Looking forward to the republicans leading the financials into another quagmire like the one under Bush should Trump win. It’s the eight year cycle coming up since the last one. They have an 8 to 10 yr. cyle and then the meltdown starts. And as usual they’ll spin the blame and not take responsibility for it. What is in the Dodd-Frank Financial Regulation that is so troublesome. Either way until you remove the greed from these institutions there’ll always be trouble within this industry. The bonuses the risks the disregard for money that doesn’t belong to them. Money that’s entrusted to them for decent returns. An industry that has to repeatly apologize for bad investments to the point the word sorry is the most oft work spoken in the English language.
Bring back Glass-Steagal and reduce risk further by breaking up “Too Big to Fail Banks”. Have the Repub’s already forgotten the mess the banks created and the implosion of 2007-2009?
Nope. They’re trying to fix it. Home ownership drive by Dem controlled Congress and WH led to the meltdown, not greedy banks. Also, AIG out of control management contributed greatly. Let’s not forget GM, and some financial institutions that are no longer in existence.
But, go ahead and blame Republicans for trying to use market forces to fix things, instead of imposing MORE regulatory restrictions that do more harm than good, if you desire. You have the freedom to speak your mind … and will continue to have such freedom as long as Dems lose control of the WH in 2017.
Um, they will blame Bush. Oh, wait! He’s the Dem’s scapegoat.
But, if Obama can continue to blame Bush for the ‘mess he inherited’ (and hasn’t fixed in 7+ years), then shouldn’t Republicans be able to blame Obama for 8 years or until it’s fixed? Oh, wait! They’ll likely be able to fix it because they don’t always think like Socialist Robin Hoods.
June 10, 2016 at 10:50 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
5
5
Yogi Polar Berra,
Kind of like President Carter continues to be the scapegoat of Republicans when defending the increased spending, expanded government and debt that occurred during President Reagan’s administration?
In your mind, can there be a difference between blaming someone and pointing out facts?
When is the last time President Obama blamed President GW Bush for anything? Please provide the link or source.
Let’s assume Donald Trump is elected president. When should we expect everything to be fixed? I just want to know when we can start blaming him and stop mentioning President Obama if everything is not yet fixed.
June 10, 2016 at 5:00 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
6
2
Taking accountability while stating what you just did (as he does) does not give you credit to what is best.
I have already shown the CRA and how a bank is allowed to expand their debt to net raio numbers is what caused the collapse. It was not Glass Steagall.
Every bank that made CRA commitments to get a high CRA rating to merge or make more loans over all failed or nearly did. WAMU, Countrywide, BOA, etc.
You can even review the reason they were given high ratings. Often it was for finding innovative ways to give loans to low income earners with little to no proof of income documentation. They also received scores based on how many low income earners they wrote close to the poverty line.
These regulations are what caused the collapse.
It was not a free market that caused the problem.
I have shown you this in the past Ron, either you ignored it or you forgot about it, or, worst, you are acting dishonestly about it right now. You remember, but don’t want to let out any hints that it could have been anything other than deregulation. Your comments are too simple for you, so I tend to believe you put on this act to fool people.
June 10, 2016 at 6:10 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Bob is close to right here, but the CRA had little to do with it. The banks that gave out most of the bad loans, fraudulent loans, and committed fraud were not subject to the CRA. Allowing deregulation to allow these credit default swaps played a huge role too.
The only way to stop it is through regulation. There is no market solution to this.
June 10, 2016 at 6:38 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
A swing and a miss UW. You are wrong here.
Do you know what the difference is between CRA regulations, which you can be sued for, and a CRA regulated loan?
While it is true CRA regulated loans didn’t fail above normal loans, that piece of information is irrelevant.
The piece that is relevant is you received a CRA rating, for your standard loan practices. If you had high CRA ratings, you could then expand your standard loan practices. In order to get a high CRA rating, firms typically gave loans to low income borrowers.
It was not deregulation and credit default swaps that caused people to give bad loans. People gave bad loans to get higher CRA ratings, to give more loans that they thought would balance out their book, then they swapped the debt to protect themselves “just in case” thinking it would save their butts.
But instead, the problem loans they gave to get a high CRA rating, failed. The default swaps only made it hit more banks, marginally, it did not cause the bad loans to be given to begin with.
You cannot regulate this problem into being fixed when we regulated it into existence. I have personal experience in watching government regulation play out…
And all it did was harm everyone involved in the insurance industry and did no good.
When the government says let us be in control or everything will collapse, they are lying. It is a Putin style slow burn take over.
June 10, 2016 at 6:44 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
In other words, you think the “just in case” they did after they took on the actual bad loans they were regulated and forced into giving, was the proximate cause.
You’re incorrect.
The bad loans were the proximate cause, the credit swaps were not an efficient way of stopping the risk as people thought it would, and the standard loan practices couldn’t save the banks either.
Your view of this is wrong. Go look at a CRA rating, and go look at companies that specifically committed to loans before mergers or expanding by massive amounts.
And expanded because they got a higher CRA rating, and because that $375 billion commitment was too hard to handle (and these were not all CRA loans, but they were making a CRA commitment because CRA is not just applicable to loans but rather low income housing regulations.) they failed.
I just showed my work with one example. Would you like me to pull up 10? I’ve researched this a lot. Nearly every single company that failed made a CRA commitment before failing.
June 10, 2016 at 6:51 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
” The banks that gave out most of the bad loans, fraudulent loans, and committed fraud were not subject to the CRA.”
Citation needed. How much fraud was committed in the crises?
How many loans failed due specifically to “fraud”?
Polarized language as usual. You view the banks as predatory and that greed caused a collapse. No. The government backed them into a corner, and they found a way to survive and expand housing. The only other solution was to screw the middle class and not give the middle class any loans whatsoever. They had to hit a certain debt to net capital ratio. When they gave CRA loans they could go outside of these ratios for the poor. They had to prove they gave loans to the poor before doing mergers.
These mergers would have been stopped with Glass Steagall, but did not cause the collapse. If we prevented banks from merging, it wouldn’t have stopped them from trying to give more of the forced low income no proof of income loans though, and thus could not have affected the collapse by giving more loans to people with little to no evidence of income documentation at or near the poverty level, which are reasons the CRA gives high ratings.
Here, I’ll get you some examples, as I imagine you must not have seen these CRA ratings.
June 10, 2016 at 7:04 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Let’s do country wide first.
Here is their application to convert their business. In other words, in order to change to survive.
You say I never research, I would love to see when you last did what I’m about to do.
““In addition, OTS regulations provide that an applicant for a federal thrift charter must submit with its application a description of how it will meet its CRA objectives. OTS takes this description into account when considering the application and may deny the application or condition approval on CRA grounds.””
So in order to become a Thrift charter instead of a standard Bank charter, they must have a high CRA rating.
Thrift charters have more control over affiliations, or mergers.
“Unitary thrift holding companies, that is holding companies controlling only one thrift subsidiary, have far broader affiliation rights. They are free to engage directly or indirectly in any legitimate business activities, provided the activity does not pose a safety and soundness risk to their thrift subsidiary.”
Countrywide committed 1 trillion to low income homes to get a higher CRA rating.
As I just showed above, the CRA rating is taken into consideration when changing your charter status or expanding or merging.
In other words, if you are engaged in tactics you know will doom your firm, and want to change, your application could halt your ability to modify your firm as needed. You are stuck in bad business.
June 10, 2016 at 7:21 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
My last post didn’t go through.
I expect it is due to the links, there seems to be limit when you post them quickly.
They should show up soon. They all connect the dots rather well.
CRA regs did cause this collapse. The democrats had their hands all over it.
Excessive regulations are not good.
June 10, 2016 at 7:28 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
That is research.
I looked these things up to degrees you cannot imagine.
My father, an ex Carter democrat who flipped republican solely due to religious reasons, eventually saw these numbers.
I would give him the CRA publications, I would show him the sections of the law with examples of it being triggered that caused firms to have to do low income housing commitments to expand. These were high risk areas that they only went after in order to expand their business as a whole.
At the end of it all, he eventually basically was shocked at my change and progress.
He told me I was not like my siblings, it was clear I was meant for bigger things.
I’m not sure yet what those things are, whether I could make a dent in this if I went into politics, or not. But I know I’m meant to influence people on it.
I changed from looking these things up. I didn’t just believe it out of nowhere.
I showed another broker how laws were set up with supposed “civil rights” gay discrimination laws and marriage, and the amendments that republicans tried to insert to limit lawsuits against religions. I’ve posted those here as well. Maybe some of you forgot about them, maybe some of you never read them, but I showed them triggered to shut down Catholic agencies, and that were it not for that wording, the agencies would have been fine, and gays would have been fine.
But instead, one of the largest assistance venues there are for foster children in need, was assaulted all due to how democrats pushed through these laws.
Sanders pushes the same mentality. This is essentially a matter of control. That’s what it is.
Lies, control, and putting the government past their role in your life.
I hope you see through this UW, and Ron, I really do.
It’s why I try to give you these details. Maybe I’m naive, but I believe people can change. I have. Others can too.
June 13, 2016 at 7:42 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Bob,
Please show me where in my post I laid any blame on anyone or anything regarding the financial collapse? I only point out the facts.
I just want to know who you and the others from the right will blame for the next financial collapse. Especially if it occurs after President Obama has left office.
June 13, 2016 at 1:19 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
“Please show me where in my post I laid any blame on anyone or anything regarding the financial collapse? I only point out the facts.
I just want to know who you and the others from the right will blame for the next financial collapse. Especially if it occurs after President Obama has left office.”
“At least he took some accountability. Does he get any credit for that?
Now Republicans want to go back to those days. Do you think they are right to do that? Who will they blame when there is another melt down?”
You just said that the republicans want to go back to “those days” that caused the collapse. You’re right, you didn’t blame a law. You just randomly said the republicans would go backwards because they didn’t go for “extra points” when they talked about the collapse on taking responsibility.
I only care about the “who” because I know “who” caused the “how”.
Those who don’t know or ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. Accountability is the issue here. Not your version of fake accountability. Finding out what caused the law, and changing that aspect. The Dodd Frank act did not fix it. If you believe it did, you’re going to have to start quoting the law as I have as to how it will benefit the collapse.
As far as I know, it mainly took care of credit default swaps, which if anything, allows an even bigger collapse to happen. Swapping bad credit when done with moderate amounts of risk can actually save the industry. It is only when let’s say 90% of loans are bad and given as a result that it is bad.
But, if it is done on a reasonable amount, it can cause a bank who doesn’t have the ability, to be able to give more loans to the poor.
Here’s a question: Why don’t we just stop regulating and giving good ratings to banks based on what percentage of loans they give to the poor?
Do you support that? Because it was the democrats who did it.
And accountability is everything.
June 13, 2016 at 1:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Also Ron:
You just refuse to say the democrats do anything wrong.
You claim I’m this same way, however, I have openly criticized republican plans. Don’t side step what I’m about to say by throwing it back at me.
Here you have a republican who just talked about the housing market collapse, what caused it, how to fix it.
And you then say a cliche line to him?
I’ll ask you one question: Am I right based on my data and concept?
And on that, based on the fact that I just put all that work up here, don’t you think you should say wow, you’re right we really need to stop doing this and analyze whether saying that a deregulated market caused the collapse is a problem?
Because the democrats BLAME on that, incorrect blame at that, of deregulation, is a SERIOUS problem when it comes to solving the issue!
But you give them a pass on that don’t you?
You don’t ever say “I wonder what deregulation the democrats are going to blame the republicans regarding”
They only do it all the time, and you never comment on it.
One is an issue because it actually sways the public opinion at large into passing laws that do serious damage, and you hold the ones accountable that you can only list what they have tried to unpass. We just proved the issue was regulation and you want to make people hate republicans for the “ideal” of not wanting to pass plans, over looking at the plans as being bad themselves.
This is ideological type of debate.
Ron you think you’re a lot more logical than you are.
June 13, 2016 at 2:03 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Bob,
I have criticized Democrats plenty. You and Agent just fail to notice when I do.
Democrats tax businesses too much, spend too much domestically and internationally, over-regulate businesses, are too PC, have mishandled terrorism, they think government is the answer when it is the problem, and did not pass real health care reform that would actually benefit working Americans.
Is that enough criticism for you?
The problem I have with Republicans is that they have not acted much differently than Democrats recently. Notice I did not say anything about what they say or believe. I am talking about actions.
June 13, 2016 at 2:10 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Let’s just show a study on the matter, and this one has in the middle of it several studies it is basing it’s conclusion on and is from the OECD:
“Degree of regulation does impact on GDP growth. A more heavily regulated economy might grow on average by about 2-3% less than less heavily regulated ones. However, the effect is mainly in terms of comparisons between moderately and highly regulated regimes.”
Democrats insisted on passing a highly regulated insurance economy, a highly regulated housing economy, a highly regulated oil economy, monetary regulation, and every time the republicans have told them they are stiffing growth, (which growth is slow right now) they say it’s because we are still recovering from the recession, which they simultaneously declare victory over by regulating the hell out of it. We have evidence that we propped up housing markets, which was a foolish move, and every time the republicans try to stop this, the democrats actually proudly declare that their regulation is better than doing nothing.
Or as Obama said “He would have let the housing market bottom out” as a campaign attack against Romney.
I mean really, at some point the democrats have to own the slow growth we are having right now, and the bad regulations they are passing.
June 13, 2016 at 2:13 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“I have criticized Democrats plenty. You and Agent just fail to notice when I do.
Democrats tax businesses too much, spend too much domestically and internationally, over-regulate businesses, are too PC, have mishandled terrorism, they think government is the answer when it is the problem, and did not pass real health care reform that would actually benefit working Americans.
Is that enough criticism for you?
The problem I have with Republicans is that they have not acted much differently than Democrats recently. Notice I did not say anything about what they say or believe. I am talking about actions.”
In regards to taxing too much they have tried to push lower taxes. Democrats fought about it, and then you blamed the republicans for the shut down, not the democrats for refusing to do what the public wanted.
In terms of regulations the republicans try to repeal the PPACA, something you don’t like. And instead of allow them, you insist they compromise. Then you say they are too much like the democrats when they do? At what point will you be pleased with their actions?
And regarding regulations being burdensome, the best action then would be to stop as many regulations as possible wouldn’t it?
But then you call them obstructionists.
So you want something to be given to you, but you refuse to see it as having been given to you.
Also: Good on you for finally saying what you like in the market. You will never get what you just said voting for a democrat, and Obama openly went against each of those principles when he ran the second time and you voted for him.
With republicans you can get bad ones, but with democrats you will never go the way you’re trying to go on each of the items above voting democrats, and certainly not from Sanders who you have seemed to support over Trump.
June 13, 2016 at 3:55 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“Kind of like President Carter continues to be the scapegoat of Republicans when defending the increased spending, expanded government and debt that occurred during President Reagan’s administration?”
I also need to address this:
Reagan, did not, approve, of the increased spending. So yes, we bring it up again and again that the tax cutting worked from Reagan. Here you just stated you agree with less taxes and less regulations, and when we use an example of it working you attribute the democrat spending to Reagan, in order to essentially do what you just accused other people of doing.
It’s ironic, and hypocritical. Just vote republican already and stop defending what you claim you don’t want through the democrats, hold them accountable.
June 14, 2016 at 8:28 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob,
You are so concerned about finding ways to blame Democrats for anything negative and giving credit to Republicans for anything positive, you completely ignore what I actually said. Please quote me where I ever blamed President Reagan for the Keynesian principles that were implemented during his presidency. Do you deny that spending, government, and the debt all increased while he was the president? Do you disagree that he signed bills that included tax increases?
One of the cornerstones of my main position is that president do not have nearly the influence most people believe.
In reference to the Republicans approach to the PPACA, I have stated this multiple times, but here we go again. First, they have been wasting time and taxpayer money trying to repeal a law that has, based on the current political climate, zero chance of being repealed. Second, not one bill from them with an actual replacement, as they promised they have. I honestly believe that if they presented their replacement as a bill and spent the time wasted just trying to repeal selling it to us, they would have garnered far more support from the American people and may have generated enough to override a veto. Their approach has been juvenile.
You said, “Good on you for finally saying what you like in the market. You will never get what you just said voting for a democrat, and Obama openly went against each of those principles when he ran the second time and you voted for him.”
Which is why I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats. Unlike most people, I have read the Constitution and understand what a president can and cannot do unilaterally. President Obama may have been openly against these things, but has very little power to do anything about them without Congress. When I vote for a president, I focus more on their foreign policy and their approach to how they would utilize our military.
June 15, 2016 at 9:29 am
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Bob you can’t really pretend you are taking on someone and he is all about protecting Democrats when you refuse to acknowledge the souther strategy, Republican racism in the south, Trump’s statements you have denied and lied about, etc. You are an extreme Republican, that’s it. Your petulant climate change hissy fit has shown everybody your so called research is ridiculous.
June 17, 2016 at 3:39 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Bob you can’t really pretend you are taking on someone and he is all about protecting Democrats when you refuse to acknowledge the souther strategy, Republican racism in the south, Trump’s statements you have denied and lied about, etc. You are an extreme Republican, that’s it. Your petulant climate change hissy fit has shown everybody your so called research is ridiculous.”
Your first comment makes no sense. There was no racist southern strategy. You make things up.
I have not lied about a single Trump statement, and your perception is not absolute regarding the ones I have denied.
I can equally as easily say you denied what Trumps statements meant and use that to discredit you on a regular basis, but instead, I approach each of your facts individually. To rely on blanket labeling as you just did, is the source of racism.
My research hissy fit? You mean in that I broke down numbers you don’t like?
Grow up kid.
June 17, 2016 at 3:41 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron,
That, from Actu, and UW, and Planet, And Shirley, THAT is the left Ron.
People who openly say that deregulation caused the crises, as do their leaders, so it is no coincidence. They passed more regulations saying it would fix the problem, you said these regulations are bad.
If one party is pushing them, the democrats, as I have proven, you will never get what you’re looking for voting democrat, let alone Obama twice.
If you’re honest, just vote republican already, if you’re lying just to get an image, that’s a problem. I suspect it is the latter rather than the former, due to the fact that you voted Obama twice considering his policies.
June 17, 2016 at 3:50 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Also Actu:
My comment about global warming was in fact not that global warming doesn’t exist, it was the extent, and also whether or not it is an over exaggeration to state that 97% of scientists think that global warming’s primary cause is man made.
You cannot come to that conclusion with any rational method to back it up.
On one end you have people like agent who deny it entirely, then you have people who accept it entirely, in order to meet the narrative. You’re talking to a moderate. I don’t accept extreme statements. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
For example killing Muslims, destroying the planet, etc etc.
If you don’t get that THOSE comments are extreme, the issue here is you.
I have zero obligation to talk with someone who is such a polarized jerk as politely as I often do, while you say I’m throwing hissy fits and lying, in your very first posts to me, and accuse me and my party of racism, which is in itself bigoted beliefs about the south and is not ok, etc. And yet I do, and I try to stick to the facts as I am now.
You have got to knock it off. You’re not helping politics at all.
Do you know why they gained control in 2007? I will give you a hint, Republicans do not know how to govern. OK, that was the actual answer, not just a hint.
Are you referring to the Iraq war that should never have happened? How are you going to blame the Democrats for that waste of time, money, and, most importantly, the lives of thousands of our brave servicemen and women?
It was sold to the people as a lie. Vice President Cheney knew how it was going to play out back in 1991 but told us more than 10 years later that is was going to be easy-peasy. That is my issue, not the WMDs.
The housing crisis was not an issue until the financial collapse that occurred 2 years after they took control.
Please tell the class how they:
1. Reformed the tax code
2. Reduced spending
3. Reduced the debt
4. Balanced the budget
5. Reformed health care
6. Reduced the size of the government
7. Limited government intervention into the private lives of us citizens
You know, all of the things for which Republicans are suppose to stand.
Until you can hold your party accountable for their failures, you are in no position to criticize anyone else.
June 17, 2016 at 4:05 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Are you referring to the Iraq war that should never have happened? How are you going to blame the Democrats for that waste of time, money, and, most importantly, the lives of thousands of our brave servicemen and women? ”
Looks like the democrats succeeded in pawning that off, and you then blame all republicans and apparently not Hillary who voted for it, or Al Gore, who voted for it, and you forget that Al Gore said we had every piece of intelligence that said we needed to act in Iraq and then later said we had none. How am I going to blame that on democrats? I’ll blame them for using it for whichever political climate worked for them. How about that?
“It was sold to the people as a lie. Vice President Cheney knew how it was going to play out back in 1991 but told us more than 10 years later that is was going to be easy-peasy. That is my issue, not the WMDs.”
It’s good to see you’re more balanced than your usual person, but I’m going to go a step further here and say we didn’t fail. We took out Saddam rapidly. The entire region there has stability issues. As soon as we took out the dictator it mandated we stay there and help. As soon as we left, we allowed the war torn nation to go back to where it was before. I’m sorry Ron, you’re either compassionate to the area or not. They need help, and for us to stay. That’s a harsh realization but true. Bush was guilty only of being naive in going, he was not morally bankrupt like the democrats were on it.
“The housing crisis was not an issue until the financial collapse that occurred 2 years after they took control.”
Citation needed. What specifically caused this? Someone being in control does not show how the collapse happened.
Clinton triggered the CRA regs in his presidency. Obama was a lawyer who used those regs to sue Citibank. The democrats currently passed more regulations which you yourself said is bad, and you then ask me absurd questions? I’ll answer them:
1. In which respect? Are we talking the corporate tax code they have voted to change several times, or the death tax they voted to eliminate several times, or are we talking the revisions to the tax code they constantly tried to pass and democrats blocked?
2. Removing the Iraq war, during Bush’s office and accounting for the 2 recessions we had, the spending was not the issue except for one year, and would have in fact still been surpluses. I have done this math, you have not. One year Bush did Tarp and increased spending and you then say well he doubled the debt “by spending”. That is simply not the case. The war spending was part of it, the one year of recession spending was another. Also, if you go back to Reagan, he proposed multiple spending cuts that were called by the New York Times, the most radical spending cuts in decades. Democrats blocked it. Democrats are and have been, for higher spending on aspects outside of the war. More entitlements, more food stamps, longer time frames for unemployment, each of these happened under Obama and by his request, at the support of democrats. How do you justify this? Republicans have not moved to expand entitlements.
3. Irrelevant question, as I just answered it above.
4. Same question as above, you have now asked it three times, and I expect this is because you think you have this one figured out as an “ah ha” and you don’t.
5. Are you talking about medicare part d? Expanded tax credits? The CBO plans they tried to pass? Pic your poison. Or is the only thing you will accept an over regulated market despite the fact that you yourself said you don’t like that? Democrats blocked it. If you then say they should be bipartisan as you usually do, and then say they should market it more, that marketing money doesn’t come from nowhere, and being bi partisan the democrats don’t share these ideals, they will block it.
6. Same as your other damn 3. So they simultaneously want to reduce social security spending, put in place a private and public social security program that would reduce the size of government, and because you take the spending in a time of War with Iraq, and when democrats blocked Reagan from reducing the size of government, you then say they have done nothing and don’t track the why. The reason is democrats. The democrats campaign on increasing all the things you mentioned, and you said it’s a big deal to reduce it. You will not get reduced government size from a party who says they won’t do it. Republicans may fail to do it, but they try. Democrats will not, do not, and have not. By the policies they pass.
7. Republicans are already there. They blocked discrimination bills that impose criminal liability for anything that could be offensive to gays. They blocked bills that you consider removing the government, but in fact, the marriage federal equality bills expand government intervention, entitlement, etc. The republicans are far less into regulating the lives of private citizens as a whole. Don’t bring up the patriot act which democrats resigned, bring something up in current day republicans.
“You know, all of the things for which Republicans are suppose to stand.
Until you can hold your party accountable for their failures, you are in no position to criticize anyone else.”
And who caused republicans to fail at that? Which party specifically campaigns against all the things you just mentioned but one, and the one I can prove the discrimination laws specifically infringe on rights and are designed to do as such?
I take all things into account kid, you lie and say you do, but you don’t.
If you believed what you did, the only logical solution is to vote republicans, who as an aggregate are more for each of the positions you just mentioned.
June 20, 2016 at 8:21 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob,
You said, “How am I going to blame that on democrats? I’ll blame them for using it for whichever political climate worked for them. How about that?” Are you saying only Democrats will politicize an issue for their benefit?
What you need to do is admit that it was a Republican President and his administration that sold the invasion of Iraq based on intentionally false projection. I wonder how many would vote for it today, from both parties, if the GW Bush administration was completely honest and transparent.
How can you say we did not fail? We were told it would only be a few weeks, we would be greeted as liberators, and there would be minimal expense and loss of life. How exactly did that turn out? Maybe you have a different definition of success.
Is it really our job to get rid of every leader that treats his/her people poorly? When does it end?
I like how Republicans will defend the costs, money and lives, of taking out Saddam Hussein, but criticize how Muammar Gaddafi was removed which actually did cost us far few lives and dollars.
The foundation of the housing crisis began in 2006, but the actual collapse did not begin until 2007, well after the 2006 elections. Here is your non-left source.
1. In any real respect. Simplification of the tax code, flat tax, lower corporate tax, or any other real reform? That is upon what they constantly campaign.
2. Are you really going to play the old, “if we just remove this and that, everything would have been great” card? Just admit that Republicans were no better about spending from 2003-07, regardless of the reason(s), than Democrats have been.
3. Not irrelevant. Why would you cut taxes in a time of war? That is fiscally irresponsible, period.
4. The fact that you do not see this as being separate exposes your lack of knowledge. Unforeseen things come up during the course of a fiscal year that could significantly impact revenues and spending. The budget is the guideline and they could not even balance it.
5. I wanted them to enact they ideas for health care reform for all that would actually work. The fact that the Democrats were able to enact such a terrible law, and have the Democratic President re-elected and the Democrats gain seats in Congress in 2012, would indicate to a reasonably intelligent person that what we had before was worse.
6. So, you are conceding that they were not able to reduce the size of the government form 2003-07.
7. That happened between 2003-07? Citation needed.
All you did was prove my point, Republican are all talk and do not want to govern. I suspect that they are afraid that their ideas are only theories and would not work if actually implemented.
Keep being a sheep Bob. That is all Republican voters have become.
June 8, 2016 at 9:34 am
ayebang says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
11
16
I agree Although that may risk to another financial crisis again, another bad Wallstreet guys escaped to be jailed, Top CEO can bet whatever they want to get bonus without any worry on market collapse. It is the way the world go in USA as I heard from Republican’s Party.
It’s the Republican solution to everything. Hey, Republicans, how do you “fix” the economy? “Tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.” Hey Republicans, how do you cure cancer? “Tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.” Hey Republicans, how do you get to heaven? “Tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.”
Nope. The proper categorization of this proposal is ‘Tax cuts and regulatory relief for the JOB CREATORS, whose help is needed to restore jobs for 94 Million Americans out of the workforce’.
Please pay attention to the details and facts, and try to follow along instead of glancing at the Huff & Puff POSt all throughout the workday. Your employer will appreciate your full effort and participation, and these comment sections will be more informative to IJ readers.
The real job creators are the people who spend money, not those who place it in offshore accounts. It’s basic economy, supply and demand. If people can’t afford to buy things, no reason to hire anyone else. You are supplying the demand with the labor force you already employ. If you want to create jobs, people in the middle and lower classes need to have expendable income to purchase goods and services. And, the velocity of money increases automatically as a result.
I can count on one hand how many times I’ve read from the Huffington Post. Yogi, more and more, I’m beginning to believe you are actually Agent’s alternative ego. You became so sick of being called out, you created a new persona. You are constantly high fiving yourself out here, too. Just a theory.
Agent Yogi, I agree, let’s go back to the capitalism we had before Reagan killed our country.
June 10, 2016 at 5:04 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
Reagan did not kill the country. How do you simultaneously say Clinton saved it with rates half that of before Reagan and then blame Reagan for killing our country?
June 10, 2016 at 9:06 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
He’s actually a bot he programed to parse words from his other posts and then repost so they are different.
I have read in the IJ in the past that companies are doing their transactions over seas to avoid the Dodd Frank act. Even Met life is not claiming they are not a US based company because of the regulations.
Sounds to me like Dodd Frank just pushed US companies over seas.
FFA, Hi and how are you doing? How about those Cubs and Rangers leading the major leagues in wins?
Apparently, those Progressives in Congress, the Administration and many on this blog just love those .8% growth rates in the economy, stagnant job growth with 94 million not in the workforce, another 500,000 leaving the workforce in May alone. This country is over regulated and Progressive Democrats lead the pack. Bawney Frank said Fanny & Freddie were sound just prior to the meltdown of the housing industry. These politicians need to take a hike and government needs to be shrunk since it is stifling the economy.
Seems the Sox are starting to fade… Cubs still rolling on and on… Hopefully they wont remember they are the Cubs come Oct.
With the Jobs report last week or so, one of my clients told me that just about put him out of business.
Madigan & the Dems in IL put another budget on Rauners desk this time only $7Bill short on cash flowing in.The Chicago Trib is just blasting Madigan for this. Calling it a total embarrassment. Strange for the Trib to blast a Dem, but is getting ugly. CPS wants more state money for schools yet 6000 less students. I didnt realize it cost more to educate 6000 less kids. But Grad rate is up 20% while murder/violent crime is up at record levels. I guess there are less students because more people are getting killed. Seems the rolling average of shooting victims is at 10 @ day for now. Rahms legacy…
FFA, if we tell the truth about the country only creating 38,000 jobs in May, we are told we are taking it out of context and it really is good. This country could have been creating 150,000-200,000 jobs for the past 4 years if the proper incentives had been in place, reduce the tax burden for business, get rid of many of the job killing regulations and most of all, get rid of Obamacare, the biggest job killing legislation of all time. I don’t know about you, but I am counting the days down until Oblama takes a hike and we get someone in there with some business sense.
Trying doing some research before spouting off next time.
June 10, 2016 at 9:14 am
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
@Ron; thanks for the BLS link, which shows 2006 – 2016, per your censored time period selection.
Expanding the range to 1999 shows a clear picture of the impact of the Democrat takeover of the House in 2006; i.e. a sharp drop in job growth to NEGATIVE job growth during the fiscal recession of 2008. IT PRECEDED the meltdown, thus implying it contributed to it.
AFTER Republicans regained control of the House in 2010, the job growth numbers turned positive again.
You used an AVG NOT from 2006 to 2016, BUT over the 4 most recent years, to ‘cherry pick’ your average job growth numbers.
What is the total job gain over the last 7+ years using HOURS WORKED divided by 40 hrs per week? THAT will point to a very different picture than what you claim has occurred under Obama and the previously Democrat controlled Congress.
June 10, 2016 at 11:15 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
Yogi Polar Berra,
Agent stated, “This country could have been creating 150,000-200,000 jobs for the past 4 years…”. Did I not prove him wrong? That is all I wanted to do in this case.
Please pay attention to the whole conversation.
June 10, 2016 at 5:05 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
“Hey everybody, Agent just conceded that he has no clue what is going on.
The average monthly net jobs increase, which is less than the number of jobs created, for the past 4 years is 206,924.
Trying doing some research before spouting off next time.”
Says the guy who says Agent comes in and bullies him all the time.
Agent is just a clueless dolt isn’t he? Why don’t you just address one fact at a time? Everyone is wrong occasionally.
June 10, 2016 at 5:20 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
““Hey everybody, Agent just conceded that he has no clue what is going on.”
I especially have to emphasize this.
It’s not enough that Agent is wrong. You have to make sure the whole crowd knows.
And then apply that to all Agent’s potential comments. So you can disregard all that he says.
And this isn’t bullying, no no, it’s when I say “screw you” or “you’re a jack @%@”.
Such absurdity.
June 13, 2016 at 7:49 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Bob,
Was Agent right or wrong on the facts? If he was wrong, tell him. If I was wrong, present your facts and cite your source.
How come it is OK for you to call people out on being wrong, but not me?
Did I physically threaten him? Did I demand him to stop?
Did I tell him to F off, call him an a-hole or child?
Maybe you do not think you are a bully because you do not even know what is bullying.
June 8, 2016 at 1:28 pm
insurance geek says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23
7
Glass Steagall should have never been suspended; that occurred during Clinton’s administration along with all the other financial deregulation that was the root cause of the Great Recession in 2008. Home ownership isn’t a right, its’ something that is earned and worked for. Bernie has the right idea.
Bernie has the right idea? So, who told him to drop out of politics and retire to Vermont?, … and when did he announce it? Only if that were the case; i.e. give up on Socialism in the USA, would he have the right idea.
Yogi, the Democrats are so good at creating good jobs that we have over 94 million out of the workforce now, a record number on food stamps and record numbers dropping completely out of the workforce with another 500,000 in the month of May. People who may have wanted a job in the past are now realizing it is better to get on the numerous entitlements offered. Their idea of a recovery summer is adding more to the unemployment lines.
Now Progressives, downthumb me at least 100 times.
I would like to see some changes to what we have now. The cost of compliance with Dodd-Frank has really hurt the smaller banks. I agree with the Republicans that more stringent capitalization and less regulation would generally be better. Another improvement would be the elimination of the Volker rule to be replaced with the much simpler regulations of Glass-Steagal.
Correct Wally, I used to have a very good Community Bank and the cost of doing business, complying with the onerous regulations forced them to sell to a much larger multi location bank.
Plenty of the earlier comments pointed fingers at Republicans and banks, and not at those who repealed Glass-Steagall. Also, no blame was given to those in Congress and The White House who pushed financial reforms through legislation that helped financially weaker borrowers to obtain mortgages that they weren’t able to afford. Banks also deserved some blame for accumulating risk without consideration of the conflagration hazard of an economic downturn on CDOs, etc.
… But little commentary by those same commenters on a new approach by Republicans which hasn’t been revealed in any detail. They simply assume it has aspects that previously led to the economic meltdown WITHOUT ACTUALLY READING IT. Hello, Nancy Pelosi!
Let’s wait for details on the capital requirements for financial institutions before we judge the Republicans proposal without the facts!
It may utilize an approach similar to Solvency II, or similar insurance industry financial reforms. In most instances, stockholders’ interests in preserving and growing the capital they invested is a more powerful regulatory influence on company governance than restrictive and inefficient regulations devised by less knowledgeable legislators.
Pardon me for not completing my thought in the last paragraph. More transparency as to what insurance company management is doing is needed, and that would take the form of more extensive audits and mandatory disclosure of key transactions and portfolio details. Of course, this would require careful delineation of how much must be revealed to the public, to preserve competitive advantages.
“Plenty of the earlier comments pointed fingers at Republicans and banks, and not at those who repealed Glass-Steagall”
But those are the same people. 1 Democrat for it, 44 against, compared to 53 Republicans for it and 0 against it. Clinton should have vetoed it, but he is a conservative Democrat, and liked this kind of crap. But, it’s pretty hard to pass equal blame, or as you seem to want to do, full blame, on Democrats for a bill written by Republicans, when they didn’t vote for the bill, and every Republican that voted did vote in favor of it.
If you want to claim Clinton is / was a conservative Democrat as justification for his support of Glass-Steagall repeal, then I can claim the Republicans then supporting that were RINOs/ liberal Republicans.
If you want to claim he wasn’t you are a clueless idiot. Welfare reform, his trade agreements, etc. Nobody outside of the crowd they still circle jerk about Monica and Vince Foster denies this.
PS I care very little about Monica, Foster. They should have known who they were dealing with when they joined the Clintons.
I’m more concerned with the MULTIPLE women Bill Clinton abused or molested or raped, Benghazi, Libya and the unheeded calls for help by Andrew Stevens, and an UN-SECURE email server set up in a closet in Chappaqua, NY to avoid ANY disclosure of email communications, and which also exposed military secrets and covert operatives to foreign hackers. I’m also more concerned with MULTIPLE attempts to interfere in the FBI investigation of email concealment, and the malicious and intentional destruction of evidence in that matter.
June 10, 2016 at 9:27 am
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
…. and the Clinton Foundation Slush Fund & Foreign Nations Influence-Peddling Bribery Bank.
…. and the $225k speeches by Hillary whose transcripts are being concealed. The most highly-sought political speakers couldn’t give a 20 minute speech and earn that much money unless they were really peddling their ‘political favors, both then and farther down the road’, for the buyer.
June 9, 2016 at 1:51 pm
knowall says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
World history: The victor nations in World War I decided to assess Germany for their costs of conducting the war against Germany. With no means of paying in gold or currency backed by reserves, Germany ran the presses, causing the value of the Mark to collapse.[disputed – discuss] Many Germans literally carted wheelbarrows of cash to pay for groceries
Those who are ignorant are doomed to look foolish.
All Liberals are not Socialists, period. Socialism is an economic philosophy where the government controls all means of production and distribution of goods and services. Liberalism is political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.
Please tell me how liberty and equality are bad things?
Liberty and Equality are different things, and neither are bad.
Equality can be bad if a government takes away Liberty from its citizens in attempting to force Equality upon them.
Liberty can be bad if people who are NOT citizens are allowed to enter a Sovereign Nation without regard to immigration laws and are granted rights that reduce the Liberties of its citizens.
Both Socialists and Communists adversely affect the Liberty of people under their rule.
Equality is NOT a goal of people who value their Liberty. It is a ruse used by Socialists and Communists to fool people into thinking they will benefit from Equality. In truth, the People suffer from lack of differentiation and distinction when they stifle creativity and motivation under Socialism and its ultimate perversion, Communism.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State.”
June 10, 2016 at 11:28 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
4
Yogi Polar Berra,
You are speaking from a purely theoretical standpoint with no basis in reality. Should the government take away liberty from one to provide equality to another? No. Do they have to? Yes. It is in the Constitution.
Do you think human beings will just naturally (free-market) treat each other equally? If you think so, consider slavery, the Civil Rights movement, LGBT, women, and others who were not treated equally until the Constitution stated they needed to be. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic, to protect the liberties of the minority.
Please read the Constitution sometime, especially the 14th Amendment. It is quite interesting and disputes what most Conservatives believe.
June 10, 2016 at 5:13 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
“You are speaking from a purely theoretical standpoint with no basis in reality. Should the government take away liberty from one to provide equality to another? No. Do they have to? Yes. It is in the Constitution.
Do you think human beings will just naturally (free-market) treat each other equally? If you think so, consider slavery, the Civil Rights movement, LGBT, women, and others who were not treated equally until the Constitution stated they needed to be. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic, to protect the liberties of the minority.
Please read the Constitution sometime, especially the 14th Amendment. It is quite interesting and disputes what most Conservatives believe.”
You have such an unreal disconnect…
I don’t even know where to start here. The bigger problem is not letting the public be who they are, the bigger problem is allowing the government to control business. What you just said is unproven theory. The government simultaneously apparently stopped and did not stop racism. While slavery ended, racism still apparently exists and many scientists say it is ingrained in our dna. You believe the government stops racism and sexism and all that? I don’t.
Both of those things are opinions neither of us could prove, but you are attempting to state your opinion is a fact and everything else is theory.
Should we take from others to give liberties? No. Do they have to? No. Often when the government goes to far in this it harms the greater good more than you believe a free market will.
Let’s say free education. If someone gets a tax credit, which they currently do, they are incentivized to work up to a new education. If it is free, everyone will use it, even those who don’t use it. Does that make sense? And every person who uses it who doesn’t need it, harms productivity because someone else has to pay for that.
The same goes for too much schooling even. Many kids could graduate faster, but we go by the slowest link, instead of giving a path for those to graduate faster, fast track it so to speak. That would save billions.
In trying to “care for” or provide “liberties” to the poor, the democrats often go to far, and result in inefficiency. The free market works, and the government deciding who should get what, does not.
Do we have to give people liberties? The better question is CAN WE if we get the government heavily involved?
The answer is all too often no.
June 10, 2016 at 5:18 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Let’s just give a small example: Why in the world should we do universal pre schooling, instead of giving assistance to small families who may not be able to bring their kids anyone while they work? People in those scenarios already get nearly free day care.
But instead, let’s give free preschool schooling to all our kids? Will this become mandatory? Will my wife lose her special connection with her kid at 3 now? And that kid will be carted off to school and it will be illegal if they don’t go?
Yet another supposedly “good natured” but costly and ineffective method to help people.
The goal is minimum government interference, and targeted assistance.
Giving 3.7 trillion in spending per year, which is $11,500 per person, is not minimal government interference in order to provide liberties. It is an attempt at creating a nanny state, at the expense of the many. That’s too much money, something is wrong.
June 13, 2016 at 4:40 pm
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@Planetarium: I am NOT advocating against equal rights. I am arguing against equality under Socialism or Communism, for the worker class, of course. Try to pay attention to the context in the future. Thanks in anticipation of your cooperation in this matter.
June 14, 2016 at 9:00 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Hey Yogi,
Pay attention to the context of The Constitution:
“in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare…”
Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
June 14, 2016 at 5:04 pm
Don't Call Me Shirley says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Let’s see, the Constitution guarantees all of us the right to free speech equally. The conservatives on the Supreme Court decreed that money is free speech (Citizens United). So then, according to the conservatives on the Supreme Court, the Constitution guarantees everyone equal shares of wealth. That wasn’t my decision; it was the conservatives on the Supreme Court.
June 14, 2016 at 11:37 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Oh, and another thing, Yogi. This isn’t Twitter, no need for the hashtags. You don’t have to pretend to be hip out here.
June 10, 2016 at 9:28 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Good point James, but Germany’s debt and inflation problems were mainly due to their monetary system–which you may have been referring to with “currency backed by reserves”.
Germany’s debt was foreign denominated, and based in part on gold. This meant when they printed money and inflation kicked in their currency became worth less so they just had to pay more to buy gold or other currencies. Usually with a fiat currency or sovereign denominated debt the country prints money, pays their debt with money worth less to the other nation relative to their money or gold, and then has one-time inflation. The lending countries receive less in real terms because the debt is repayed in nominal terms, but that is the risk of lending and why they get interest.
Almost all cases of hyperinflation have occurred in places with debt or a currency that is foreign denominated. It’s one of the many reasons the gold standard is a terrible idea and almost no mainstream economists support it anymore.
Knowall, many think the reparations Germany had to pay as a result of WW1 guaranteed the rise of Hitler. Very easy for him to come to power promising a chicken in every pot and a return to power in Europe.
Government is not the solution it is the problem! The government should provide the parameters under which a business can operate and then get out of the way.
The sheeple demand that “something” be done when all hell breaks loose, so they look to the government, be it republican or democratic. The gutless wonders, who have only re-election in mind, will fall all over themselves to make it happen.
Look at all the republicans that promised to take on Obama and defeat everything. The result: ZIP!
I am always amazed when the conservatives scream about the government impeding unbridled commercial activity but when the you know what hits the fan, they are quick to blame the president, if democratic, for not “fixing” anything.
The job creators have the money, they don’t spend it because they can make money by doing nothing. No good or service needs to be offered anymore if there is substantial cash around. Just invest it and force CEO’s to support the stock price by sending jobs abroad, cutting expenses and limiting access to service.
Bawny Frank had a boyfriend working for Freddie. Anything connected to either Bawny or Chris Dodd should give anyone pause. Chris Dodd got a sweetheart deal from Countrywide on his loan. Gee, how did he do that?
Looking forward to the republicans leading the financials into another quagmire like the one under Bush should Trump win. It’s the eight year cycle coming up since the last one. They have an 8 to 10 yr. cyle and then the meltdown starts. And as usual they’ll spin the blame and not take responsibility for it. What is in the Dodd-Frank Financial Regulation that is so troublesome. Either way until you remove the greed from these institutions there’ll always be trouble within this industry. The bonuses the risks the disregard for money that doesn’t belong to them. Money that’s entrusted to them for decent returns. An industry that has to repeatly apologize for bad investments to the point the word sorry is the most oft work spoken in the English language.
Bring back Glass-Steagal and reduce risk further by breaking up “Too Big to Fail Banks”. Have the Repub’s already forgotten the mess the banks created and the implosion of 2007-2009?
Nope. They’re trying to fix it. Home ownership drive by Dem controlled Congress and WH led to the meltdown, not greedy banks. Also, AIG out of control management contributed greatly. Let’s not forget GM, and some financial institutions that are no longer in existence.
But, go ahead and blame Republicans for trying to use market forces to fix things, instead of imposing MORE regulatory restrictions that do more harm than good, if you desire. You have the freedom to speak your mind … and will continue to have such freedom as long as Dems lose control of the WH in 2017.
Billy went on Letterman and openly ad,itted the melt down was his fault.
At least he took some accountability. Does he get any credit for that?
Now Republicans want to go back to those days. Do you think they are right to do that? Who will they blame when there is another melt down?
Um, they will blame Bush. Oh, wait! He’s the Dem’s scapegoat.
But, if Obama can continue to blame Bush for the ‘mess he inherited’ (and hasn’t fixed in 7+ years), then shouldn’t Republicans be able to blame Obama for 8 years or until it’s fixed? Oh, wait! They’ll likely be able to fix it because they don’t always think like Socialist Robin Hoods.
Yogi Polar Berra,
Kind of like President Carter continues to be the scapegoat of Republicans when defending the increased spending, expanded government and debt that occurred during President Reagan’s administration?
In your mind, can there be a difference between blaming someone and pointing out facts?
When is the last time President Obama blamed President GW Bush for anything? Please provide the link or source.
Let’s assume Donald Trump is elected president. When should we expect everything to be fixed? I just want to know when we can start blaming him and stop mentioning President Obama if everything is not yet fixed.
Taking accountability while stating what you just did (as he does) does not give you credit to what is best.
I have already shown the CRA and how a bank is allowed to expand their debt to net raio numbers is what caused the collapse. It was not Glass Steagall.
Every bank that made CRA commitments to get a high CRA rating to merge or make more loans over all failed or nearly did. WAMU, Countrywide, BOA, etc.
You can even review the reason they were given high ratings. Often it was for finding innovative ways to give loans to low income earners with little to no proof of income documentation. They also received scores based on how many low income earners they wrote close to the poverty line.
These regulations are what caused the collapse.
It was not a free market that caused the problem.
I have shown you this in the past Ron, either you ignored it or you forgot about it, or, worst, you are acting dishonestly about it right now. You remember, but don’t want to let out any hints that it could have been anything other than deregulation. Your comments are too simple for you, so I tend to believe you put on this act to fool people.
Bob is close to right here, but the CRA had little to do with it. The banks that gave out most of the bad loans, fraudulent loans, and committed fraud were not subject to the CRA. Allowing deregulation to allow these credit default swaps played a huge role too.
The only way to stop it is through regulation. There is no market solution to this.
A swing and a miss UW. You are wrong here.
Do you know what the difference is between CRA regulations, which you can be sued for, and a CRA regulated loan?
While it is true CRA regulated loans didn’t fail above normal loans, that piece of information is irrelevant.
The piece that is relevant is you received a CRA rating, for your standard loan practices. If you had high CRA ratings, you could then expand your standard loan practices. In order to get a high CRA rating, firms typically gave loans to low income borrowers.
It was not deregulation and credit default swaps that caused people to give bad loans. People gave bad loans to get higher CRA ratings, to give more loans that they thought would balance out their book, then they swapped the debt to protect themselves “just in case” thinking it would save their butts.
But instead, the problem loans they gave to get a high CRA rating, failed. The default swaps only made it hit more banks, marginally, it did not cause the bad loans to be given to begin with.
You cannot regulate this problem into being fixed when we regulated it into existence. I have personal experience in watching government regulation play out…
And all it did was harm everyone involved in the insurance industry and did no good.
When the government says let us be in control or everything will collapse, they are lying. It is a Putin style slow burn take over.
In other words, you think the “just in case” they did after they took on the actual bad loans they were regulated and forced into giving, was the proximate cause.
You’re incorrect.
The bad loans were the proximate cause, the credit swaps were not an efficient way of stopping the risk as people thought it would, and the standard loan practices couldn’t save the banks either.
Your view of this is wrong. Go look at a CRA rating, and go look at companies that specifically committed to loans before mergers or expanding by massive amounts.
WAMU committed to $375 billion, http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/wamu-guilty-only-of-cra-compliance/
And expanded because they got a higher CRA rating, and because that $375 billion commitment was too hard to handle (and these were not all CRA loans, but they were making a CRA commitment because CRA is not just applicable to loans but rather low income housing regulations.) they failed.
I just showed my work with one example. Would you like me to pull up 10? I’ve researched this a lot. Nearly every single company that failed made a CRA commitment before failing.
” The banks that gave out most of the bad loans, fraudulent loans, and committed fraud were not subject to the CRA.”
Citation needed. How much fraud was committed in the crises?
How many loans failed due specifically to “fraud”?
Polarized language as usual. You view the banks as predatory and that greed caused a collapse. No. The government backed them into a corner, and they found a way to survive and expand housing. The only other solution was to screw the middle class and not give the middle class any loans whatsoever. They had to hit a certain debt to net capital ratio. When they gave CRA loans they could go outside of these ratios for the poor. They had to prove they gave loans to the poor before doing mergers.
These mergers would have been stopped with Glass Steagall, but did not cause the collapse. If we prevented banks from merging, it wouldn’t have stopped them from trying to give more of the forced low income no proof of income loans though, and thus could not have affected the collapse by giving more loans to people with little to no evidence of income documentation at or near the poverty level, which are reasons the CRA gives high ratings.
Here, I’ll get you some examples, as I imagine you must not have seen these CRA ratings.
Let’s do country wide first.
Here is their application to convert their business. In other words, in order to change to survive.
http://www.occ.gov/Static/ots/directors-orders/do-2007-08.pdf
What do you notice on page 5 of 14?
You say I never research, I would love to see when you last did what I’m about to do.
““In addition, OTS regulations provide that an applicant for a federal thrift charter must submit with its application a description of how it will meet its CRA objectives. OTS takes this description into account when considering the application and may deny the application or condition approval on CRA grounds.””
So in order to become a Thrift charter instead of a standard Bank charter, they must have a high CRA rating.
Thrift charters have more control over affiliations, or mergers.
I will provide a link that goes over this next.
http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/1998/april/bank-charters-vs-thrift-charters/
“Unitary thrift holding companies, that is holding companies controlling only one thrift subsidiary, have far broader affiliation rights. They are free to engage directly or indirectly in any legitimate business activities, provided the activity does not pose a safety and soundness risk to their thrift subsidiary.”
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/countrywide-expands-commitment-to-1-trillion-in-home-loans-to-minority-and-lower-income-borrowers-54027497.html
Countrywide committed 1 trillion to low income homes to get a higher CRA rating.
As I just showed above, the CRA rating is taken into consideration when changing your charter status or expanding or merging.
In other words, if you are engaged in tactics you know will doom your firm, and want to change, your application could halt your ability to modify your firm as needed. You are stuck in bad business.
My last post didn’t go through.
I expect it is due to the links, there seems to be limit when you post them quickly.
They should show up soon. They all connect the dots rather well.
CRA regs did cause this collapse. The democrats had their hands all over it.
Excessive regulations are not good.
That is research.
I looked these things up to degrees you cannot imagine.
My father, an ex Carter democrat who flipped republican solely due to religious reasons, eventually saw these numbers.
I would give him the CRA publications, I would show him the sections of the law with examples of it being triggered that caused firms to have to do low income housing commitments to expand. These were high risk areas that they only went after in order to expand their business as a whole.
At the end of it all, he eventually basically was shocked at my change and progress.
He told me I was not like my siblings, it was clear I was meant for bigger things.
I’m not sure yet what those things are, whether I could make a dent in this if I went into politics, or not. But I know I’m meant to influence people on it.
I changed from looking these things up. I didn’t just believe it out of nowhere.
I showed another broker how laws were set up with supposed “civil rights” gay discrimination laws and marriage, and the amendments that republicans tried to insert to limit lawsuits against religions. I’ve posted those here as well. Maybe some of you forgot about them, maybe some of you never read them, but I showed them triggered to shut down Catholic agencies, and that were it not for that wording, the agencies would have been fine, and gays would have been fine.
But instead, one of the largest assistance venues there are for foster children in need, was assaulted all due to how democrats pushed through these laws.
Sanders pushes the same mentality. This is essentially a matter of control. That’s what it is.
Lies, control, and putting the government past their role in your life.
I hope you see through this UW, and Ron, I really do.
It’s why I try to give you these details. Maybe I’m naive, but I believe people can change. I have. Others can too.
Bob,
Please show me where in my post I laid any blame on anyone or anything regarding the financial collapse? I only point out the facts.
I just want to know who you and the others from the right will blame for the next financial collapse. Especially if it occurs after President Obama has left office.
“Please show me where in my post I laid any blame on anyone or anything regarding the financial collapse? I only point out the facts.
I just want to know who you and the others from the right will blame for the next financial collapse. Especially if it occurs after President Obama has left office.”
“At least he took some accountability. Does he get any credit for that?
Now Republicans want to go back to those days. Do you think they are right to do that? Who will they blame when there is another melt down?”
You just said that the republicans want to go back to “those days” that caused the collapse. You’re right, you didn’t blame a law. You just randomly said the republicans would go backwards because they didn’t go for “extra points” when they talked about the collapse on taking responsibility.
I only care about the “who” because I know “who” caused the “how”.
Those who don’t know or ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. Accountability is the issue here. Not your version of fake accountability. Finding out what caused the law, and changing that aspect. The Dodd Frank act did not fix it. If you believe it did, you’re going to have to start quoting the law as I have as to how it will benefit the collapse.
As far as I know, it mainly took care of credit default swaps, which if anything, allows an even bigger collapse to happen. Swapping bad credit when done with moderate amounts of risk can actually save the industry. It is only when let’s say 90% of loans are bad and given as a result that it is bad.
But, if it is done on a reasonable amount, it can cause a bank who doesn’t have the ability, to be able to give more loans to the poor.
Here’s a question: Why don’t we just stop regulating and giving good ratings to banks based on what percentage of loans they give to the poor?
Do you support that? Because it was the democrats who did it.
And accountability is everything.
Also Ron:
You just refuse to say the democrats do anything wrong.
You claim I’m this same way, however, I have openly criticized republican plans. Don’t side step what I’m about to say by throwing it back at me.
Here you have a republican who just talked about the housing market collapse, what caused it, how to fix it.
And you then say a cliche line to him?
I’ll ask you one question: Am I right based on my data and concept?
And on that, based on the fact that I just put all that work up here, don’t you think you should say wow, you’re right we really need to stop doing this and analyze whether saying that a deregulated market caused the collapse is a problem?
Because the democrats BLAME on that, incorrect blame at that, of deregulation, is a SERIOUS problem when it comes to solving the issue!
But you give them a pass on that don’t you?
You don’t ever say “I wonder what deregulation the democrats are going to blame the republicans regarding”
They only do it all the time, and you never comment on it.
One is an issue because it actually sways the public opinion at large into passing laws that do serious damage, and you hold the ones accountable that you can only list what they have tried to unpass. We just proved the issue was regulation and you want to make people hate republicans for the “ideal” of not wanting to pass plans, over looking at the plans as being bad themselves.
This is ideological type of debate.
Ron you think you’re a lot more logical than you are.
Bob,
I have criticized Democrats plenty. You and Agent just fail to notice when I do.
Democrats tax businesses too much, spend too much domestically and internationally, over-regulate businesses, are too PC, have mishandled terrorism, they think government is the answer when it is the problem, and did not pass real health care reform that would actually benefit working Americans.
Is that enough criticism for you?
The problem I have with Republicans is that they have not acted much differently than Democrats recently. Notice I did not say anything about what they say or believe. I am talking about actions.
Let’s just show a study on the matter, and this one has in the middle of it several studies it is basing it’s conclusion on and is from the OECD:
https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/3_Kirkpatrick%20Parker%20web.pdf
“Degree of regulation does impact on GDP growth. A more heavily regulated economy might grow on average by about 2-3% less than less heavily regulated ones. However, the effect is mainly in terms of comparisons between moderately and highly regulated regimes.”
Democrats insisted on passing a highly regulated insurance economy, a highly regulated housing economy, a highly regulated oil economy, monetary regulation, and every time the republicans have told them they are stiffing growth, (which growth is slow right now) they say it’s because we are still recovering from the recession, which they simultaneously declare victory over by regulating the hell out of it. We have evidence that we propped up housing markets, which was a foolish move, and every time the republicans try to stop this, the democrats actually proudly declare that their regulation is better than doing nothing.
Or as Obama said “He would have let the housing market bottom out” as a campaign attack against Romney.
I mean really, at some point the democrats have to own the slow growth we are having right now, and the bad regulations they are passing.
“I have criticized Democrats plenty. You and Agent just fail to notice when I do.
Democrats tax businesses too much, spend too much domestically and internationally, over-regulate businesses, are too PC, have mishandled terrorism, they think government is the answer when it is the problem, and did not pass real health care reform that would actually benefit working Americans.
Is that enough criticism for you?
The problem I have with Republicans is that they have not acted much differently than Democrats recently. Notice I did not say anything about what they say or believe. I am talking about actions.”
In regards to taxing too much they have tried to push lower taxes. Democrats fought about it, and then you blamed the republicans for the shut down, not the democrats for refusing to do what the public wanted.
In terms of regulations the republicans try to repeal the PPACA, something you don’t like. And instead of allow them, you insist they compromise. Then you say they are too much like the democrats when they do? At what point will you be pleased with their actions?
And regarding regulations being burdensome, the best action then would be to stop as many regulations as possible wouldn’t it?
But then you call them obstructionists.
So you want something to be given to you, but you refuse to see it as having been given to you.
Also: Good on you for finally saying what you like in the market. You will never get what you just said voting for a democrat, and Obama openly went against each of those principles when he ran the second time and you voted for him.
With republicans you can get bad ones, but with democrats you will never go the way you’re trying to go on each of the items above voting democrats, and certainly not from Sanders who you have seemed to support over Trump.
“Kind of like President Carter continues to be the scapegoat of Republicans when defending the increased spending, expanded government and debt that occurred during President Reagan’s administration?”
I also need to address this:
Reagan, did not, approve, of the increased spending. So yes, we bring it up again and again that the tax cutting worked from Reagan. Here you just stated you agree with less taxes and less regulations, and when we use an example of it working you attribute the democrat spending to Reagan, in order to essentially do what you just accused other people of doing.
It’s ironic, and hypocritical. Just vote republican already and stop defending what you claim you don’t want through the democrats, hold them accountable.
Bob,
You are so concerned about finding ways to blame Democrats for anything negative and giving credit to Republicans for anything positive, you completely ignore what I actually said. Please quote me where I ever blamed President Reagan for the Keynesian principles that were implemented during his presidency. Do you deny that spending, government, and the debt all increased while he was the president? Do you disagree that he signed bills that included tax increases?
One of the cornerstones of my main position is that president do not have nearly the influence most people believe.
In reference to the Republicans approach to the PPACA, I have stated this multiple times, but here we go again. First, they have been wasting time and taxpayer money trying to repeal a law that has, based on the current political climate, zero chance of being repealed. Second, not one bill from them with an actual replacement, as they promised they have. I honestly believe that if they presented their replacement as a bill and spent the time wasted just trying to repeal selling it to us, they would have garnered far more support from the American people and may have generated enough to override a veto. Their approach has been juvenile.
You said, “Good on you for finally saying what you like in the market. You will never get what you just said voting for a democrat, and Obama openly went against each of those principles when he ran the second time and you voted for him.”
Which is why I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats. Unlike most people, I have read the Constitution and understand what a president can and cannot do unilaterally. President Obama may have been openly against these things, but has very little power to do anything about them without Congress. When I vote for a president, I focus more on their foreign policy and their approach to how they would utilize our military.
Bob you can’t really pretend you are taking on someone and he is all about protecting Democrats when you refuse to acknowledge the souther strategy, Republican racism in the south, Trump’s statements you have denied and lied about, etc. You are an extreme Republican, that’s it. Your petulant climate change hissy fit has shown everybody your so called research is ridiculous.
“Bob you can’t really pretend you are taking on someone and he is all about protecting Democrats when you refuse to acknowledge the souther strategy, Republican racism in the south, Trump’s statements you have denied and lied about, etc. You are an extreme Republican, that’s it. Your petulant climate change hissy fit has shown everybody your so called research is ridiculous.”
Your first comment makes no sense. There was no racist southern strategy. You make things up.
I have not lied about a single Trump statement, and your perception is not absolute regarding the ones I have denied.
I can equally as easily say you denied what Trumps statements meant and use that to discredit you on a regular basis, but instead, I approach each of your facts individually. To rely on blanket labeling as you just did, is the source of racism.
My research hissy fit? You mean in that I broke down numbers you don’t like?
Grow up kid.
Ron,
That, from Actu, and UW, and Planet, And Shirley, THAT is the left Ron.
People who openly say that deregulation caused the crises, as do their leaders, so it is no coincidence. They passed more regulations saying it would fix the problem, you said these regulations are bad.
If one party is pushing them, the democrats, as I have proven, you will never get what you’re looking for voting democrat, let alone Obama twice.
If you’re honest, just vote republican already, if you’re lying just to get an image, that’s a problem. I suspect it is the latter rather than the former, due to the fact that you voted Obama twice considering his policies.
Also Actu:
My comment about global warming was in fact not that global warming doesn’t exist, it was the extent, and also whether or not it is an over exaggeration to state that 97% of scientists think that global warming’s primary cause is man made.
You cannot come to that conclusion with any rational method to back it up.
On one end you have people like agent who deny it entirely, then you have people who accept it entirely, in order to meet the narrative. You’re talking to a moderate. I don’t accept extreme statements. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
For example killing Muslims, destroying the planet, etc etc.
If you don’t get that THOSE comments are extreme, the issue here is you.
I have zero obligation to talk with someone who is such a polarized jerk as politely as I often do, while you say I’m throwing hissy fits and lying, in your very first posts to me, and accuse me and my party of racism, which is in itself bigoted beliefs about the south and is not ok, etc. And yet I do, and I try to stick to the facts as I am now.
You have got to knock it off. You’re not helping politics at all.
Size is not why banks fail.
And I have to add the only reason the government says that is to ensure you give them the power to dominate.
Giving the government the power to decide who is big and needs to be broken up is far too dangerous. It allows things like what happened with Putin.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/12046015/Putin-critic-and-oil-tycoon-Mikhail-Khodorkovsky-charged-with-murder-of-town-mayor.html
We do not want this happening in America.
Do you remember who was in charge of Congress in the period of 2007-09? I will give you a hint. Pelosi-Reid.
Agent,
Do you know why they gained control in 2007? I will give you a hint, Republicans do not know how to govern. OK, that was the actual answer, not just a hint.
I’ll bite. Why did they gain control in 2007?
It was not that republicans don’t know how to govern.
It was that the democrats created a PC item with the Iraq war to side step any serious talk, and caused a political flame war.
That and they were blamed successfully for the housing crises when it was not their fault.
Among other things. It was not their ability to govern.
Bob,
Are you referring to the Iraq war that should never have happened? How are you going to blame the Democrats for that waste of time, money, and, most importantly, the lives of thousands of our brave servicemen and women?
It was sold to the people as a lie. Vice President Cheney knew how it was going to play out back in 1991 but told us more than 10 years later that is was going to be easy-peasy. That is my issue, not the WMDs.
The housing crisis was not an issue until the financial collapse that occurred 2 years after they took control.
Please tell the class how they:
1. Reformed the tax code
2. Reduced spending
3. Reduced the debt
4. Balanced the budget
5. Reformed health care
6. Reduced the size of the government
7. Limited government intervention into the private lives of us citizens
You know, all of the things for which Republicans are suppose to stand.
Until you can hold your party accountable for their failures, you are in no position to criticize anyone else.
“Are you referring to the Iraq war that should never have happened? How are you going to blame the Democrats for that waste of time, money, and, most importantly, the lives of thousands of our brave servicemen and women? ”
Looks like the democrats succeeded in pawning that off, and you then blame all republicans and apparently not Hillary who voted for it, or Al Gore, who voted for it, and you forget that Al Gore said we had every piece of intelligence that said we needed to act in Iraq and then later said we had none. How am I going to blame that on democrats? I’ll blame them for using it for whichever political climate worked for them. How about that?
“It was sold to the people as a lie. Vice President Cheney knew how it was going to play out back in 1991 but told us more than 10 years later that is was going to be easy-peasy. That is my issue, not the WMDs.”
It’s good to see you’re more balanced than your usual person, but I’m going to go a step further here and say we didn’t fail. We took out Saddam rapidly. The entire region there has stability issues. As soon as we took out the dictator it mandated we stay there and help. As soon as we left, we allowed the war torn nation to go back to where it was before. I’m sorry Ron, you’re either compassionate to the area or not. They need help, and for us to stay. That’s a harsh realization but true. Bush was guilty only of being naive in going, he was not morally bankrupt like the democrats were on it.
“The housing crisis was not an issue until the financial collapse that occurred 2 years after they took control.”
Citation needed. What specifically caused this? Someone being in control does not show how the collapse happened.
Clinton triggered the CRA regs in his presidency. Obama was a lawyer who used those regs to sue Citibank. The democrats currently passed more regulations which you yourself said is bad, and you then ask me absurd questions? I’ll answer them:
1. In which respect? Are we talking the corporate tax code they have voted to change several times, or the death tax they voted to eliminate several times, or are we talking the revisions to the tax code they constantly tried to pass and democrats blocked?
2. Removing the Iraq war, during Bush’s office and accounting for the 2 recessions we had, the spending was not the issue except for one year, and would have in fact still been surpluses. I have done this math, you have not. One year Bush did Tarp and increased spending and you then say well he doubled the debt “by spending”. That is simply not the case. The war spending was part of it, the one year of recession spending was another. Also, if you go back to Reagan, he proposed multiple spending cuts that were called by the New York Times, the most radical spending cuts in decades. Democrats blocked it. Democrats are and have been, for higher spending on aspects outside of the war. More entitlements, more food stamps, longer time frames for unemployment, each of these happened under Obama and by his request, at the support of democrats. How do you justify this? Republicans have not moved to expand entitlements.
3. Irrelevant question, as I just answered it above.
4. Same question as above, you have now asked it three times, and I expect this is because you think you have this one figured out as an “ah ha” and you don’t.
5. Are you talking about medicare part d? Expanded tax credits? The CBO plans they tried to pass? Pic your poison. Or is the only thing you will accept an over regulated market despite the fact that you yourself said you don’t like that? Democrats blocked it. If you then say they should be bipartisan as you usually do, and then say they should market it more, that marketing money doesn’t come from nowhere, and being bi partisan the democrats don’t share these ideals, they will block it.
6. Same as your other damn 3. So they simultaneously want to reduce social security spending, put in place a private and public social security program that would reduce the size of government, and because you take the spending in a time of War with Iraq, and when democrats blocked Reagan from reducing the size of government, you then say they have done nothing and don’t track the why. The reason is democrats. The democrats campaign on increasing all the things you mentioned, and you said it’s a big deal to reduce it. You will not get reduced government size from a party who says they won’t do it. Republicans may fail to do it, but they try. Democrats will not, do not, and have not. By the policies they pass.
7. Republicans are already there. They blocked discrimination bills that impose criminal liability for anything that could be offensive to gays. They blocked bills that you consider removing the government, but in fact, the marriage federal equality bills expand government intervention, entitlement, etc. The republicans are far less into regulating the lives of private citizens as a whole. Don’t bring up the patriot act which democrats resigned, bring something up in current day republicans.
“You know, all of the things for which Republicans are suppose to stand.
Until you can hold your party accountable for their failures, you are in no position to criticize anyone else.”
And who caused republicans to fail at that? Which party specifically campaigns against all the things you just mentioned but one, and the one I can prove the discrimination laws specifically infringe on rights and are designed to do as such?
I take all things into account kid, you lie and say you do, but you don’t.
If you believed what you did, the only logical solution is to vote republicans, who as an aggregate are more for each of the positions you just mentioned.
Bob,
You said, “How am I going to blame that on democrats? I’ll blame them for using it for whichever political climate worked for them. How about that?” Are you saying only Democrats will politicize an issue for their benefit?
What you need to do is admit that it was a Republican President and his administration that sold the invasion of Iraq based on intentionally false projection. I wonder how many would vote for it today, from both parties, if the GW Bush administration was completely honest and transparent.
How can you say we did not fail? We were told it would only be a few weeks, we would be greeted as liberators, and there would be minimal expense and loss of life. How exactly did that turn out? Maybe you have a different definition of success.
Is it really our job to get rid of every leader that treats his/her people poorly? When does it end?
I like how Republicans will defend the costs, money and lives, of taking out Saddam Hussein, but criticize how Muammar Gaddafi was removed which actually did cost us far few lives and dollars.
The foundation of the housing crisis began in 2006, but the actual collapse did not begin until 2007, well after the 2006 elections. Here is your non-left source.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/#5b4ae01d5b56
1. In any real respect. Simplification of the tax code, flat tax, lower corporate tax, or any other real reform? That is upon what they constantly campaign.
2. Are you really going to play the old, “if we just remove this and that, everything would have been great” card? Just admit that Republicans were no better about spending from 2003-07, regardless of the reason(s), than Democrats have been.
3. Not irrelevant. Why would you cut taxes in a time of war? That is fiscally irresponsible, period.
4. The fact that you do not see this as being separate exposes your lack of knowledge. Unforeseen things come up during the course of a fiscal year that could significantly impact revenues and spending. The budget is the guideline and they could not even balance it.
5. I wanted them to enact they ideas for health care reform for all that would actually work. The fact that the Democrats were able to enact such a terrible law, and have the Democratic President re-elected and the Democrats gain seats in Congress in 2012, would indicate to a reasonably intelligent person that what we had before was worse.
6. So, you are conceding that they were not able to reduce the size of the government form 2003-07.
7. That happened between 2003-07? Citation needed.
All you did was prove my point, Republican are all talk and do not want to govern. I suspect that they are afraid that their ideas are only theories and would not work if actually implemented.
Keep being a sheep Bob. That is all Republican voters have become.
I agree Although that may risk to another financial crisis again, another bad Wallstreet guys escaped to be jailed, Top CEO can bet whatever they want to get bonus without any worry on market collapse. It is the way the world go in USA as I heard from Republican’s Party.
Please remain in the EU and fix that HYUUUUGE mess before making snarky comments on the regulatory environment in the USA.
Here we go again.
It’s the Republican solution to everything. Hey, Republicans, how do you “fix” the economy? “Tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.” Hey Republicans, how do you cure cancer? “Tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.” Hey Republicans, how do you get to heaven? “Tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.”
Nope. The proper categorization of this proposal is ‘Tax cuts and regulatory relief for the JOB CREATORS, whose help is needed to restore jobs for 94 Million Americans out of the workforce’.
Please pay attention to the details and facts, and try to follow along instead of glancing at the Huff & Puff POSt all throughout the workday. Your employer will appreciate your full effort and participation, and these comment sections will be more informative to IJ readers.
The real job creators are the people who spend money, not those who place it in offshore accounts. It’s basic economy, supply and demand. If people can’t afford to buy things, no reason to hire anyone else. You are supplying the demand with the labor force you already employ. If you want to create jobs, people in the middle and lower classes need to have expendable income to purchase goods and services. And, the velocity of money increases automatically as a result.
I can count on one hand how many times I’ve read from the Huffington Post. Yogi, more and more, I’m beginning to believe you are actually Agent’s alternative ego. You became so sick of being called out, you created a new persona. You are constantly high fiving yourself out here, too. Just a theory.
@Planetarium: How do those people who SPEND money GET their money?
Capitalism will give you all the RIGHT answers to the key questions about how to kick-start the US economy.
Agent Yogi, I agree, let’s go back to the capitalism we had before Reagan killed our country.
Reagan did not kill the country. How do you simultaneously say Clinton saved it with rates half that of before Reagan and then blame Reagan for killing our country?
He’s actually a bot he programed to parse words from his other posts and then repost so they are different.
Genius!
I hear you UW, Yogi and Agent are of the same cloth.
money doesn’t talk, it only swears
Avarice is the root of all evil.
“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. It is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
I have read in the IJ in the past that companies are doing their transactions over seas to avoid the Dodd Frank act. Even Met life is not claiming they are not a US based company because of the regulations.
Sounds to me like Dodd Frank just pushed US companies over seas.
Sorry, “now”
claiming
FFA, Hi and how are you doing? How about those Cubs and Rangers leading the major leagues in wins?
Apparently, those Progressives in Congress, the Administration and many on this blog just love those .8% growth rates in the economy, stagnant job growth with 94 million not in the workforce, another 500,000 leaving the workforce in May alone. This country is over regulated and Progressive Democrats lead the pack. Bawney Frank said Fanny & Freddie were sound just prior to the meltdown of the housing industry. These politicians need to take a hike and government needs to be shrunk since it is stifling the economy.
Seems the Sox are starting to fade… Cubs still rolling on and on… Hopefully they wont remember they are the Cubs come Oct.
With the Jobs report last week or so, one of my clients told me that just about put him out of business.
Madigan & the Dems in IL put another budget on Rauners desk this time only $7Bill short on cash flowing in.The Chicago Trib is just blasting Madigan for this. Calling it a total embarrassment. Strange for the Trib to blast a Dem, but is getting ugly. CPS wants more state money for schools yet 6000 less students. I didnt realize it cost more to educate 6000 less kids. But Grad rate is up 20% while murder/violent crime is up at record levels. I guess there are less students because more people are getting killed. Seems the rolling average of shooting victims is at 10 @ day for now. Rahms legacy…
FFA, if we tell the truth about the country only creating 38,000 jobs in May, we are told we are taking it out of context and it really is good. This country could have been creating 150,000-200,000 jobs for the past 4 years if the proper incentives had been in place, reduce the tax burden for business, get rid of many of the job killing regulations and most of all, get rid of Obamacare, the biggest job killing legislation of all time. I don’t know about you, but I am counting the days down until Oblama takes a hike and we get someone in there with some business sense.
Hey everybody, Agent just conceded that he has no clue what is going on.
The average monthly net jobs increase, which is less than the number of jobs created, for the past 4 years is 206,924.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
Agent,
Trying doing some research before spouting off next time.
@Ron; thanks for the BLS link, which shows 2006 – 2016, per your censored time period selection.
Expanding the range to 1999 shows a clear picture of the impact of the Democrat takeover of the House in 2006; i.e. a sharp drop in job growth to NEGATIVE job growth during the fiscal recession of 2008. IT PRECEDED the meltdown, thus implying it contributed to it.
AFTER Republicans regained control of the House in 2010, the job growth numbers turned positive again.
You used an AVG NOT from 2006 to 2016, BUT over the 4 most recent years, to ‘cherry pick’ your average job growth numbers.
What is the total job gain over the last 7+ years using HOURS WORKED divided by 40 hrs per week? THAT will point to a very different picture than what you claim has occurred under Obama and the previously Democrat controlled Congress.
Yogi Polar Berra,
Agent stated, “This country could have been creating 150,000-200,000 jobs for the past 4 years…”. Did I not prove him wrong? That is all I wanted to do in this case.
Please pay attention to the whole conversation.
“Hey everybody, Agent just conceded that he has no clue what is going on.
The average monthly net jobs increase, which is less than the number of jobs created, for the past 4 years is 206,924.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
Agent,
Trying doing some research before spouting off next time.”
Says the guy who says Agent comes in and bullies him all the time.
Agent is just a clueless dolt isn’t he? Why don’t you just address one fact at a time? Everyone is wrong occasionally.
““Hey everybody, Agent just conceded that he has no clue what is going on.”
I especially have to emphasize this.
It’s not enough that Agent is wrong. You have to make sure the whole crowd knows.
And then apply that to all Agent’s potential comments. So you can disregard all that he says.
And this isn’t bullying, no no, it’s when I say “screw you” or “you’re a jack @%@”.
Such absurdity.
Bob,
Was Agent right or wrong on the facts? If he was wrong, tell him. If I was wrong, present your facts and cite your source.
How come it is OK for you to call people out on being wrong, but not me?
Did I physically threaten him? Did I demand him to stop?
Did I tell him to F off, call him an a-hole or child?
Maybe you do not think you are a bully because you do not even know what is bullying.
Glass Steagall should have never been suspended; that occurred during Clinton’s administration along with all the other financial deregulation that was the root cause of the Great Recession in 2008. Home ownership isn’t a right, its’ something that is earned and worked for. Bernie has the right idea.
Bernie has the right idea? So, who told him to drop out of politics and retire to Vermont?, … and when did he announce it? Only if that were the case; i.e. give up on Socialism in the USA, would he have the right idea.
Yogi, the Democrats are so good at creating good jobs that we have over 94 million out of the workforce now, a record number on food stamps and record numbers dropping completely out of the workforce with another 500,000 in the month of May. People who may have wanted a job in the past are now realizing it is better to get on the numerous entitlements offered. Their idea of a recovery summer is adding more to the unemployment lines.
Now Progressives, downthumb me at least 100 times.
Agent,
Either cite your source(s) when you posts data or statistics or do not post them.
I proved you wrong and Bob even agreed with me that you were wrong.
I am still waiting for the “true” unemployment rate when President Obama took office.
I would like to see some changes to what we have now. The cost of compliance with Dodd-Frank has really hurt the smaller banks. I agree with the Republicans that more stringent capitalization and less regulation would generally be better. Another improvement would be the elimination of the Volker rule to be replaced with the much simpler regulations of Glass-Steagal.
Correct Wally, I used to have a very good Community Bank and the cost of doing business, complying with the onerous regulations forced them to sell to a much larger multi location bank.
Plenty of the earlier comments pointed fingers at Republicans and banks, and not at those who repealed Glass-Steagall. Also, no blame was given to those in Congress and The White House who pushed financial reforms through legislation that helped financially weaker borrowers to obtain mortgages that they weren’t able to afford. Banks also deserved some blame for accumulating risk without consideration of the conflagration hazard of an economic downturn on CDOs, etc.
… But little commentary by those same commenters on a new approach by Republicans which hasn’t been revealed in any detail. They simply assume it has aspects that previously led to the economic meltdown WITHOUT ACTUALLY READING IT. Hello, Nancy Pelosi!
Let’s wait for details on the capital requirements for financial institutions before we judge the Republicans proposal without the facts!
It may utilize an approach similar to Solvency II, or similar insurance industry financial reforms. In most instances, stockholders’ interests in preserving and growing the capital they invested is a more powerful regulatory influence on company governance than restrictive and inefficient regulations devised by less knowledgeable legislators.
Pardon me for not completing my thought in the last paragraph. More transparency as to what insurance company management is doing is needed, and that would take the form of more extensive audits and mandatory disclosure of key transactions and portfolio details. Of course, this would require careful delineation of how much must be revealed to the public, to preserve competitive advantages.
“Plenty of the earlier comments pointed fingers at Republicans and banks, and not at those who repealed Glass-Steagall”
But those are the same people. 1 Democrat for it, 44 against, compared to 53 Republicans for it and 0 against it. Clinton should have vetoed it, but he is a conservative Democrat, and liked this kind of crap. But, it’s pretty hard to pass equal blame, or as you seem to want to do, full blame, on Democrats for a bill written by Republicans, when they didn’t vote for the bill, and every Republican that voted did vote in favor of it.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/s105
I should note, that’s in the Senate only. In the House the majority of Democrats also stupidly supported it.
I blame BOTH the Republicans and Clinton.
Clinton is a conservative Democrat? LOL!
If you want to claim Clinton is / was a conservative Democrat as justification for his support of Glass-Steagall repeal, then I can claim the Republicans then supporting that were RINOs/ liberal Republicans.
Check.
Your move.
If you want to claim he wasn’t you are a clueless idiot. Welfare reform, his trade agreements, etc. Nobody outside of the crowd they still circle jerk about Monica and Vince Foster denies this.
Checkmate.
PS I care very little about Monica, Foster. They should have known who they were dealing with when they joined the Clintons.
I’m more concerned with the MULTIPLE women Bill Clinton abused or molested or raped, Benghazi, Libya and the unheeded calls for help by Andrew Stevens, and an UN-SECURE email server set up in a closet in Chappaqua, NY to avoid ANY disclosure of email communications, and which also exposed military secrets and covert operatives to foreign hackers. I’m also more concerned with MULTIPLE attempts to interfere in the FBI investigation of email concealment, and the malicious and intentional destruction of evidence in that matter.
…. and the Clinton Foundation Slush Fund & Foreign Nations Influence-Peddling Bribery Bank.
…. and the $225k speeches by Hillary whose transcripts are being concealed. The most highly-sought political speakers couldn’t give a 20 minute speech and earn that much money unless they were really peddling their ‘political favors, both then and farther down the road’, for the buyer.
World history: The victor nations in World War I decided to assess Germany for their costs of conducting the war against Germany. With no means of paying in gold or currency backed by reserves, Germany ran the presses, causing the value of the Mark to collapse.[disputed – discuss] Many Germans literally carted wheelbarrows of cash to pay for groceries
Thanks knowall. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The libs ignore Venezuela’s collapse and want to try the same things.
James,
Those who are ignorant are doomed to look foolish.
All Liberals are not Socialists, period. Socialism is an economic philosophy where the government controls all means of production and distribution of goods and services. Liberalism is political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.
Please tell me how liberty and equality are bad things?
Liberty and Equality are different things, and neither are bad.
Equality can be bad if a government takes away Liberty from its citizens in attempting to force Equality upon them.
Liberty can be bad if people who are NOT citizens are allowed to enter a Sovereign Nation without regard to immigration laws and are granted rights that reduce the Liberties of its citizens.
Both Socialists and Communists adversely affect the Liberty of people under their rule.
Equality is NOT a goal of people who value their Liberty. It is a ruse used by Socialists and Communists to fool people into thinking they will benefit from Equality. In truth, the People suffer from lack of differentiation and distinction when they stifle creativity and motivation under Socialism and its ultimate perversion, Communism.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State.”
Yogi Polar Berra,
You are speaking from a purely theoretical standpoint with no basis in reality. Should the government take away liberty from one to provide equality to another? No. Do they have to? Yes. It is in the Constitution.
Do you think human beings will just naturally (free-market) treat each other equally? If you think so, consider slavery, the Civil Rights movement, LGBT, women, and others who were not treated equally until the Constitution stated they needed to be. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic, to protect the liberties of the minority.
Please read the Constitution sometime, especially the 14th Amendment. It is quite interesting and disputes what most Conservatives believe.
“You are speaking from a purely theoretical standpoint with no basis in reality. Should the government take away liberty from one to provide equality to another? No. Do they have to? Yes. It is in the Constitution.
Do you think human beings will just naturally (free-market) treat each other equally? If you think so, consider slavery, the Civil Rights movement, LGBT, women, and others who were not treated equally until the Constitution stated they needed to be. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic, to protect the liberties of the minority.
Please read the Constitution sometime, especially the 14th Amendment. It is quite interesting and disputes what most Conservatives believe.”
You have such an unreal disconnect…
I don’t even know where to start here. The bigger problem is not letting the public be who they are, the bigger problem is allowing the government to control business. What you just said is unproven theory. The government simultaneously apparently stopped and did not stop racism. While slavery ended, racism still apparently exists and many scientists say it is ingrained in our dna. You believe the government stops racism and sexism and all that? I don’t.
Both of those things are opinions neither of us could prove, but you are attempting to state your opinion is a fact and everything else is theory.
Should we take from others to give liberties? No. Do they have to? No. Often when the government goes to far in this it harms the greater good more than you believe a free market will.
Let’s say free education. If someone gets a tax credit, which they currently do, they are incentivized to work up to a new education. If it is free, everyone will use it, even those who don’t use it. Does that make sense? And every person who uses it who doesn’t need it, harms productivity because someone else has to pay for that.
The same goes for too much schooling even. Many kids could graduate faster, but we go by the slowest link, instead of giving a path for those to graduate faster, fast track it so to speak. That would save billions.
In trying to “care for” or provide “liberties” to the poor, the democrats often go to far, and result in inefficiency. The free market works, and the government deciding who should get what, does not.
Do we have to give people liberties? The better question is CAN WE if we get the government heavily involved?
The answer is all too often no.
Let’s just give a small example: Why in the world should we do universal pre schooling, instead of giving assistance to small families who may not be able to bring their kids anyone while they work? People in those scenarios already get nearly free day care.
But instead, let’s give free preschool schooling to all our kids? Will this become mandatory? Will my wife lose her special connection with her kid at 3 now? And that kid will be carted off to school and it will be illegal if they don’t go?
Yet another supposedly “good natured” but costly and ineffective method to help people.
The goal is minimum government interference, and targeted assistance.
Giving 3.7 trillion in spending per year, which is $11,500 per person, is not minimal government interference in order to provide liberties. It is an attempt at creating a nanny state, at the expense of the many. That’s too much money, something is wrong.
@Planetarium: I am NOT advocating against equal rights. I am arguing against equality under Socialism or Communism, for the worker class, of course. Try to pay attention to the context in the future. Thanks in anticipation of your cooperation in this matter.
Hey Yogi,
Pay attention to the context of The Constitution:
“in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare…”
Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Let’s see, the Constitution guarantees all of us the right to free speech equally. The conservatives on the Supreme Court decreed that money is free speech (Citizens United). So then, according to the conservatives on the Supreme Court, the Constitution guarantees everyone equal shares of wealth. That wasn’t my decision; it was the conservatives on the Supreme Court.
Oh, and another thing, Yogi. This isn’t Twitter, no need for the hashtags. You don’t have to pretend to be hip out here.
Good point James, but Germany’s debt and inflation problems were mainly due to their monetary system–which you may have been referring to with “currency backed by reserves”.
Germany’s debt was foreign denominated, and based in part on gold. This meant when they printed money and inflation kicked in their currency became worth less so they just had to pay more to buy gold or other currencies. Usually with a fiat currency or sovereign denominated debt the country prints money, pays their debt with money worth less to the other nation relative to their money or gold, and then has one-time inflation. The lending countries receive less in real terms because the debt is repayed in nominal terms, but that is the risk of lending and why they get interest.
Almost all cases of hyperinflation have occurred in places with debt or a currency that is foreign denominated. It’s one of the many reasons the gold standard is a terrible idea and almost no mainstream economists support it anymore.
Knowall, many think the reparations Germany had to pay as a result of WW1 guaranteed the rise of Hitler. Very easy for him to come to power promising a chicken in every pot and a return to power in Europe.
Government is not the solution it is the problem! The government should provide the parameters under which a business can operate and then get out of the way.
The sheeple demand that “something” be done when all hell breaks loose, so they look to the government, be it republican or democratic. The gutless wonders, who have only re-election in mind, will fall all over themselves to make it happen.
Look at all the republicans that promised to take on Obama and defeat everything. The result: ZIP!
I am always amazed when the conservatives scream about the government impeding unbridled commercial activity but when the you know what hits the fan, they are quick to blame the president, if democratic, for not “fixing” anything.
The job creators have the money, they don’t spend it because they can make money by doing nothing. No good or service needs to be offered anymore if there is substantial cash around. Just invest it and force CEO’s to support the stock price by sending jobs abroad, cutting expenses and limiting access to service.
We deserve what we get.
Dodd Frank never addressed Fannie/Freddie. Why is that???
Bawny Frank had a boyfriend working for Freddie. Anything connected to either Bawny or Chris Dodd should give anyone pause. Chris Dodd got a sweetheart deal from Countrywide on his loan. Gee, how did he do that?
I don’t know, perhaps someone read, “Art of the Deal”.