Do you or your loved ones suspect a scam? Report it now to the AARP Fraud Watch Network.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
148
Views

Re: Recession

148 Views
Message 31 of 44

@williamb39198 wrote:

@rk9152 

So, are you predicting another recession, or is this a diversion from bigger events going on?

So, nope, just straightening out the "Bush recession" nonsense.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
148
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
140
Views

Re: Recession

140 Views
Message 32 of 44

@rker321 wrote:

We need to remember that John Birchers have always had some funny notions as to what this country should be and how it should be governed.

We do have in this message board some glaring examples.


Who do you see as a Bircher - Forbes, Atlantic magazine, or the Boston Globe? Or are you just saying something without thinking?

 

Possiby USNews is run by Birchers:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/23/barney-frank-fesses-up-on-financial-crisi...

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
140
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
135
Views

Re: Recession

135 Views
Message 33 of 44

@rk9152 wrote:

On a regular basis the recession caused by the housing boom/bust is laid at the feet on President Bush, ignoring the real reason for it. And usually it includes claiming it was Republican support for rich bankers that gave us the sub-prime.

 

Let us consider:

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints...

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-h...

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/01/10/one-bad-law-usually-leads-to-others-the-housing-b...


Why should we believe the opinions of these three hardcore conservative writers over the many others that agree that their claims are bogus? They do not necessarily reflect the views of the publishers. 

Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
135
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
143
Views

Re: Recession

143 Views
Message 34 of 44

@ManicProgressive wrote:

A Wall Steet friend of mine (not a liberal but not super conversative) believes it absolutely was Wall Street and securitized mortgages. The traders could make money on losses, even. It was a disaster.


And now a poster who has a friend who knows more than Forbes, the Atlantic, and the Boston Globe.

 

Or does your friend agree that it wasn't caused by Bush but rather by Frank?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
143
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
146
Views

Re: Recession

146 Views
Message 35 of 44

@rk9152 

So, are you predicting another recession, or is this a diversion from bigger events going on?

Though there have been some knowledgeable responses posted here. 

 

By the way, didn’t our Treasury Sec benefit, a lot, by being able to throw people out of their homes and confiscate

the homes?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
146
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
145
Views

Re: Recession

145 Views
Message 36 of 44

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Republicans are claiming Fanny and Freddie "guarentee" mortgages, which is another lie. The Mortgage Backed Securities sold by Fanny and Freddie allowed the worthless sub-prime mortgages to be bundled and sold along with performing mortgages.

 

But the Wall Street Banksters kept adding more and more worthless non-performing mortgages to those "MBS derivatives" and using them as collateral to issue more worthless mortgages. No Government action was involved, in fact, the legislation contained a specific prohibition on using the law as an excuse to sell a mortgage that did not meet the banks' standards for lending.

 

But the biggest driver was the two balanced budgets Clinton executed. Since this dramatically REDUCED the availability of Government backed Treasury issues, the World financial market was in need of a secure replacement, and since Government REGULATION had made US home mortgages "immune" from failure, that's the first place people invested their dollars obtained from the trade deficit. But the deficit grew faster than the legitimate home mortgage market, so Banksters began issuing sub-prime mortgages TO PEOPLE WHO COULD MAKE THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS, but did not have the down payments, which the Government provided under a separate program.

 

That still wasn't enough to soak up all the trade deficit dollars, so Banksters created the MBS to conceal the worthless non-performing mortgages in with a bunch of "good paper" and then for over a year refused to "mark to market" to reveal the true value of their worthless paper, during which time the problem grew into a World Financial Disaster second only to the 1929 market collapse.

 

So read all the Right Wing Capitalist Oligarch controlled media you want - it was DEREGULATION and refusal to enforce what little regs remained by REPUBLICANS that grew a technical problem - not enough Gov't guratenteed Debt (Treasury issues) to soak up trade deficit dollars - into a financial disaster of biblical proportion.



@Olderscout66 wrote:

Republicans are claiming Fanny and Freddie "guarentee" mortgages, which is another lie. The Mortgage Backed Securities sold by Fanny and Freddie allowed the worthless sub-prime mortgages to be bundled and sold along with performing mortgages.

 

But the Wall Street Banksters kept adding more and more worthless non-performing mortgages to those "MBS derivatives" and using them as collateral to issue more worthless mortgages. No Government action was involved, in fact, the legislation contained a specific prohibition on using the law as an excuse to sell a mortgage that did not meet the banks' standards for lending.

 

But the biggest driver was the two balanced budgets Clinton executed. Since this dramatically REDUCED the availability of Government backed Treasury issues, the World financial market was in need of a secure replacement, and since Government REGULATION had made US home mortgages "immune" from failure, that's the first place people invested their dollars obtained from the trade deficit. But the deficit grew faster than the legitimate home mortgage market, so Banksters began issuing sub-prime mortgages TO PEOPLE WHO COULD MAKE THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS, but did not have the down payments, which the Government provided under a separate program.

 

That still wasn't enough to soak up all the trade deficit dollars, so Banksters created the MBS to conceal the worthless non-performing mortgages in with a bunch of "good paper" and then for over a year refused to "mark to market" to reveal the true value of their worthless paper, during which time the problem grew into a World Financial Disaster second only to the 1929 market collapse.

 

So read all the Right Wing Capitalist Oligarch controlled media you want - it was DEREGULATION and refusal to enforce what little regs remained by REPUBLICANS that grew a technical problem - not enough Gov't guratenteed Debt (Treasury issues) to soak up trade deficit dollars - into a financial disaster of biblical proportion.


And another poster who knows more than Forbes, the Atlantic ("Right Wing Capitalist Oligarch controlled media"????) and the Boston Globe.

 

We do have an impressive group of posters.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
145
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
143
Views

Re: Recession

143 Views
Message 37 of 44

We need to remember that John Birchers have always had some funny notions as to what this country should be and how it should be governed.

We do have in this message board some glaring examples.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
143
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
153
Views

Re: Recession

153 Views
Message 38 of 44

@gruffstuff wrote:

 

Let us consider:

 

It's baloney.

 

 

The government never required banks or mortgage companies to lend money to people who were not credit worthy. 

 

 

In fact

 

 

The sub prime crisis came from mortgage companies that were not required to follow the same rules as banks, the rating companies that gave bogus ratings to bundled securities, and the Republican fantasy that free markets governed by people that love money above all else can regulate themselves.

 

 

The proof is the small traditional banks didn't require bailouts and the Wall Street banks did.

 

The cause :

 

Non bank lenders

Risky borrowers

Risky products 

Fraud

 

These crooks didn't have any skin in the game, they knew government would have to bail them out, they knew they wouldn't be held to account, they knew Wall Street would get the gold mine, they knew Main Street would get the shaft.

 

 

They didn't care.

 

 

Their love for money overcame any moral or ethical restraint. 

 

 


O.K. - you know more than Forbes, the Atlantic, and the Boston Globe. If you say so, I'll just have to take your word for it.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
153
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
146
Views

Re: Recession

146 Views
Message 39 of 44

@Panjandrum wrote:

Zombie faslehoods NEVER die they just shuffle along forever. At least this one is funny. And that's all I'll say, because it's too time consuming and does no good debunking this stuff. I'm sure conservatives will be pulling it out of the graveyard again and again.

 

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration.

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints...


O.K. Carter, not Bush.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
146
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
6
Kudos
179
Views

Re: Recession

179 Views
Message 40 of 44

A Wall Steet friend of mine (not a liberal but not super conversative) believes it absolutely was Wall Street and securitized mortgages. The traders could make money on losses, even. It was a disaster.

Report Inappropriate Content
6
Kudos
179
Views