Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is no call date on our debt. Yes, it wastes revenue in terms of interest payments, but a Congress and Executive which puts politics aside and operates sagaciously can overcome even a debt as large as we have.
We need to put an adult into the White House, and representatives into The Congress who put our nation and its people before any political ideology.
Pence's comment about being a Christian, Conservative and a Republican is toxic, thus I wouldn't want to see Trump impeached and removed from office by the Senate, I want the D's to control the Congress and control Trump's megalomania and make him nothing more than a figure head in the empty suit which he truly is.
It’s no one’s fault but your own that you lack the required skills to read a chart.LOLWell, no, it’s not. It was actually $200m per year on top of the $2.4b. And then Bush also said...I only gave you one example. Another was his American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act.
That's part of the $2.6 billion you already mentioned. Chicken feed.
”And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.”
Well, no, it’s not. It was actually $200m per year on top of the $2.4b.
Oh, $200 million a year, still peanuts, compared to hundreds of billions worth of subprime mortgages
bought by the GSEs.
And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and,
Yes, the mandate raising their subprime quota from 50% to 55%.
Try harder.
I just showed you Bush was pushing for the GSE’s to invest $440b into the private sector. And his policies worked.
Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president, they began exploding in 2004, following Bush’s lead. They dropped to 7.4% of the market share of all mortgages in 2002 .... and then tripled to over 20% until the housing markets and credit markets began to collapse.
I just showed you Bush was pushing for the GSE’s to invest $440b into the private sector.
Absolutely!
On top of the $1.2 trillion in crappy mortgages they already held by 2002.
And that was well before Bush raised their quota to 55% in 2007.
That 50% mandate really boosted demand for that low quality shit.
Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president
You may want to look at your chart again.
They were higher every year after 2000.
The first year over year drop was in 2006.
We're 21 trillion dollars in debt. And our dollar is worth 4 cents.
We're broke. It's been a bipartisan effort.
We're 21 trillion dollars in debt. And our dollar is worth 4 cents.
If that's the case, our debt is only $840 billion.
The facts:
Why These Currencies are the Safest in the World
The U.S. dollar is currently in bull mode, and that’s likely to last for a considerable amount of time. On the other hand, while the Federal Reserve is capable of bailing everyone out, eventually, who’s going to bailout the Federal Reserve? The answer to that question might irritate you, because the answer is likely going to be you the taxpayer.
Why would a Central Bank ever need to be bailed out?
A. The Feds can print money, the executive can shut the doors of the banks, and those too big to fail and fail to protect themselves will be bailed out, when We the People suffer.
Q. Why does the GOP continue to oppose regulations, and allow brokers to exploit common sense?
A. They profit, at the expense of others (which is why we need regulations and regulators to do their job!). Under Trump, the Federal Government has failed to regulate, and that is dangerous.
Why would a Central Bank ever need to be bailed out?
The central bank needs to be ended and we need to get back to free markets dictating the economy instead of the government.
Not. The Fed sets interest rates, and controls inflation; protective tariffs creates chaos, which impacts decisions made by The Fed which acts as a governor to protect against high inflation and deflation.
It’s no one’s fault but your own that you lack the required skills to read a chart.LOLWell, no, it’s not. It was actually $200m per year on top of the $2.4b. And then Bush also said...That's part of the $2.6 billion you already mentioned. Chicken feed.
”And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.”
Well, no, it’s not. It was actually $200m per year on top of the $2.4b.
Oh, $200 million a year, still peanuts, compared to hundreds of billions worth of subprime mortgages
bought by the GSEs.
And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and,
Yes, the mandate raising their subprime quota from 50% to 55%.
Try harder.
I just showed you Bush was pushing for the GSE’s to invest $440b into the private sector. And his policies worked.
Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president, they began exploding in 2004, following Bush’s lead. They dropped to 7.4% of the market share of all mortgages in 2002 .... and then tripled to over 20% until the housing markets and credit markets began to collapse.
I just showed you Bush was pushing for the GSE’s to invest $440b into the private sector.
Absolutely!
On top of the $1.2 trillion in crappy mortgages they already held by 2002.
And that was well before Bush raised their quota to 55% in 2007.
That 50% mandate really boosted demand for that low quality shit.
Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president
You may want to look at your chart again.
They were higher every year after 2000.
The first year over year drop was in 2006.
2002 = 7.4% ... the percentage of subprime loans of all mortgages. That was the lowest that figure appears on that chart until 2008 when the markets collapsed.
Then in 2004, that 7.4% skyrocketed.
Bush/Republican policies in action.
So why don't you give any credit to the Republican controlled House and Senate, just wondering?
It reminds of the Clinton years, he took all the credit but did very little of the work, while Republicans certainly did..
I was quite clear, despite your attempt to quote me out of context, that I spoke of the percentage of subprime loans of all mortgages. I even cited 2002 as the low point before the bust at 7.4% — and how it was after that when it skyrocketed.It’s no one’s fault but your own that you lack the required skills to read a chart.LOLWell, no, it’s not. It was actually $200m per year on top of the $2.4b. And then Bush also said...
”And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.”
Well, no, it’s not. It was actually $200m per year on top of the $2.4b.
Oh, $200 million a year, still peanuts, compared to hundreds of billions worth of subprime mortgages
bought by the GSEs.
And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and,
Yes, the mandate raising their subprime quota from 50% to 55%.
Try harder.
I just showed you Bush was pushing for the GSE’s to invest $440b into the private sector. And his policies worked.
Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president, they began exploding in 2004, following Bush’s lead. They dropped to 7.4% of the market share of all mortgages in 2002 .... and then tripled to over 20% until the housing markets and credit markets began to collapse.
I just showed you Bush was pushing for the GSE’s to invest $440b into the private sector.
Absolutely!
On top of the $1.2 trillion in crappy mortgages they already held by 2002.
And that was well before Bush raised their quota to 55% in 2007.
That 50% mandate really boosted demand for that low quality shit.
Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president
You may want to look at your chart again.
They were higher every year after 2000.
The first year over year drop was in 2006.
2002 = 7.4% ... the percentage of subprime loans of all mortgages. That was the lowest that figure appears on that chart until 2008 when the markets collapsed.
Then in 2004, that 7.4% skyrocketed.
Bush/Republican policies in action.
It’s no one’s fault but your own that you lack the required skills to read a chart.
You said, "Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president"
As the chart you posted shows, subprime loans were $100 billion in 2000, about $160 billion in 2001, $200 billion in 2002, $300 billion in 2003 and over $500 billion in 2004.
Not a single decrease in Bush's entire first term.
Perhaps you shouldn't talk about skills to read a chart? DERP!
So why don't you give any credit to the Republican controlled House and Senate, just wondering?
It reminds of the Clinton years, he took all the credit but did very little of the work, while Republicans certainly did..
The Republican controlled Congress that obstructed Obama every single day of his Presidency?
That Republican controlled Congress?
Which brings up an interesting question.
If Obama was able to steer the economy to those kinds of gains with both hands tied behind his back, how good would the recovery would have been without Republican obstruction?
But thanks for reminding everyone how not only did Obama kick Republican ass with both hands tied behind his back, but how the recovery wasn't as good as it could have been thanks to their purposeful attempts to hurt the American economy.
You know, the same economy they crashed in the first place.
So why don't you give any credit to the Republican controlled House and Senate, just wondering?
It reminds of the Clinton years, he took all the credit but did very little of the work, while Republicans certainly did..
The Republican controlled Congress that obstructed Obama every single day of his Presidency?
That Republican controlled Congress?
Which brings up an interesting question.
If Obama was able to steer the economy to those kinds of gains with both hands tied behind his back, how good would the recovery would have been without Republican obstruction?
But thanks for reminding everyone how not only did Obama kick Republican ass with both hands tied behind his back, but how the recovery wasn't as good as it could have been thanks to their purposeful attempts to hurt the American economy.
You know, the same economy they crashed in the first place.
The Republican controlled Congress that obstructed Obama every single day of his Presidency?
And thank goodness they did. If he managed to add $9.3 trillion to the debt with their obstruction, he'd have added $15 trillion if he have free rein, at least.
If Obama was able to steer the economy to those kinds of gains with both hands tied behind his back
The recession ended in June 2009. What did he actually do to help?
how good would the recovery would have been without Republican obstruction?
How many jobs was "Cap & Trade" going to add?
Or further crippling oil and gas exploration?
Or adding another 100,000 pages of moronic regulations?
But thanks for reminding everyone how not only did Obama kick Republican ass with both hands tied behind his back,
You mean the stuff that Trump is voiding on a daily basis?
I was quite clear, despite your attempt to quote me out of context, that I spoke of the percentage of subprime loans of all mortgages. I even cited 2002 as the low point before the bust at 7.4% — and how it was after that when it skyrocketed.It’s no one’s fault but your own that you lack the required skills to read a chart.LOLWell, no, it’s not. It was actually $200m per year on top of the $2.4b.
Oh, $200 million a year, still peanuts, compared to hundreds of billions worth of subprime mortgages
bought by the GSEs.
And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and,
Yes, the mandate raising their subprime quota from 50% to 55%.
Try harder.
I just showed you Bush was pushing for the GSE’s to invest $440b into the private sector. And his policies worked.
Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president, they began exploding in 2004, following Bush’s lead. They dropped to 7.4% of the market share of all mortgages in 2002 .... and then tripled to over 20% until the housing markets and credit markets began to collapse.
I just showed you Bush was pushing for the GSE’s to invest $440b into the private sector.
Absolutely!
On top of the $1.2 trillion in crappy mortgages they already held by 2002.
And that was well before Bush raised their quota to 55% in 2007.
That 50% mandate really boosted demand for that low quality shit.
Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president
You may want to look at your chart again.
They were higher every year after 2000.
The first year over year drop was in 2006.
2002 = 7.4% ... the percentage of subprime loans of all mortgages. That was the lowest that figure appears on that chart until 2008 when the markets collapsed.
Then in 2004, that 7.4% skyrocketed.
Bush/Republican policies in action.
It’s no one’s fault but your own that you lack the required skills to read a chart.
You said, "Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president"
As the chart you posted shows, subprime loans were $100 billion in 2000, about $160 billion in 2001, $200 billion in 2002, $300 billion in 2003 and over $500 billion in 2004.
Not a single decrease in Bush's entire first term.
Perhaps you shouldn't talk about skills to read a chart? DERP!
So why don't you give any credit to the Republican controlled House and Senate, just wondering?
It reminds of the Clinton years, he took all the credit but did very little of the work, while Republicans certainly did..
The Republican controlled Congress that obstructed Obama every single day of his Presidency?
That Republican controlled Congress?
Which brings up an interesting question.
If Obama was able to steer the economy to those kinds of gains with both hands tied behind his back, how good would the recovery would have been without Republican obstruction?
But thanks for reminding everyone how not only did Obama kick Republican ass with both hands tied behind his back, but how the recovery wasn't as good as it could have been thanks to their purposeful attempts to hurt the American economy.
You know, the same economy they crashed in the first place.
The Republican controlled Congress that obstructed Obama every single day of his Presidency?
And thank goodness they did. If he managed to add $9.3 trillion to the debt with their obstruction, he'd have added $15 trillion if he have free rein, at least.
If Obama was able to steer the economy to those kinds of gains with both hands tied behind his back
The recession ended in June 2009. What did he actually do to help?
how good would the recovery would have been without Republican obstruction?
How many jobs was "Cap & Trade" going to add?
Or further crippling oil and gas exploration?
Or adding another 100,000 pages of moronic regulations?
But thanks for reminding everyone how not only did Obama kick Republican ass with both hands tied behind his back,
You mean the stuff that Trump is voiding on a daily basis?
The recession ended in June 2009?
Is that the story you're sticking with?
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_07022009.pdf
Spending was on the House, which is the body Constitutionally tasked with originated all revenue bills. All Obama could do is say nay or yay.
So why don't you give any credit to the Republican controlled House and Senate, just wondering?
It reminds of the Clinton years, he took all the credit but did very little of the work, while Republicans certainly did..
The Republican controlled Congress that obstructed Obama every single day of his Presidency?
That Republican controlled Congress?
Which brings up an interesting question.
If Obama was able to steer the economy to those kinds of gains with both hands tied behind his back, how good would the recovery would have been without Republican obstruction?
But thanks for reminding everyone how not only did Obama kick Republican ass with both hands tied behind his back, but how the recovery wasn't as good as it could have been thanks to their purposeful attempts to hurt the American economy.
You know, the same economy they crashed in the first place.
The Republican controlled Congress that obstructed Obama every single day of his Presidency?
And thank goodness they did. If he managed to add $9.3 trillion to the debt with their obstruction, he'd have added $15 trillion if he have free rein, at least.
If Obama was able to steer the economy to those kinds of gains with both hands tied behind his back
The recession ended in June 2009. What did he actually do to help?
how good would the recovery would have been without Republican obstruction?
How many jobs was "Cap & Trade" going to add?
Or further crippling oil and gas exploration?
Or adding another 100,000 pages of moronic regulations?
But thanks for reminding everyone how not only did Obama kick Republican ass with both hands tied behind his back,
You mean the stuff that Trump is voiding on a daily basis?
They were decreasing as a share of the market.I was quite clear, despite your attempt to quote me out of context, that I spoke of the percentage of subprime loans of all mortgages. I even cited 2002 as the low point before the bust at 7.4% — and how it was after that when it skyrocketed.It’s no one’s fault but your own that you lack the required skills to read a chart.LOL
Try harder.
I just showed you Bush was pushing for the GSE’s to invest $440b into the private sector. And his policies worked.
Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president, they began exploding in 2004, following Bush’s lead. They dropped to 7.4% of the market share of all mortgages in 2002 .... and then tripled to over 20% until the housing markets and credit markets began to collapse.
I just showed you Bush was pushing for the GSE’s to invest $440b into the private sector.
Absolutely!
On top of the $1.2 trillion in crappy mortgages they already held by 2002.
And that was well before Bush raised their quota to 55% in 2007.
That 50% mandate really boosted demand for that low quality shit.
Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president
You may want to look at your chart again.
They were higher every year after 2000.
The first year over year drop was in 2006.
2002 = 7.4% ... the percentage of subprime loans of all mortgages. That was the lowest that figure appears on that chart until 2008 when the markets collapsed.
Then in 2004, that 7.4% skyrocketed.
Bush/Republican policies in action.
It’s no one’s fault but your own that you lack the required skills to read a chart.
You said, "Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president"
As the chart you posted shows, subprime loans were $100 billion in 2000, about $160 billion in 2001, $200 billion in 2002, $300 billion in 2003 and over $500 billion in 2004.
Not a single decrease in Bush's entire first term.
Perhaps you shouldn't talk about skills to read a chart? DERP!
I was quite clear, despite your attempt to quote me out of context
Out of context?
Try harder.
I just showed you Bush was pushing for the GSE’s to invest $440b into the private sector. And his policies worked.
Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president, they began exploding in 2004, following Bush’s lead. They dropped to 7.4% of the market share of all mortgages in 2002 .... and then tripled to over 20% until the housing markets and credit markets began to collapse.
Dropping to a 7.4% share doesn't mean subprime loans were decreasing.
FFS, $200 billion in 2002 is DOUBLE the $100 billion in 2000.
Just to clarify your confusion, subprime loans growing slower than prime loans does not mean $200 billion is less than $100 billion.
They were decreasing as a share of the market.I was quite clear, despite your attempt to quote me out of context, that I spoke of the percentage of subprime loans of all mortgages. I even cited 2002 as the low point before the bust at 7.4% — and how it was after that when it skyrocketed.It’s no one’s fault but your own that you lack the required skills to read a chart.I just showed you Bush was pushing for the GSE’s to invest $440b into the private sector.
Absolutely!
On top of the $1.2 trillion in crappy mortgages they already held by 2002.
And that was well before Bush raised their quota to 55% in 2007.
That 50% mandate really boosted demand for that low quality shit.
Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president
You may want to look at your chart again.
They were higher every year after 2000.
The first year over year drop was in 2006.
2002 = 7.4% ... the percentage of subprime loans of all mortgages. That was the lowest that figure appears on that chart until 2008 when the markets collapsed.
Then in 2004, that 7.4% skyrocketed.
Bush/Republican policies in action.
It’s no one’s fault but your own that you lack the required skills to read a chart.
You said, "Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president"
As the chart you posted shows, subprime loans were $100 billion in 2000, about $160 billion in 2001, $200 billion in 2002, $300 billion in 2003 and over $500 billion in 2004.
Not a single decrease in Bush's entire first term.
Perhaps you shouldn't talk about skills to read a chart? DERP!
I was quite clear, despite your attempt to quote me out of context
Out of context?
Try harder.
I just showed you Bush was pushing for the GSE’s to invest $440b into the private sector. And his policies worked.
Though subprime loans were decreasing when Bush became president, they began exploding in 2004, following Bush’s lead. They dropped to 7.4% of the market share of all mortgages in 2002 .... and then tripled to over 20% until the housing markets and credit markets began to collapse.
Dropping to a 7.4% share doesn't mean subprime loans were decreasing.
FFS, $200 billion in 2002 is DOUBLE the $100 billion in 2000.
Just to clarify your confusion, subprime loans growing slower than prime loans does not mean $200 billion is less than $100 billion.
Then in 2004, thanks to Bush and Republicans, they skyrocketed.
