Roosevelt's Great Depression

[Dad2three]

Republican deregulation and hands off economic policies gave us the Great Depression

We didn't elect another Republican for 20 years

George Bushs deregulation and hands off economic policies gave us the Great Bush Recession

It will be over 20 years before we elect another Republican

Fannie and Freddie were "Deregulated"?

Really?

Nah, Dubya was the regulator of them,. we saw how THAT worked out, after trailing the private markets, Dubya allowed F/F to chase the markets to the bottom though starting 2005. BEFORE that Dubya increased the 'goals' he set for 'affordable housing', going from 50% to 56% AND allowing them to use subprime to reach the goals, something Clinton got rid of in 2000.


Guess what happened to FF when Dubya ALSO required them to buy up $440 billion in MBS's in the secondary markets???



June 17, 2004

Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people,


Home builders fight Bush s low-income housing - Jun. 17 2004

 

[Dad2three]

Perhaps Lincoln's presidency has been studied more, but by this time, FDR's period has been researched to death by both liberals and conservatives, enough times to draw some conclusions about that epic in American history. There were no manuals on curing depressions at that time, (is there today?) and as FDR said we would try things, and he did. Not all were successful, and today an author can take those failures, make a book, and make conservatives feel better. Still for conservatives, FDR has got to be hard to take, I mean all historians rate him at least third best president; those that lived through that period elected him four times and would probably be electing him still today, even Reagan voted for him. That's gotta hurt conservatives.

Sorry, were you not aware of the 1920-21 Depression?

Harding and Coolidge ended it in 18 months, not 7 years and they didn't need Hitler to start WWII end it either

1921 and All That


The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.


But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

...And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/?_r=0

 

[Dad2three]

"This thread is not about Hoover, you dunce. Cut to the chase: did FDR's economic policies shorten the depression?"

You have to compare it with Hoover's inadequacy to get an in-context answer.

No one doesn't.

One simply must be fearlessly honest.

That leaves you out.

Tell us why you lied about the stock market.

WEIRD, CHIC PASSED RIGHT BY YOUR POST, TWICE NOW ON CALLING HER OUT FOR HER LIE THE STOCKS DUMPED UNDER FDR


HERE IT IS CHICKIE:


Roosevelt s Great Depression Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[regent]

As the economy was recovering in 1935 and 1936, some thought recovering too fast and they would have the whole thing start again so FDR slowed the spending down. Bingo the economy had a relapse in 1937.

 

[Dot Com]

Republican deregulation and hands off economic policies gave us the Great Depression

We didn't elect another Republican for 20 years

George Bushs deregulation and hands off economic policies gave us the Great Bush Recession

It will be over 20 years before we elect another Republican

Fannie and Freddie were "Deregulated"?

Really?

Stop w/ that Repub talking-point @Frank1400PennAve CrusaderFrank

FactWatch Fannie and Freddie were followers not leaders in mortgage frenzy Center for Public Integrity

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims not culprits - BusinessWeek

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards.

The vast majority of those who defaulted were those that were taken-in by for-profit grifters AKA- CrusaderFrank's "job creators" lol CrusaderFrank

F/F set the standard for AAA rated paper. They gave AAA rating to sub-prime, no income no asset loans and they were never less than 1/4 of the mortgage market

No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)

1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom:
2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis

3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it: This is not exactly an obscure corner of the wonk world — it is one of the most studied capital markets in the world.


4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now


MY FAV, THE ONLY DISSENTING MEMBER OIF DUBYA'S FIIN CRISIS COMM, WHO IS BLAMING F.F AND THE GOV'T TODAY:

(AEI'S) Peter Wallison in 2004: “In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”

Hey Mayor Bloomberg No the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown but thats just according to the data The Big Picture

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown

Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.

Wall Street Not Fannie and Freddie Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast


SUBPRME RATED AAA??? LOL

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.


To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud.

Don't ask; don't tell: book profits, "earn" bonuses and closet your losses

The first document everyone should read is by S&P, the largest of the rating agencies. The context of the document is that a professional credit rater has told his superiors that he needs to examine the mortgage loan files to evaluate the risk of a complex financial derivative whose risk and market value depend on the credit quality of the nonprime mortgages "underlying" the derivative. A senior manager sends a blistering reply with this forceful punctuation:

Any request for loan level tapes is TOTALLY UNREASONABLE!!! Most investors don't have it and can't provide it. [W]e MUST produce a credit estimate. It is your responsibility to provide those credit estimates and your responsibility to devise some method for doing so.

The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis William K. Black


F/F WERE AROUND FOR 70 YEARS, WHAT CHANGED BUBBA

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse



Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

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

Yabut that destroys the Repubs and, by extension, CrusaderFrank 's false oft-repeated meme

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dad2 is just a plain fucking outright liar.

There's no polite way to say it

 

[Dad2three]

Dad2 is just a plain fucking outright liar.

There's no polite way to say it

Oh sorry, forgot you have some out of context vid of some Dems including Barney Frank, Mr super powers himself, lol


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.


FF were bit-players in subprime, getting in late to the game as they lost so much market share to the private lenders who had long-ago forged bravely into the subprime space.

And I note, nothing on comparative default rates. Surprise surprise.


Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA OR OTHER GOV'T MANDATES, would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

But that dog that didn't bark.

 

[Dot Com]

Dad2 is just a plain fucking outright liar.

There's no polite way to say it

a liar w/ sources? Thats rich coming from the guy who provided one source in the last few pages that goes for 94% of the eXtreme rw on this board which is pretty much every rw'er here CrusaderFrank

 

[Dot Com]

Dad2 is just a plain fucking outright liar.

There's no polite way to say it

Oh sorry, forgot you have some out of context vid of some Dems including Barney Frank, Mr super powers himself, lol


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.


FF were bit-players in subprime, getting in late to the game as they lost so much market share to the private lenders who had long-ago forged bravely into the subprime space.

And I note, nothing on comparative default rates. Surprise surprise.


Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA OR OTHER GOV'T MANDATES, would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

But that dog that didn't bark.

OUCH!!! That HAD to leave a mark CrusaderFrank

OP (PoliticalSpice) appears to have retreated at double-time as well.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dad2 is just a plain fucking outright liar.

There's no polite way to say it

Oh sorry, forgot you have some out of context vid of some Dems including Barney Frank, Mr super powers himself, lol


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.


FF were bit-players in subprime, getting in late to the game as they lost so much market share to the private lenders who had long-ago forged bravely into the subprime space.

And I note, nothing on comparative default rates. Surprise surprise.


Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA OR OTHER GOV'T MANDATES, would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

But that dog that didn't bark.

See? Nothing out of context about Barney and the Dems defending F/F to the death

Fucking

Liar

 

[Dot Com]

Stop w/ that Repub talking-point @Frank1400PennAve CrusaderFrank

FactWatch Fannie and Freddie were followers not leaders in mortgage frenzy Center for Public Integrity

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims not culprits - BusinessWeek

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards.

The vast majority of those who defaulted were those that were taken-in by for-profit grifters AKA- CrusaderFrank's "job creators" lol CrusaderFrank

you might not look so foolish if you took 10 mins to read the above facts CrusaderFrank

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Stop w/ that Repub talking-point @Frank1400PennAve CrusaderFrank

FactWatch Fannie and Freddie were followers not leaders in mortgage frenzy Center for Public Integrity

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims not culprits - BusinessWeek

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards.

The vast majority of those who defaulted were those that were taken-in by for-profit grifters AKA- CrusaderFrank's "job creators" lol CrusaderFrank

you might not look so foolish if you took 10 mins to read the above facts CrusaderFrank

Dot, stick with topic you know. Also, you might want to consider getting a set of Pompoms since you've decided to cheer-lead here

 

[Dad2three]

Dad2 is just a plain fucking outright liar.

There's no polite way to say it

Oh sorry, forgot you have some out of context vid of some Dems including Barney Frank, Mr super powers himself, lol


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.


FF were bit-players in subprime, getting in late to the game as they lost so much market share to the private lenders who had long-ago forged bravely into the subprime space.

And I note, nothing on comparative default rates. Surprise surprise.


Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA OR OTHER GOV'T MANDATES, would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

But that dog that didn't bark.

See? Nothing out of context about Barney and the Dems defending F/F to the death

Fucking

Liar

YOU MEAN WHEN THEY WERE DEFENDING F/F 2003-2004 OVER THEIR ACCOUNTING SCANDALS,. BEFORE DUBYA'S SSUBPRIME BUBBLE PUSHED THEM OVER THE EDGE????

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


LOL

 

[Dot Com]

^ I know right? Well Frank1400PennAve?

back to topic- our best 4-term President ever & he was a Democrat

 

[CrusaderFrank]

People who don't even know what Fannie and Freddie do, like Dads2 or Dot, should not chime in on these discussions

 

[Dot Com]

yeah because extensive sourcing exhibits a lack of facts right Frankie?

 

[Dad2three]

People who don't even know what Fannie and Freddie do, like Dads2 or Dot, should not chime in on these discussions

LOL, Bubba, STOP BEING SO WILLFULLY IGNORANT!!


ANY posit you have I'll trash with REAL FACTS on Dubya's subprime bubble, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT F/F GOT IN TROUBLE, MAINLY BECAUSE DUBYA AS REGULATOR EITHER ALLOWED IT OR REQUIRED THEM TO DO IT!!! ALL BACKED UP HERE


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


LINKS FROM DOZENS OF SOURCES. You? Out of context vids, lol

 

[Dot Com]

People who don't even know what Fannie and Freddie do, like Dads2 or Dot, should not chime in on these discussions

LOL, Bubba, STOP BEING SO WILLFULLY IGNORANT!!


ANY posit you have I'll trash with REAL FACTS on Dubya's subprime bubble, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT F/F GOT IN TROUBLE, MAINLY BECAUSE DUBYA AS REGULATOR EITHER ALLOWED IT OR REQUIRED THEM TO DO IT!!! ALL BACKED UP HERE


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


LINKS FROM DOZENS OF SOURCES. You? Out of context vids, lol

Thats our CrusaderFrank . He drank the AEI kool aid

 

[Camp]

My pal reggie keeps telling me that 'historians claim that Franklin Roosevelt was the greatest US President."

Yup, they do.....perhaps on reason may be that the vast majority of 'em are way Left Liberals...they know what their status and careers depend on!


1. Here are three looming debilitations of Franklin Roosevelt:

a. His attachment to Joseph Stalin, and, in large measure, acceptance of communistm

b. His monumental efforts to subvert the United States Constitution

c. His inept handling of the recession, turning into and extending the Depression.




2. Let's concentrate on the last one, his responsibility for the 'Great Depression.'
Don't take my word for the ineptitude, here is Roosevelt BFF, secretary of the treasury, expert on finance and compendium of statistics on the economy of the 1930's:

" “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”
Morgenthau Diary, May 9, 1939, Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Library

a. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.” http://www.aei.org/article/26390




3. Now, our Leftist Liberals (redundant?) could have mentioned the very best of recession-fighters....but he was a Republican, and made no attempt to grow the size of government....so that makes him ineligible for praise. His name was Warren G. Harding.

a. The decline in the GNP price deflator from 1920 to 1921 is the largest one-year percentage decline in the series in the more than 120 years covered. Various estimates show that one-year deflation figures were 18 percent, 13.0 percent, and 14.8 percent, respectively. The closest comparator is the 11.5 percent deflation recorded for 1931-32, the third year of the Great Depression.
How to Create the Great er Depression II - Behind Blue Lines

b. Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.
As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm

I'll bet that the government school hid those facts from their captive audience, the Liberals-in-Training.
And they call it 'higher education.'


4.Under Franklin Roosevelt- "No depression, or recession, had ever lasted even half this long."

a. 8,020,000 Americans were unemployed in 1931. In 1939, after the excellent decisions by Franklin Roosevelt, there were 9,480,000 unemployed.
Folsom, "New Deal of Raw Deal," p. 3.


Now....where are the Roosevelt fans who are ready to explain the different results under Harding, as compared to those under Roosevelt?

And, while you are at it....why no mention of Harding by your Democrat stenographers, aka historians.

The thesis being promoted by the OP is dependent on the hucksterism of promoting the misinterpreted unemployment numbers of Stanley Lebergott. Lebergott did not count workers earning paychecks from government agencies as being employed. They were counted as being on "relief". Nobody payed much attention until 1976 when economist Michael Darby stirred the pot by reevaluating the numbers by including the workers on "relief" and collecting paychecks as being employed.

Like so many of the OP's thesis and ideas, old and obsolete data is used for fraudulent promotion that fit a political agenda. Darby's revelations are just ignored and left out of the picture, even though his work is not challenged and accepted as valid and accurate by economist. It is not as though one economist is dishonest or more accurate. They used different methods to reach conclusions about specific topics of focus. Lebergott was determining how many workers were displaced from private sector workforce. He counted those working on the relief programs as displaced and for his purposes, unemployed in relationship to the private sector work force. Lebergott's method accepted relief jobs as unemployment. Darby focused on actual numbers of individuals able, available and willing to work, but unable to find employment of any kind. He included the relief workers as employed.

edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-reading-list-unemployment-in-the-1930s/

fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/maremp93.pdf

mediamatters.org/research/2008/12/03/conservatives-cherry-pick-1930s-unemployment-fi/146376

This is not some kind of hidden and secret topic. Anyone who doesn't like the sources provided is welcome to provide other ones. The facts will stay the same no matter what about Lebergott and Darby and the 0P will remain a fraudulent piece of revisionism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My pal reggie keeps telling me that 'historians claim that Franklin Roosevelt was the greatest US President."

Yup, they do.....perhaps on reason may be that the vast majority of 'em are way Left Liberals...they know what their status and careers depend on!


1. Here are three looming debilitations of Franklin Roosevelt:

a. His attachment to Joseph Stalin, and, in large measure, acceptance of communistm

b. His monumental efforts to subvert the United States Constitution

c. His inept handling of the recession, turning into and extending the Depression.




2. Let's concentrate on the last one, his responsibility for the 'Great Depression.'
Don't take my word for the ineptitude, here is Roosevelt BFF, secretary of the treasury, expert on finance and compendium of statistics on the economy of the 1930's:

" “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”
Morgenthau Diary, May 9, 1939, Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Library

a. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.” http://www.aei.org/article/26390




3. Now, our Leftist Liberals (redundant?) could have mentioned the very best of recession-fighters....but he was a Republican, and made no attempt to grow the size of government....so that makes him ineligible for praise. His name was Warren G. Harding.

a. The decline in the GNP price deflator from 1920 to 1921 is the largest one-year percentage decline in the series in the more than 120 years covered. Various estimates show that one-year deflation figures were 18 percent, 13.0 percent, and 14.8 percent, respectively. The closest comparator is the 11.5 percent deflation recorded for 1931-32, the third year of the Great Depression.
How to Create the Great er Depression II - Behind Blue Lines

b. Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.
As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm

I'll bet that the government school hid those facts from their captive audience, the Liberals-in-Training.
And they call it 'higher education.'


4.Under Franklin Roosevelt- "No depression, or recession, had ever lasted even half this long."

a. 8,020,000 Americans were unemployed in 1931. In 1939, after the excellent decisions by Franklin Roosevelt, there were 9,480,000 unemployed.
Folsom, "New Deal of Raw Deal," p. 3.


Now....where are the Roosevelt fans who are ready to explain the different results under Harding, as compared to those under Roosevelt?

And, while you are at it....why no mention of Harding by your Democrat stenographers, aka historians.

The thesis being promoted by the OP is dependent on the hucksterism of promoting the misinterpreted unemployment numbers of Stanley Lebergott. Lebergott did not count workers earning paychecks from government agencies as being employed. They were counted as being on "relief". Nobody payed much attention until 1976 when economist Michael Darby stirred the pot by reevaluating the numbers by including the workers on "relief" and collecting paychecks as being employed.

Like so many of the OP's thesis and ideas, old and obsolete data is used for fraudulent promotion that fit a political agenda. Darby's revelations are just ignored and left out of the picture, even though his work is not challenged and accepted as valid and accurate by economist. It is not as though one economist is dishonest or more accurate. They used different methods to reach conclusions about specific topics of focus. Lebergott was determining how many workers were displaced from private sector workforce. He counted those working on the relief programs as displaced and for his purposes, unemployed in relationship to the private sector work force. Lebergott's method accepted relief jobs as unemployment. Darby focused on actual numbers of individuals able, available and willing to work, but unable to find employment of any kind. He included the relief workers as employed.

edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-reading-list-unemployment-in-the-1930s/

fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/maremp93.pdf

mediamatters.org/research/2008/12/03/conservatives-cherry-pick-1930s-unemployment-fi/146376

1. "....promotion that fit a political agenda."
So very true.
I object to a monarch, as did the founders.
The Constitution is the law of the land...and was so until Franklin Roosevelt.
But...as long as he has the worship of folks like you, who care nothing for the nation that the Founders envisioned, his injuries to the nation will be ignored.



2. Here are three looming debilitations of Franklin Roosevelt:

a. His attachment to Joseph Stalin, and, in large measure, acceptance of communism

b. His monumental efforts to subvert the United States Constitution

c. His inept handling of the recession, turning into and extending the Depression.