There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in stock market!!!

[Andylusion]

Reagan and a Democratic Congress fixed Social Security in 1983. That will amount to about a 50 year fix. All we need is another 50 year fix and neither I nor 90% of you will ever have to worry about it again.

But it's not true. It didn't fix it for 50 years. Claim to, I get that, but that was false promise.

 

[Dad2three]

Of course, you haven't offered a shred of proof to support your post.

How beautifully liberal!

It has been shown countless times that Democrats caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. If you didn't soak your head in leftwing Kool-Aid, you might know the facts.

"It has been shown countless times that Democrats caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. If you didn't soak your head in leftwing Kool-Aid, you might know the facts."

LIAR


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


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


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


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them

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

How did George Bush's "home owner's society" cause the recession? Did he force banks to give loans to people who had poor credit histories?

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

 

[boedicca]

How do you propose to pay for those who have already earned social security benefits or have paid in for decades.

Just set a cut off date, and borrow enough to pay everyone off. Sure it would sting the deficit in the short term, but in the long term it ends the ponzi scheme

Since when is insurance a ponzi scheme? Germany has basically the same system for almost 150 years!

SS isn't insurance. It's a transfer payment scheme from younger workers to older retired people.

Insurance requires reserves to fund expected liabilities. The so-called SS lockbox is just stuffed with IOUs to be paid be future taxpayers.

So the US Gov't bonds aren't the highest rated on Earth? Thanks for the info *shaking head*

Here's how the government redeems bonds:

- expands the money supply
- deflates the currency
- pays off the bonds with deflated currency with the taxes paid by people whose incomes are damaged by inflation

Hopenchange!

 

[Dad2three]

Here's how the government redeems bonds:

- expands the money supply
- deflates the currency
- pays off the bonds with deflated currency with the taxes paid by people whose incomes are damaged by inflation

Hopenchange!

Yeah, it's been fkking horrible since we created the federal reserve in 1913, not as many bubbles and busts the conservatives LOVE..


Yeah, it's 'inflation' that's been the problem the past 35 years *shaking head*


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!


"How many times do you have to get hit over the head before you figure out who's hitting you?" - President Harry Truman


Republicans have hordes of people more than willing to vote against their own best interest in the deluded belief that if they support the 1%ers they will magically become one of them some day in the not so distant future!!

 

[zeke]

Democrat sub-prime mortgages caused the meltdown, not the Republicans.

Dude, your stupidity is ASTOUNDING. Really. Fucking stupidity that is almost beyond belief. Do it hurt to be so stupid? It has to. I am surprised you can post your stupidity on a computer.

Don't you ever read ANYTHING beside right wing trash and bullshit? Your well thought out position that Dems caused the housing mess has been shown to be bullshit so many times it makes me think you can't read and comprehend anything beyond right wing nuts drivel. They keep it real simple for your simple mind, don't they?

Of course, you haven't offered a shred of proof to support your post.

How beautifully liberal!

It has been shown countless times that Democrats caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. If you didn't soak your head in leftwing Kool-Aid, you might know the facts.

Briarpatty; LMAO. I should have gone with the short version of response that Dad 23 favors; Liar.

No shred of proof? Is that what you asked for? You and I both know that there is NOTHING that could be presented that you would believe, if that information was contrary to your right wing beliefs. And I do mean not a thing.

Just cut to the chase and admit that there is nothing that anyone could present that would change the fucked up thinking that you cling to. Saves a lot of time that way.

But proof? You got proof that the Dems came up with the idea of sub prime mortgages eh? And then made the banks make those bad nasty loans. With all that profit that the banks made.

Lets see your "proof" . You made the claim. It was Barney. Wasn't it? That's the guy you all always trot out. Good ole Barney.

 

[Toro]

How do you propose to pay for those who have already earned social security benefits or have paid in for decades.

Just set a cut off date, and borrow enough to pay everyone off. Sure it would sting the deficit in the short term, but in the long term it ends the ponzi scheme

Since when is insurance a ponzi scheme? Germany has basically the same system for almost 150 years!

SS isn't insurance. It's a transfer payment scheme from younger workers to older retired people.

Insurance requires reserves to fund expected liabilities. The so-called SS lockbox is just stuffed with IOUs to be paid be future taxpayers.

So the US Gov't bonds aren't the highest rated on Earth? Thanks for the info *shaking head*

That is correct. Treasuries are rated AA+. Currently, there are 13 other sovereigns with AAA ratings, higher than the United States.

List of countries by credit rating - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Andylusion]

[

Massive difference.

A bank uses the money, by investing it into something that grows. What grows? Well like loaning to credit worthy borrowers. A successful profitable business, which is likely to pay it back.

.

A massive difference because banks never go under, but the US government has?

lol, you people are a joke.

Do you idiots on the left, understand the concept of "diversification"? I don't own stock in one company. I own stock in DOZENS of companies.

The only way I could lose all my money, is if all those companies went under. If all those major, large Companies that are the dominant players in our economy all fail... All of them....

The government is gone too.

And yes, Social Security has failed dozens of times. Every time they lower the minimum payouts, every time they halt the Cost of Living increase, every time they raise the retirement age, and at the exact same time drastically increasing the tax.... that's the system failing... and they are cutting benefits and increasing the price, to prevent a Catastrophic collapse.

In any other situation you would grasp this.

If you bought car insurance for $100, to cover $250K in liability, and then the next month they said they really meant $120 a month, for $240K in liability, and the next money they staid $140 to cover $220K in liability.... It wouldn't be very many months before you figured out that company was crashing, and it's time to find a new insurance company.

If you bought a mutual fund, and was paying $100 a month, with a payout at 60, and then the next money they said $110 a month, and payout at 62, and the next month said $120, and payout at 65, and next month said $150 a month and payout at 70..... It wouldn't be long before you figured out this was a train wreck, and invested somewhere else.

But only in the idiotic, mindless left, does Social Security, which started out as a 1% tax, with retirement at 62, and now is a 15% tax, with retirement at 67, with plans to bump that up to 70, well that's a great working system that has never failed! Morons. Absolute morons.

This is exactly why I can't be a liberal anymore. I started thinking outside the collective, and they revoked my membership.

 

[healthmyths]

How do you propose to pay for those who have already earned social security benefits or have paid in for decades.

Crank up the printing presses! Why not...that's what's going on now.

No, it is not what is going on now

social security is solvent and has been for 75 years. Tell us how you propose to change it without sending millions of retired Americans into poverty.

SS WAS solvent when there were the following:

Social Security Online - HISTORY

In 1940 159.4 people worked to support one person SS payments
1950 ratio was 16.5 people worked
1960 ration was 5.1 people
2000 ratio was 3.4
2010 ratio was 2.9
2013 ratio 2.45 working for every one person in retirement...
Given the rate of decline from 2000 of 3.4 workers supporting one retiree to in 2013 2.45 workers or an average of 0.07 workers per year decline over 13 years for every one person in retirement.
By 2033 there will be ONE person working to support ONE person in retirement.
Or in more practical terms...
To pay the 2033 monthly retirement check increased over 20 years at 1% increase,
the average retirement payment of today of $1,600 would have to be nearly $2,000 a month.

Assuming ONE person will be supporting ONE person in retirement by 2033 that would mean
based on $5,000/month salary increasing over the next 20 years at 1% the one working person will be making $6,000 per month.
But to pay the $2,000 SS payment to the one retired person that will mean the SS tax will be 32.3%.... up from the 12.4% currently paid by the employee/employer into SS.

Based on the ratio of ONE worker supporting one retiree $2,000 a month or 16% of the employee's salary of $6,000 will be deducted as well as the employer having to pay 16% to SS.

These are the FACTS folks...

Social Security Online - HISTORY

 

[zeke]

Of course, you haven't offered a shred of proof to support your post.

How beautifully liberal!

It has been shown countless times that Democrats caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. If you didn't soak your head in leftwing Kool-Aid, you might know the facts.

"It has been shown countless times that Democrats caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. If you didn't soak your head in leftwing Kool-Aid, you might know the facts."

LIAR


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


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


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


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them

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

How did George Bush's "home owner's society" cause the recession? Did he force banks to give loans to people who had poor credit histories?

He FORCED F/F to buy $440 BILLION in MBS's to meet his 'goals', he ignored FBI warnings and GUTTED the FBI white collar crime divisions by 1,800+ agents, fought ALL 50 states on predatory lenders, took away Clinton's rule on subprimes and pushed the goal from 50% to 56% AND SO MUCH MORE

ALL DOCUMENTED HERE

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

Briar patty won't believe a word of what you wrote. He won't even consider what you wrote.

Explain to him that MBS's are Mortgage Backed Securities. And what role they play in the mortgage finance industry. Good luck.

I still say Clinton opened the door when he didn't use his veto power. A great disappointment he was for that..

 

[Andylusion]

Democrat sub-prime mortgages caused the meltdown, not the Republicans.

Dude, your stupidity is ASTOUNDING. Really. Fucking stupidity that is almost beyond belief. Do it hurt to be so stupid? It has to. I am surprised you can post your stupidity on a computer.

Don't you ever read ANYTHING beside right wing trash and bullshit? Your well thought out position that Dems caused the housing mess has been shown to be bullshit so many times it makes me think you can't read and comprehend anything beyond right wing nuts drivel. They keep it real simple for your simple mind, don't they?

Of course, you haven't offered a shred of proof to support your post.

How beautifully liberal!

It has been shown countless times that Democrats caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. If you didn't soak your head in leftwing Kool-Aid, you might know the facts.

Briarpatty; LMAO. I should have gone with the short version of response that Dad 23 favors; Liar.

No shred of proof? Is that what you asked for? You and I both know that there is NOTHING that could be presented that you would believe, if that information was contrary to your right wing beliefs. And I do mean not a thing.

Just cut to the chase and admit that there is nothing that anyone could present that would change the fucked up thinking that you cling to. Saves a lot of time that way.

But proof? You got proof that the Dems came up with the idea of sub prime mortgages eh? And then made the banks make those bad nasty loans. With all that profit that the banks made.

Lets see your "proof" . You made the claim. It was Barney. Wasn't it? That's the guy you all always trot out. Good ole Barney.

Sure I can. The Community Reinvestment act, pushed banks to make bad loans. Bill Clinton pushed for more sub-prime lending, under the guise of being against the supposedly 'racists' Redlining.

In 1997, Freddie Mac, signed an agreement with two banks, to make bad loans, under the Community Reinvestment Act. The two banks were Bear Stearns, and First Union, which became Wachovia. Sound familiar?

The take off, of Sub-prime lending began in 1997, as did the start of the Housing Price bubble.

So, yes. Yes Government did in fact, cause the sub-prime boom, and the housing price bubble and the eventual melt down in 2008.

You want me to repost all the direct evidence?

 

[Andylusion]

Of course, you haven't offered a shred of proof to support your post.

How beautifully liberal!

It has been shown countless times that Democrats caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. If you didn't soak your head in leftwing Kool-Aid, you might know the facts.

"It has been shown countless times that Democrats caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. If you didn't soak your head in leftwing Kool-Aid, you might know the facts."

LIAR


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


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


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


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them

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

How did George Bush's "home owner's society" cause the recession? Did he force banks to give loans to people who had poor credit histories?

He FORCED F/F to buy $440 BILLION in MBS's to meet his 'goals', he ignored FBI warnings and GUTTED the FBI white collar crime divisions by 1,800+ agents, fought ALL 50 states on predatory lenders, took away Clinton's rule on subprimes and pushed the goal from 50% to 56% AND SO MUCH MORE

ALL DOCUMENTED HERE

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

Briar patty won't believe a word of what you wrote. He won't even consider what you wrote.

Explain to him that MBS's are Mortgage Backed Securities. And what role they play in the mortgage finance industry. Good luck.

I still say Clinton opened the door when he didn't use his veto power. A great disappointment he was for that..

Huh? What would he have veto'd? Clinton was a proponent. Why would he veto something he supported?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[

Massive difference.

A bank uses the money, by investing it into something that grows. What grows? Well like loaning to credit worthy borrowers. A successful profitable business, which is likely to pay it back.

.

A massive difference because banks never go under, but the US government has?

lol, you people are a joke.

Do you idiots on the left, understand the concept of "diversification"? I don't own stock in one company. I own stock in DOZENS of companies.

The only way I could lose all my money, is if all those companies went under. If all those major, large Companies that are the dominant players in our economy all fail... All of them....

The government is gone too.

And yes, Social Security has failed dozens of times. Every time they lower the minimum payouts, every time they halt the Cost of Living increase, every time they raise the retirement age, and at the exact same time drastically increasing the tax.... that's the system failing... and they are cutting benefits and increasing the price, to prevent a Catastrophic collapse.

In any other situation you would grasp this.

If you bought car insurance for $100, to cover $250K in liability, and then the next month they said they really meant $120 a month, for $240K in liability, and the next money they staid $140 to cover $220K in liability.... It wouldn't be very many months before you figured out that company was crashing, and it's time to find a new insurance company.

If you bought a mutual fund, and was paying $100 a month, with a payout at 60, and then the next money they said $110 a month, and payout at 62, and the next month said $120, and payout at 65, and next month said $150 a month and payout at 70..... It wouldn't be long before you figured out this was a train wreck, and invested somewhere else.

But only in the idiotic, mindless left, does Social Security, which started out as a 1% tax, with retirement at 62, and now is a 15% tax, with retirement at 67, with plans to bump that up to 70, well that's a great working system that has never failed! Morons. Absolute morons.

This is exactly why I can't be a liberal anymore. I started thinking outside the collective, and they revoked my membership.

That of course isn't the ONLY way you could lose all your money on the stock market. If you trust a stock broker, he could Bernanski you.

 

[Dad2three]

That is correct. Treasuries are rated AA+. Currently, there are 13 other sovereigns with AAA ratings, higher than the United States.

List of countries by credit rating - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Oh right, thanks to conservatives playing chicken with the credit ratings, the raters downgraded the US./ We must not have ANYONE trying to get those AA rated bonds right? lol


S&P admits Tea Party antics caused credit downgrade
S P Debt default skeptics fueled ratings downgrade - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com

 

[Dad2three]

Do you idiots on the left, understand the concept of "diversification"? I don't own stock in one company. I own stock in DOZENS of companies.

The only way I could lose all my money, is if all those companies went under. If all those major, large Companies that are the dominant players in our economy all fail... All of them....

The government is gone too.

And yes, Social Security has failed dozens of times. Every time they lower the minimum payouts, every time they halt the Cost of Living increase, every time they raise the retirement age, and at the exact same time drastically increasing the tax.... that's the system failing... and they are cutting benefits and increasing the price, to prevent a Catastrophic collapse.

In any other situation you would grasp this.

If you bought car insurance for $100, to cover $250K in liability, and then the next month they said they really meant $120 a month, for $240K in liability, and the next money they staid $140 to cover $220K in liability.... It wouldn't be very many months before you figured out that company was crashing, and it's time to find a new insurance company.

If you bought a mutual fund, and was paying $100 a month, with a payout at 60, and then the next money they said $110 a month, and payout at 62, and the next month said $120, and payout at 65, and next month said $150 a month and payout at 70..... It wouldn't be long before you figured out this was a train wreck, and invested somewhere else.

But only in the idiotic, mindless left, does Social Security, which started out as a 1% tax, with retirement at 62, and now is a 15% tax, with retirement at 67, with plans to bump that up to 70, well that's a great working system that has never failed! Morons. Absolute morons.

This is exactly why I can't be a liberal anymore. I started thinking outside the collective, and they revoked my membership.

So you live in the bubble and can't grasp large, detailed things like SS. Got it

 

[Toro]

That is correct. Treasuries are rated AA+. Currently, there are 13 other sovereigns with AAA ratings, higher than the United States.

List of countries by credit rating - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Oh right, thanks to conservatives playing chicken with the credit ratings, the raters downgraded the US./ We must not have ANYONE trying to get those AA rated bonds right? lol


S&P admits Tea Party antics caused credit downgrade
S P Debt default skeptics fueled ratings downgrade - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com

Yes, I would agree with that.

 

[Dad2three]

SS WAS solvent when there were the following:

Social Security Online - HISTORY

In 1940 159.4 people worked to support one person SS payments
1950 ratio was 16.5 people worked
1960 ration was 5.1 people
2000 ratio was 3.4
2010 ratio was 2.9
2013 ratio 2.45 working for every one person in retirement...
Given the rate of decline from 2000 of 3.4 workers supporting one retiree to in 2013 2.45 workers or an average of 0.07 workers per year decline over 13 years for every one person in retirement.
By 2033 there will be ONE person working to support ONE person in retirement.
Or in more practical terms...
To pay the 2033 monthly retirement check increased over 20 years at 1% increase,
the average retirement payment of today of $1,600 would have to be nearly $2,000 a month.

Assuming ONE person will be supporting ONE person in retirement by 2033 that would mean
based on $5,000/month salary increasing over the next 20 years at 1% the one working person will be making $6,000 per month.
But to pay the $2,000 SS payment to the one retired person that will mean the SS tax will be 32.3%.... up from the 12.4% currently paid by the employee/employer into SS.

Based on the ratio of ONE worker supporting one retiree $2,000 a month or 16% of the employee's salary of $6,000 will be deducted as well as the employer having to pay 16% to SS.

These are the FACTS folks...

Social Security Online - HISTORY

You mean AS been advertised for 30+ years AS the GOP has pushed up US debt by 'starve the beast' policies to create a problem? Shocking

Weird, IF the GOP had wanted Good Gov't policy the past 30+ years instead, how would the US and SS be sitting?

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.

Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Briar patty won't believe a word of what you wrote. He won't even consider what you wrote.

Explain to him that MBS's are Mortgage Backed Securities. And what role they play in the mortgage finance industry. Good luck.

I still say Clinton opened the door when he didn't use his veto power. A great disappointment he was for that..

The "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," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


G/S had ZERO to do with Dubya's REGULATOR failure

 

[Dad2three]

Sure I can. The Community Reinvestment act, pushed banks to make bad loans. Bill Clinton pushed for more sub-prime lending, under the guise of being against the supposedly 'racists' Redlining.

In 1997, Freddie Mac, signed an agreement with two banks, to make bad loans, under the Community Reinvestment Act. The two banks were Bear Stearns, and First Union, which became Wachovia. Sound familiar?

The take off, of Sub-prime lending began in 1997, as did the start of the Housing Price bubble.

So, yes. Yes Government did in fact, cause the sub-prime boom, and the housing price bubble and the eventual melt down in 2008.

You want me to repost all the direct evidence?

Got it, You'll hang onto myths, distortions and LIES

The "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," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG TO HAPPEN?

Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law

Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.
Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion.

The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes



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


KEEP TRYING TO LIE BUBBA

 

[Listening]

No more than calling social security a safety net (unless, of course, you do enjoy cat food).

There are millions of senior citizens who lead dignified lives with nothing more than a social security check and medicare. I'm sure most of them aren't leading an extravagant lifestyle but I think it pretty well suits the definition of safety net.

According to social security my wife and I would have a total monthly benefit of almost $5,000 between the two of us if we retire at 67, which is more than our current monthly expenses. I'm not planning on that since working until 67 sounds horrible but it sure isn't cat food.

Not sure what you are hoping to accomplish with this point.

It's been a while so I grabbed the first site I could find which was:

Monthly Statistical Snapshot July 2014

Which seems to indicate that the average benefit would be around 1200/person. If you were a widow, that would not be a great deal. It might mean cat food depending upon what else you had going on. If you are still paying rent or a mortgage, it's really not good at all.

Now, this thread is a laugher in that HM puts forth a proposition that nobody seems to want to tackle in a logical fashion. I don't happen to agree with his conclusions. But the actual goals of SS have not been defined for the purposes of this discussion or anywhere else on this board (which is a pretty common malady).

What is really disgusting is the way Dudpeepee is allowed to spam the thread with his "I hate GWB" posts, which can be found on 100 different threads throughout....but I digress.

One of the fundamental statements of SS is that if you or I could have that money to invest, we'd be millionaires 2 or 3 times over. I agree. But, that seems to always bring out the usual strawmen and horsehockey from the left.

My question is:

WHY DO I HAVE TO BE FORCED INTO THE SYSTEM ?

BTW: I just put Dudpeepee on ignore. It made scrolling through the thread three times easier. She's said all she's going to say (and we can sum it up with "I hate GWB and suck BHO's dick"). I would highly recommend it.

 

[Dad2three]

Sure I can. The Community Reinvestment act, pushed banks to make bad loans. Bill Clinton pushed for more sub-prime lending, under the guise of being against the supposedly 'racists' Redlining.

In 1997, Freddie Mac, signed an agreement with two banks, to make bad loans, under the Community Reinvestment Act. The two banks were Bear Stearns, and First Union, which became Wachovia. Sound familiar?

The take off, of Sub-prime lending began in 1997, as did the start of the Housing Price bubble.

So, yes. Yes Government did in fact, cause the sub-prime boom, and the housing price bubble and the eventual melt down in 2008.

You want me to repost all the direct evidence?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From 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.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf



November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market



Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%


Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:

1 in 5



Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%


Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%

MORE ON DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE HERE:

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