Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
- May 3, 2011
- 102,029
- 36,087
Don't worry, it's not your fault.
I'll give you some helpful hints on how not to be one.
1) respond to what is written in the post.
Ok, I'll do that. What you wrote is wrong, and uninformed crap. Anyone can post "Oh, come off it. Clinton and Obama made an economy that lost 7 million people their homes, and saw the top 0.1% gain a massive percentage more of wealth."
What you posted, and I just repeated, have the exact same validity and support.
Crap?
What's crap?
7 million Americans lost their homes during the recession. Are they ready to buy again? — bobsullivan.net
"
7 million Americans lost their homes during the recession. "
Many Who Lost Homes to Foreclosure in Last Decade Won’t Return — NAR
"
Less than one-third of families who lost their homes to foreclosure or other distress events in the past decade are likely to become homeowners again, according to an analysis by the National Association of Realtors.
More than 9.3 million homeowners went through a foreclosure, surrendered their home to a lender or sold their home via a distress sale between 2006 and 2014."
Okay, might have been more than 7 million.
Crap that is not. Uniformed it is not.
Just because "anyone can post this" doesn't mean it's not true.
Bush pushed the economy, he spent massively on wars, and he didn't fix the problems that would become massive problems.
And why would he?
His friends got rich in the war. People he didn't know or care about lost their lives.
His friends got rich in the recession. People he didn't know or care about lost their homes.
See the pattern here?
Obama had nothing to do with the start of the recession. That had happened before he became President.
Clinton, yeah, he might have helped the recession with policies that he implemented, then again Bush had 7 years to change those.
Yes, I see a pattern. You blindly cite basic facts, and then using the power of partisanship, blame someone, without any evidence whatsoever that the person you blame had anything to do with the facts you cite.
That's the pattern I see.
Was it not Bush who pushed to have new regulation on Freddie and Fannie, the two biggest mortgage suppliers in the entire country, and also happen to be the two largest bail outs of the entire sub-prime crash?
Was it not the democrats who opposed controlling the GSEs because were doing an "outstanding leadership" job of pushing sub-prime mortgages?
Was it not the democrats who said there actually was no bubble at all?
And honestly, the level of intellectually brainlessness, to simply say "something bad happened.... X was president, therefore X must be to blame", is basically the intellectually thinking skill of a toddler. Maybe even lower than a toddler, given my sisters kids show more deductive reasoning than this.
View attachment 175885
Do you see a slight problem with the utterly mindless, "blame Bush" left-winger rant? It's called "facts". Facts are a problem for the mindless left-wing blame-Bush-until-the-end-of-time rant session.
This is why I stopped being a left-winger myself. When I actually looked at facts, instead of just "dur.... so-and-so is president, and something bad happened, therefore so-and-so caused all bad things on Earth during his term".
The housing price bubble started in 1997. That is a fact. That fact, blows up your idiotic 5-year-old toddler 'blame bush forever' argument.
Wait, are you telling me Presidents don't have responsibility for the economy? Trump seems to think so.
Also, if you note what I said
Sorry to spoil your party, but I didn't say this was just Bush. I said Bush and others. Oppsie, didn't see that one, huh?
I could put together a 10,000 word disertation on the whole thing. Then do you know what would happen. 99% of the people who might consider replying wouldn't even read past the title. Then another 0.7% wouldn't read past the first paragraph. So cut the sanctimonious crap. We're on a site full of people who don't have a concentration span long enough to get past insults.
But here's the thing. Bush knew in September 2003 there was a problem with Freddie and Fanny and yet it still went balls up 5 years later.
Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis
Here's a good article from Forbes.
The start... 1998. Clinton was president.
"In 1998, banks got the green light to gamble: The Glass-Steagall legislation, which separated regular banks and investment banks was repealed in 1998. This allowed banks, whose deposits were guaranteed by the FDIC, i.e. the government, to engage in highly risky business."
"Low interest rates fueled an apparent boom: Following the dot-com bust in 2000, the Federal Reserve dropped rates to 1 percent and kept them there for an extended period. This caused a spiral in anything priced in dollars (i.e., oil, gold) or credit (i.e., housing) or liquidity driven (i.e., stocks)."
Well, this is the Federal Reserve's doing. That doesn't mean the Executive doesn't make decisions in this regard.
"Derivatives were unregulated: Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument. They are exempt from all oversight, counter-party disclosure, exchange listing requirements, state insurance supervision and, most important, reserve requirements. This allowed AIG to write $3 trillion in derivatives while reserving precisely zero dollars against future claims."
So, whose job is it to write the laws for this regulation?
Congress. But then the President is a part of this process.
"It was primarily private lenders who relaxed standards: Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards."
Why were there lenders no subject to congressional regulations?
There are many other things that helped to cause the economic crisis. But what happens in almost every case is this?
Why wasn't something done about the problems that were happening? Congress is there to write the laws. The President is there to sign the laws or not. Good Presidents will push for the right regulations that will stop this. Bad Presidents won't.
So, does Bush get exonerated because he did not get done what needed to be done? Is being a bad president an excuse? Is lack of effort an excuse?
In answer to what could have been done differently.
"The answer is clear: nothing. Nothing would have been different. This is not a speculation. We know it because an interesting new book describes what did happen to the people who did speak out and try to blow the whistle on what was going on. They were ignored or sidelined in the rush for the money."
"The drive for short-term profit crushed all opposition in its path, until the inevitable meltdown in 2008."
"The question is very simple. Do we want to deny reality and go down the same path as we went down in 2008, pursuing short-term profits until we encounter yet another, even-worse financial disaster? "
The answer is yes. The people in power, like Trump, want another crisis. Why? Because short term gain is better for them than a long term steady economy.
Trump is pushing things again, reducing regulations.
Trump to order regulatory rollback Friday for finance industry starting with Dodd-Frank
"
Trump to order regulatory rollback Friday for finance industry starting with Dodd-Frank"
History repeats itself.
"In 1998, banks got the green light to gamble: The Glass-Steagall legislation, which separated regular banks and investment banks was repealed in 1998. This allowed banks, whose deposits were guaranteed by the FDIC, i.e. the government, to engage in highly risky business."
That's awful!
But the only risky business that caused the banks trouble was mortgages.
Glass-Steagall didn't restrict mortgage lending.
