - FT.com

July 2003

Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) and John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) introduced legislation to address Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill was blocked by Democrats.

That would be S. 1508: Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003

A bill you claim was blocked by Democrats.

But let's take a look at what actually happened to that bill, shall we...?

Last action:
Reported by Committee
A committee has issued a report to the full chamber recommending that the bill be considered further. Only about 1 in 4 bills are reported out of committee.​

So the bill was sent to Senate leadership with the recommendation of further consideration, which had Senate leadership wanted, could have put the bill on the Senate's legislative calendar to be put to an up/down vote by the full Senate.

That never happened.

So who blocked the bill from being put to an up/.down vote by the full Senate? You claim it was Democrats. But were Democrats in charge of the Senate in 2003/2004? No, of course not. Republicans were and Bill Frist R-TN was the Senate Majority Leader who squashed that bill.

We'll just file this under 'A' -- for Another brain dead conservative regurgitating bullshit on the forum.

Again several key Democrats saw nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There was not one ounce of "documented reported rhetoric" coming from among the party, particularly Barnie Frank and Maxine Waters. Why wasn't Democrats really all that concerned with these two government giants that they had to try and convince the rest of congress, and the American people, that they were really quite solid and no kind of economic impact could result from a lack of oversight?


WHO BENEFITED IN PROHIBITING OVERSIGHT OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDY MAC?
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the form of Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

( 1 ) Dodd, Christopher Sen - CT D $133,900
( 2 ) Kerry, John Sen - MA D $111,000
( 3 ) Obama, Barack Sen - IL D $105,849
( 4 ) Clinton, Hillary Sen - NY D $75,550

OpenSecrets | Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats - Capital Eye

Again.......

Republicans controlled the Congress. You can't blame Democrats because Republicans wouldn't do their job.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Yeah.....that's good........So this is your "favorite" illustration, but you don't realize that whoever produced the meme didn't know what the price of a Big Mac is.....

Even more amusing is that you have no idea what the "Big Mac Index" is about.........It is used to measure changes in Purchase Power Parity, between international currencies.....

It's not a meme, it's a chart...a chart of data....try to educate yourself what a charts function is....

I have no hope of you ever understanding the data...but I do hold out hope your limited IQ will allow you to grasp what a chart is.....

This chart's function is to bring in the Rubes, rube.......

If the "data" to be understood involves the price of a Big Mac, don't you think it should represent.....uh.......well..........THE ACTUAL PRICE OF A BIG MAC?

That's not what the chart states....do try to keep up, push your basket weaving degree harder....

What does a chart with bullshit numbers tell you?

Thanks for self identifying you don't understand the chart...that saves us smart people a lot of time....

Kudos....

us smart people


No.....really!

 

[IcebergSlim]

Big Mac Index - Published July 16, 2009
United States $3.57

2009 Big Mac Index

Current price

$3.99

Implied annual inflation rate 2009-2016

1.6%

Why even waste time on this? Big Mac does not well represent what people buy. PERIOD.

It doesn't represent rent, or electronics, transportation or even produce costs.

It just represents a profit maximizing price point McDonalds thinks it can sell Big Mac at.

Indisputably..... Inflation is generally measured using a basket of goods.....

I just find it amusing how these idiots uncritically swallow whatever they are fed by meme....

You mean like a Big Mac?

And I see you're still having difficulty understanding what a chart is.....

A Big Mac is a "basket of goods"?

What, according to McDonald's, is the current price of a Big Mac?

Not sure if serious...

Let's try again....


According to McDonald's, what is the current price of a Big Mac?