The Trump implosion

[Luddly Neddite]

Was almost 100% preventable had Donald Trump just exercised some damn discretion.
He CLEARLY isnt listening to his advisiors. If he was he wouldnt be tweeting a shitstorm after every single story.

I feel sorry for his staff & family. Still better than Hillary I suppose but it's time to start grooming A REAL CONSERVATIVE for the next cycle. As I stated for MONTHS before the election, Trump is no conservative, in fact he was a life long Democrat. The only reason he ran for president is because everyone told him he couldn't. His ego had to prove everyone wrong & here we sit.

It's certainly clearer now why Russia would prefer to have someone like Trump in the WH rather than Clinton.

except that russia isn't involved. have a nice day.

Except for every single one of trumps minions, you're right.

If Russia isn't involved, why did they all lie and then finally confess?

The cheeto is either a Russian operative or an idiot.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[P@triot]

And anyone who calls herself "Dragonlady" and puts assholes like you in their place on a daily basis is no fragile snowflake.

Wait....we're supposed to believe you're "strong" based on the fact that you got to pick your own screen name for a website?

 

[P@triot]

And anyone who calls herself "Dragonlady" and puts assholes like you in their place on a daily basis is no fragile snowflake.

Put that's not what you do. You whine like a little bitch on a daily basis when I force feed facts down your throat.

 

[Indeependent]

The sub-prime loans did not cause the crash.
The crash was caused by the excessive issuance of CDOs and Warren Buffet changing the Mark to Market ratio.
Buffet needed a few billion more so he phucked everyone else.

Subprime loan defaults are what caused the crash.

Nope. The Life Insurance Policies on those Loans had to be paid off.
A 1994 JP Morgan invention that allows people to do with business entities what can't be done with people.

 

[P@triot]

 

[Dot Com]

Was almost 100% preventable had Donald Trump just exercised some damn discretion.
He CLEARLY isnt listening to his advisiors. If he was he wouldnt be tweeting a shitstorm after every single story.

I feel sorry for his staff & family. Still better than Hillary I suppose but it's time to start grooming A REAL CONSERVATIVE for the next cycle. As I stated for MONTHS before the election, Trump is no conservative, in fact he was a life long Democrat. The only reason he ran for president is because everyone told him he couldn't. His ego had to prove everyone wrong & here we sit.

Trump is not the problem. The problem is a concerted effort by the Progressives (nee Democrats) and their media to bring down this presidency by the slow erosion of unproven disaster stories.

They fully expected to have Hillary in the White House to finish the "fundamental transformation" begun by Obama, and suffered a collective psychotic break upon seeing their hard work of the preceding half-century swirl clockwise down the toilet. They are now as mad as the proverbial hatter, and are doing everything they can to infect the society with their delusions both general and specific.

All they're doing is standing by and watching you rightard. Trump is doing all the work for them

 

[The Derp]

it was. and it falls into your fairytale about the tax cuts. the fact is that lenders were mandated to give out loans. period. if they got a little more money from the tax cuts maybe they used that to justify the mortgage even though the peeps couldn't really afford them. the lenders had to, i repeat, had to give out the loans. I am very consistent, tool.

NO! Lenders were not mandated to give out loans. That's another lie. Lenders were not mandated to hand out junky subprime loans beginning in 2004. That was all Bush in his push to deregulate the housing market by wiping out state protections against predatory lending, by removing leveraging restrictions for banks in exchange for letting the banks "police themselves", by reversing a Clinton-era rule that prohibited GSE's from purchasing risky subprime loans, and for tying his tax cuts to the housing market during his 2004 campaign.

Of the top 25 lenders during the bubble, only one was subject to CRA rules. GSE loan performance far outperformed loans from the private sector. GSE's and the CRA did not cause the collapse. Deregulation of the mortgage industry did. And that deregulation started in 2003-4.

Learn facts, please.

From OC Register, November 16th, 2008: Most subprime lenders weren’t subject to federal lending law

• Nearly $3 of every $4 in subprime loans made from 2004 through 2007 came from lenders who were exempt from the law
• State-regulated mortgage companies such as Irvine-based New Century Financial made just over half of all subprime loans. These companies, which CRA does not cover, controlled more than 60 percent of the market before 2006, when banks jumped in
• Another 22 percent came from federally regulated lenders like Countrywide Home Loans and Long Beach Mortgage. These lenders weren’t subject to the law, though some were owned by banks that could choose to include them in their CRA reports.
• Among lenders that were subject to the law, many ignored subprime while others couldn’t get enough
• Among those standing on the sidelines: Bank of America, which made no subprime loans in 2004 and 2005; in 2006 and 2007 subprime accounted for just 2 percent of its loan portfolio. Washington Mutual, meanwhile, raised its subprime bet by 20 times to $5.6 billion in 2006 – on top of its already huge exposure through its ownership of Long Beach Mortgage.

 

[The Derp]

And an explosion in private sector subprime loans that Bush took credit for in 2004

Exactly. And then 3 years later, when those subprimes caused the collapse, Conservatives said "oh no, the deregulation of the industry isn't what caused the industry to be deregulated." Yeah, they're that ridiculous in their reasoning.

 

[The Derp]

You're both dead wrong (and astoundingly ignorant). The crash was caused by Bill Clinton's 1997 Community Re-Investment Act which essentially forced banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford the loans and then incentivized the banks to do it.

Moron, the CRA had nothing to do with the flood of private-sector subprime loans that weren't subject to CRA rules, nor were they underwritten by GSE's.

GSE market share was cut in half from 2004-7. GSE loans performed about 10 times better than loans from the private sector:

Also, from 1993-2003, 1.1 million subprimes were issued that had default rates between 5-7%. From 2004-7, 800,000 subprimes were issued that had default rates between 21-23%.

So explain to all of us how a change to the CRA rules in 1997 resulted in an explosion of subprime lending 7 fucking years later.

I'll save you the time; you can't.

 

[The Derp]

Wow...what a perfect day for this article to come out - uh The Derp?
Before Lois Lerner Targeted the Tea Party, She Helped the Clinton Foundation

Of course, Clinton had nothing to do with the IRS setting its own determinations to evaluate teabag groups. Had there not been a 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened the door for shady PACs, there would not have been a flood of applications to the understaffed IRS. You supported Citizens United, did you not? So it's hard to see how this problem wasn't caused by the thing you supported.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

it was. and it falls into your fairytale about the tax cuts. the fact is that lenders were mandated to give out loans. period. if they got a little more money from the tax cuts maybe they used that to justify the mortgage even though the peeps couldn't really afford them. the lenders had to, i repeat, had to give out the loans. I am very consistent, tool.

NO! Lenders were not mandated to give out loans. That's another lie. Lenders were not mandated to hand out junky subprime loans beginning in 2004. That was all Bush in his push to deregulate the housing market by wiping out state protections against predatory lending, by removing leveraging restrictions for banks in exchange for letting the banks "police themselves", by reversing a Clinton-era rule that prohibited GSE's from purchasing risky subprime loans, and for tying his tax cuts to the housing market during his 2004 campaign.

Of the top 25 lenders during the bubble, only one was subject to CRA rules. GSE loan performance far outperformed loans from the private sector. GSE's and the CRA did not cause the collapse. Deregulation of the mortgage industry did. And that deregulation started in 2003-4.

Learn facts, please.

Hmmm. Where did Al "Shakedown Man" Sharpton run off to anyway? One ponders.

 

[The Derp]

If you're looking for an argument from me - you won't get one. President Bush was a RINO.

They say that now, but back then Conservatives were 100% behind Bush. I think you are retroactively covering your own broken ideology by disassociating yourself from Bush. But deregulation, massive deficits that come from tax cuts for the rich, and reckless foreign occupations are hallmarks of conservative ideology.

 

[The Derp]

President Bush did? Or when faced with a situation he asked his attorneys/legal advisors to dig up something that would work?

What situation? The need to create a housing bubble because the tax cuts failed to deliver on any of the promises made of them, and by Bush's own admission, were proof his tax cuts worked.

If you actually think that Bush dug that up himself - then you and I need to sit down and discuss some bridges in New York that I would like to sell you.

So why did his lawyers dig up that law in the first place? Obviously, because they needed to get the economy to grow since their tax cuts failed to do so. Housing is one of the best economic multipliers there is, so Bush deliberately created and inflated a housing bubble to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of the tax cuts. He even said so while campaigning in 2004:

From Fox News, March 26th, 2004:

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.​

So you have Bush on the campaign trail saying the growth of the housing market was a result of his tax cuts. Then you have Conservatives 3 years later saying "no, the tax cuts had nothing to do with it". So that means either Bush was bullshitting us in 2004, or you are bullshitting us today. Which is it?

 

[The Derp]

Do you agree Bush didn't want anybody (ex: the states) putting the brakes on subprime mortgages? Which under Bush's watch and policies, went from 6% to over 20% of originated private mortgges.

So why was there a sudden surge in subprime lending beginning in late 2003? Simple; housing is a good economic mulitplier, and three years of the Bush Tax Cuts failed to deliver on any of the promises made of them; that they would create jobs (700,000+ private sector jobs were lost in Bush's first four years), that they would pay for themselves (a surplus was erased and 4 record deficits over the next 8 years were produced), and that they would create all this economic growth (growth from 2001-4 was the worst in 80 years). So Bush sought to inflate a housing bubble to give the appearance of growth, knowing the whole time that growth was thanks to the weakening of standards for subprime loans, and the mortgages issued ultimately were the ones that defaulted and tanked the economy.

So it's hard to see how anyone other than Bush and his Conservative enablers in Congress, and his regulators, and Greenspan, were responsible for this.

 

[The Derp]

The Republican plan going in was always to give Trump enough rope to hang himself, while passing their own agenda, and when the shit hit the fan, impeach Trump, and then sell the idea that the whole mess is Donnie's fault but WE saved the country. Vote Republican!
Unfortunately for Republicans, the shit has hit the fan WAY too soon. At this point, they almost HAVE to start impeachment proceedings, and no legislation has been passed. Their agenda won't get done before midterms.
In the meantime, Democrats are working to reverse the gerrymandering done by Republicans in time for 2018.

Yup. Party-before-country. The GOP cares not about America, only itself and its bullshit ideology of failure.

Unfortunately, I don't think they'll be able to fix gerrymandering in time for 2018. However, 2020 is only 3 years away and Barack Obama is working behind the scenes to rebuild the Democratic Party at the state and local level. The man continues to play 11-dimensional chess while everyone else is playing checkers. Doesn't really look like Trump is going to make it through the year, and if he goes down, you can bet Pence and Ryan are going down with him. I think if Trump resigns or is removed from office, the ripple effects will be felt by the Republican Party all the way down to the local level. We will get our first glimpse of this in GA and MT next month.

 

[The Derp]

As I stated before - you'll get no argument from me. Bush was a classic RINO. A true Kennedy-era liberal.

You only say that now, after the fact. Where was all this Conservative opposition to Bush when he was President? It should have started in day one when he proposed tax cuts that would erase the deficit. Where were all the deficit peacocks then? The debt clock was shut down the final 3 1/2 years of Clinton, only to be turned back on again once Bush was in office. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe because Bush and the Conservatives erased surpluses and set four -four- record deficits in 8 years.

No one buys the bullshit that Conservatives today were this major opposition to Bush when he was President. Are tax cuts for the rich not Conservative? What about deregulation? What about useless foreign occupations? What about making seniors pay more for prescription drugs? What about erasing surpluses and producing record deficits? These are hallmarks of Conservatism that you can see (mostly) play out in real time right now in failures like Kansas, Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Arizona, among others.

 

[The Derp]

Hmmm. Where did Al "Shakedown Man" Sharpton run off to anyway? One ponders.

Funny how after supporting Bush for 8 years (including his Iraq War, Tax Cuts, Deregulation, unfunded entitlement expansions, and push to privatize SS), suddenly Conservatives say Bush isn't one of them. Seriously, who buys that bullshit?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Hmmm. Where did Al "Shakedown Man" Sharpton run off to anyway? One ponders.

Funny how after supporting Bush for 8 years (including his Iraq War, Tax Cuts, Deregulation, unfunded entitlement expansions, and push to privatize SS), suddenly Conservatives say Bush isn't one of them. Seriously, who buys that bullshit?

He wasn't the dick Gore and Kerry were, hence the support. But he was tainted with Democrat.

 

[P@triot]

Had there not been a 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened the door for shady PACs, there would not have been a flood of applications to the understaffed IRS. You supported Citizens United, did you not? So it's hard to see how this problem wasn't caused by the thing you supported.

Again snowflake...if that were true...it would have affected left-wing groups as well. You're so desperate for an excuse that you're throwing out irrational shit.

• The Inspector General found what he found - and that finding was not that anyone was "understaffed". Instead, he found that conservative groups were targeted.

• If understaffing were an issue - the IRS would not have requested additional information which was completely unnecessary. That just added additional work.

• If understaffing were an issue - left-wing groups would have been affected as well.

You can lie about this all you want but it won't change anything.

 

[P@triot]

Had there not been a 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened the door for shady PACs, there would not have been a flood of applications to the understaffed IRS. You supported Citizens United, did you not? So it's hard to see how this problem wasn't caused by the thing you supported.