Thanks to the GOP's complete insanity during the previous administration we're in this current economic crisis. GW got the US involved in two wars (the Iraq war the US entered based on a lie). Obama is attempting to fix the damage done. If by neuter the military u mean do away with the pointless PMCs good. These parasites deserve to be done away with. Unlike GW Obama isn't bending over & letting his rich friends make billions off the US. Funny how under Obama the economy is improving isn't it.
You don't fix the economy by spending almost a trillion dollars to keep state and local government from bankruptcy. Obama's aim was to raise the federal government's spending level up to 25% of GDP, and to keep it there,to create a European style welfare state at the same time that Europe is crashing under the load of its ,social spending, even without significant spending on defence. As for American defence, he wishes to neuter the US military, down to 1930 spending levels.
Who has been throwing billions upon billions of dollars at the Military on the ongoing War for Oil, the biggest scam that has ever accosted taxpayers in the US?? Hannity has been trashing Democrats and Obama at a fever pitch lately, because he knows that 95% of those who watch Fox News will buy any lie you put in front of them, but there's a hypocrisy amongst Conservatives and even moderate Republicans that is so completely evident and is truly destroying our country. Hannity is so blind.
My theory is Obama is playing a long game to let the Republicans self destruct. He has a plan to throw in at the last second, and he will. he just knows there's no way in hell they'd let it pass otherwise.
The Republicans are doing this to themselves and to us. Now the Tea Party has rebelled. Yay. Thanks, idiots, for voting even bigger morons in. Who's next, Zippy?
As a proud republican I say to Obama-"I dare you to let America default". The only way for American's to know how much damage the liberal agenda has done is to crash the ecomomy. There will be no hiding then.
@kn9ioutom There aren't enough Billionaires in the country to even make a DENT in the Deficit. You are talking Billions when the deficit is TRILLIONS. 61 % increase in the Deficit with Pelosi as speaker of the house.
And most of that debt is because of Republican 'free-market' policies that have done nothing but shift wealth upward and create bubbles and a resultant crash, which then must be repaired with a temporary increase in spending. And the majority of the debt that isn't the direct result of Bush W's garbage, can be laid upon the feet of Reagan and Bush the First's 'trickle down' voodoo crap.
"On Sunday, the New York Times published a chart demonstrating the relative contributions to the deficit made by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Short version: The total cost of new policies initiated during the administration of George Bush: $5.07 trillion. Barack Obama: $1.44 trillion."
"Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non-defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole.
A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue.
Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up." - from the aforementioned NY times article.
"How the Deficit Got This Big" - NY times, Published: July 23, 2011
Noam Chomsky pointed out not long ago that there was effectively no stimulus because state by state spending was decreased to about the amount of the stimulus itself. So everything equalized.
mr. hannity is one of the most uninformed host there is ,when he starts ejaculating all his misinformed rhetoric in the guise of knowing beyond a doubt could be know farther from the truth than nancy pelosi's lips on george bush's ass
you guys are still bickering over democrats vs. republicans? guess what, they are both a bunch of wealthy modern day aristocrats who dont give a fuck about average american people. Is the government fixing our education, economy, infrastructure? No, instead they pretend they are working on important issues when a decade goes by and shit is worse not better.
Ever hear of the Snowball Effect Hannity? It just takes one problem to start it. That 1 problem becomes 2. Then those 2 problems cause 4. The 4 turns to 16. The 16 becomes 256. The 256 becomes 65536. The 65536 becomes 4294967296. As you can see I just went from 1 to 4294967296 in 7 steps. You can see how Obama, in 3yrs, can accumulate more debt than Bush did in 8. I may not be a rocket scientist but i know enough to know you're full of shit Hannity
Is anyone shocked by the fact that Hannity would spew this bs? He's the dolt who thinks a criminal like Oliver North is a true American hero. What a douchebag.
holy crap i am so suprised to see sean hannity is so full of crap. and lying like a sack of bricks. no i am not, he is one of the worst cases of brown noses, damn he will need 20 showers to get his nose clean. good god, bush did not accumulate this debt? i guess those tax breaks bush gave to the rich where really obama's idea. oh dear god, what a fool hannity is.
I was reading through the comments and simply amazed at yours. GOP2010 posted irrefutable facts. How could you be so ignorant as to not recognize facts over "Rundstedt's" lies & 100% left-wing childish rhetoric? This country is on it's knees now. Somehow, people still refuse to engage in rational & logical thinking & choose to ignore facts laid before them, just to defend their party. That is despicable.
Jesus Loves FOX NEWS because the Retards say so. Yes as long as your a retard you can Use GOD and the bible to Manipulate Christians for Greed, lies, Theft and wars for Corporate profits. Yes Acorn is unconstitutional for what they did because FOX news investigated them. FOX is Jesus number one network because Retards say so.
@DillonDee1: Not true. I always know the Libtard's position who appear on his show. Even if I heard only 75% of it, that's better than Chrissy Tingles' or Richard Maddow's show ----- I typically only hear positions from their fellow Libtards.
I don't drink Kool-Aid or ingest any Kraft product, sorry.
Keep taking it deeply, you will get your reach around as soon as they get one hand free, really, I promise this time. Just focus on your breathing... the Red Shield thanks you for your service.
These pundit clowns don't seem to understand that economists are outright wrong half the time.
The stimulus didn't work because it didn't make it into the hands of those who could make it work: the consumers. If that money had made it into the hands of the mindless American consumer whose appetite has no end, just think of all the crap that would have been bought! Talk about a booming economy!
And it would help in the long run if those jobs that went overseas came back home.
@ChipArgyle No actually it didn't work because government stimulus never works, no matter who gets the money. Government cannot give to one without taking from another.
@Huboons It's not giving to one by taking from another. It's returning to the consumer what they took away from that very consumer in the first place in the form of personal taxes. Ease up on the Republican rhetoric and do the math.
According to Keynes, inflation and unemployment could never rise simultaneously (stagflation). That was impossible. Well its happened, twice.
Look Sean Hannity is an idiot overall but Omfg stimulating the economy is going to make things much worse. Using that logic why dont we stimulate 100 trillion? If its true that stimulus creates real jobs and real gdp, then why dont we? If stimulating has no consequences then why not stimulate and create a 'real boom' ;)
@treysparker Careful there: Keynes never say that it could not happen at the same time, he say that there were some corolation between them, and, regarding cost-push inflation, like in stagflation crisis in 1974, he touch tha it was mathematical possible but that cost tend to go down in real term over some period time. Was he wrong? No, he just have a good partial explanation - monetarist&behaviour economic complete some of these explanations. Like Einstein complete Pointcarré ;)
HOW CAN An EARTHQUAKE "SWALLOW" A River?GOD SAID-WHOEVER CURSE ISRAEL WILL BE CURSED AND WHOEVER BLESS ISRAEL WILL BE BLESSED!VISION Of The ATTACK Of ISRAEL That Is Coming! Osama Bin Laden Dead May 1,2011/Hitler Dead April 30,1945 66 Years Apart!Another 6 is coming this year.Microchip-666 in hands and foreheads.Hell is real!Middle East and Israel conflict,WWIII?TO NON BELIEVERS REPENT SAVE YOUR SOULS.JESUS IS COMING!Get raptured not suffer the great tribulation.LISTEN TO PAUL BEGLEY IN YOUTUBE.
The problems didn't start under Bush, they actually started under Clinton. "Clinton ran a surplus" is the biggest B.S. lie that the left tries to feed us. Clinton handed Bush a recession. Your nobel prize winning Paul Krugmen hasn't been right on anything in the past, why trust him now? He couldn't even detect the housing bubble. Ha! Liberalism is a disaster! I would love him debating someone like Peter Schiff. He would get destroyed. This guy doesn't know **** about economics.
@tonyg0123 wtf are you even talking about? Krugman talked about the housing bubble all the time, people on the right called economists like Krugman "bubbleheads" because of it.
@billthebutcher2: Krugman is a complete fk'ing nut. In 2007, he said free market principles were causing the instability in the housing market. Anyone w/at least 1/2 a brain knows that "government" was the culprit in forcing the creation of risky mortgages.
I guess it shouldn't be a surprise. Krugman also said that 3 million new private sector jobs would be created in 6 months after the stimulus was signed. LOL
@2010GOP Nobody says the government caused that outside of RW partisans, you made that up. You likely made up that Krugman said that, he always was skeptical about just how much it would create because it was small. And the CBO estimated that it create around 3 million jobs anyway.
@billthebutcher2: Holy shit. Are you retarded? Virtually everyone on the planet knows that Democrats' initiative of forcing the creation of risky mortgages was one of the main culprits. What rock did you just crawl out from under? Go argue w/the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission & virtually anyone else with a brain.
Couple the above w/fierce opposition to Republican legislation for more oversight on Fannie/Freddie accounting. Let Bill Clinton tell you: /watch?v=BMPPGlOpUiM
@huskersfan1515: What are you talking about? Paulson wasn't sworn in until July 2006.
NY Times, 9/30/1999: "Fannie Mae has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans".
"and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates"
So while the Clinton admin. might have wanted more lower income people to be able to get home loans, it was the private banks themselves, and Fannie and Freddy were also totally private at the time, that took it upon themselves to make them risky Sub-Prime loans. It was also the under regulated private banking industry that decided to make the Liar Loans, misrepresenting peoples incomes and lying to people about the payment schedules. The Gov't actually had nothing to do with all that
"Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, and dignity, and independence. Thanks to our policies, homeownership in America is at an all-time high. Tonight we set a new goal: seven million more affordable homes in the next 10 years so more American families will be able to open the door and say: Welcome to my home."
To promote homebuyer education for "responsible" homebuying .. for "qualified" buyers. Read the guidelines on it. Standard 30 year fixed rate with DTI restrictions. You know, common-sense guidelines.
Increased home ownership is a goal of almost every administration, but it was the 'free-market' atmosphere, the mantra pushed by the Republicans, that it happened in and that was at the root of the crises, not anything that Clinton directly did or said but was directly rooted in the 'free-market' garbage of the Republicans.
Boy do you have it typically backassward. The crises was one of private unregulated capital not anything that the 'gov't forced on anyone' To qualify for a CRA loan the client had to meet requirements designed to show that they could meet its obligations. The sub-prime loans were NOT part of the CRA program but were put into being by the private sector well before Freddie and Fannie even got into the game.
Who in the hell do you think Fannie/Freddie are & who do you think backed the majority of mortgages in this country? Why do you think we bailed out the GSEs?
I never said anything about CRA -- that was only a smaller sliver of the problem. The issue was with the literally hundreds of risky/exotic mortgages, and not necessarily sub-prime, pushed by Democrats/created by Fannie/Freddie
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two private companies that had started as government agencies, have been the particular subject of vilification. As has been the government program called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which encourages banks to lend to underserved communities.
Had it not been for these efforts as lending to the poor, so the argument goes, all would have been well. This litany of defenses is, for the most part, sheer nonsense. AIG's almost $200 billion bailout (that's a big amount by any account) was based on derivatives (credit default swaps) - banks gambling with other banks. The banks didn't need any push for egalitarian housing to engage in excessive risk taking.
Nor did the massive overinvestment in commercial real estate have anything to do with government homeownership policy. Nor did the repeated instances of bad lending around the world from which the banks have had to be repeatedly rescued. Moreover, default rates on the CRA lending were actually comparable to other areas of lending - showing that such lending, if done well, does not pose greater risks. (CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than other mortgages)
Are you kidding? The loans were backed by the government so the banks purposely lent money they knew couldnt be paid back because if it didnt work out, dont worry, the government has your back. And thats exactly what they did.
On top of that they shorted the mortgage market knowing the downturn was inevitable. If they KNEW a downturn was coming they wouldnt be lending out money unless the loans were taken care of by the government.
@treysparker: LOL .. good luck with "Rundstedt1". I'm talking DUUUMB
He doesn't even understand the very basics of who Fannie/Freddie are, their function within the market, nor any of the basic details of the economic meltdown. As I said, good luck ...
@treysparker: Actually, just to clarify, it wasn't just that the government backed the loans. Fannie/Freddie actually write the loan underwriting guidelines. Banks input the application into Fannie/Freddie's automated underwriting systems ("Desktop Underwriter" - DU .. and "Loan Prospector" - LP).
What loans are you talking about? The Toxic loans were issued by private banks on thier own accord. As stated by Stiglitz, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's mandate was for "conforming loans," loans to the middle class, and NO responsible source blames Freddie or Fannie or he CRA for the Mortgage scams.
@Rundstedt1 Actually the root of the problem occurred when the Clinton Administration started using the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to force banks to give mortgage loans to millions of people based on skin color or political ties rather than ability to repay. This went on for about 10 years so we had 10 years of worthless loans that the government forced into the economy. Fannie and Freddie were not only directly responsible but were exclusively so.
The most telling point though is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's mandate was for "conforming loans," loans to the middle class. The banks jumped into subprime mortgages -- an area where, at the time, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae were not making loans -- Without any incentives from the government. ... Later on, years after the private sector had invented the toxic mortgages, the PRIVATIZED and UNDER-REGULATED Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decided that they too should enjoy the fun.
Their executives thought, Why couldn't they enjoy bonuses akin to others in the industry? Ironically, in doing so, they helped save the private sector from some of its own folly: Had they not bought them, the problems in the private sector would have been far worse, though by buying so many securities, they may have also helped fuel the bubble. Joseph E. Stiglitz, "Freefall" p10-11
"CRA has been in existence since 1977; plus, it only applies to depository institutions (regular banks). Meanwhile, we had a subprime bubble that mostly took place after 2002, with most of the loans made by institutions that weren't subject to the CRA. That's why everyone who's looked at this honestly says that the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the crisis." -
"The attempt to blame it all on the CRA is just an attempt at blame-shifting -- an attempt to make liberals and nonwhite people the villains of a story that is actually about runaway financial institutions and the free-market ideologues who refused to regulate them." Paul Krugman, "Washington Post"
It was the unregulated private mortgage companies that issued the toxic loans, NOT Freddie and Fannie. It was private companies like HSBC and GMAC. Freddie and Fannie only fell prey to the mortgage securities market, which was de-regulated, and those mortgage agencies. You maliciously try to blame the victims; the people that were taken advantage of, and there are a plethora of examples where the loan 'officers' took advantage of people.
You just show that you are a troll and can only repeat the easily debunked garbage that your corporate run 'think tanks' spew. NO responsible source blames Freddie or Fannie for the Mortgage scams. The toxic mortgages were issued by other totally private mortgage companies as I said, NOT Freddie and Fannie, and the CRA program had a lower default rate than even standard mortgages.
And while Clinton might hold some blame for not reigning in the financial markets he was after all only following the exact same sort of policies that are so pushed by the Republicans. The real problem is that this country has shifted so far to the Right that even the democrat presidents aren't really on the Left anymore.
And instead of your BS quote mined 40 second video which doesn't tell the entire story in context, and ignores that the proposed Republican policy was a sham that really didn't do much but move the deck chairs on the Titanic around, or that the Republicans actually were in control of congress at the time and didn't even have the desire to pass their own bill as they are ideologically opposed to any regulation.
@Rundstedt1: "they are ideologically opposed to any regulation"
While you're getting an education on the basics of everything else, you may want to research & learn that ALL Republican Senate Banking Cmte members voted for the legislation .... ALL Democrats voted against. Democrats pigeonholed the bill. For shit's sake, even Bill Clinton himself admits that.
@Rundstedt1: LMAO! You're the stupid ass who is so fk'ing clueless that you haven't the slightest inkling of who Fannie/Freddie is, nor what their function is.
This conversation is like trying to teach calculus to a 1st grader.
Again you are nothing but a talking point hack trying to shift the blame from where it correctly belongs, and that is: the 'free-market' and deregulation mantra of the Republicans.
Junior? LOL Sorry, I teach history as well as Government classes and the one whose ignorant as well as younger here is you. Again none of your accusations have any real merit, why don't you go watch the PBS special I recommended instead of spreading your lies.
@2010GOP okay, you read fox transcripts and you are clearly allowed to use the internet unsupervised..., that puts you at about the 3rd grade level, (8th in most red states). lets not throw out words like calculus to impress folks. its like a 1st grader being taught calculus by a 3rd grader. you don't know WTF you're talking about, you only remember bits, but you're older brother told it to you so its gospel. bad news buddy, it aint gospel. its not even church... unless you count LDS. its cult.
@Rundstedt1: When will Richard Maddow and Chrissy Tingles report on Obama's slush fund of billions to his favorite corporate executives? These taxpayer funds are for the executives' PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNTS.
There is no 'slush fund' the money is to pay for health insurance for early retirees. And is part of the Health care bill to ensure that those early retirees retain health coverage until they can get Medicare coverage. And gee one of those companies receiving the funds was 'The Washington Post" a paper with a well conservative bent. Again your talking point BS holds no merit.
@Rundstedt1: Why don't you do a little research, idiot. In the hearings, it was admitted that these funds are merely handed over ... no tracking of actual usage.
"The Washington Post" is owned by CBS News, hardly right-wing, dipshit.
Lastly, I fail to see why it's "my" responsibility as a taxpayer to subsidize executives' health care for "selected" corporations, most of who are receiving pensions, etc.
Glenn Greenwald has called Post's Op-Ed page the "leading outlet for neoconservative and related right-wing advocacy." And the funds were all part of the ERRP, and aims to make certain that their employees who retire early still have health insurance coverage before they reach Medicare eligibility age, the companies are only 'select' in that the ones receiving it are those that applied and have an already-in-place early retiree health insurance programs. Just more of you bogus talking point BS
@Rundstedt1: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FK'ING MIND? Why is it my responsibility as a taxpayer to pay for their employees? GE gets a bailout of $50 billion, pays no taxes the next year, and now I'm suppose to take care of their employees?
GE meets the criteria because it is one of the few companies that actually offers early retiree health coverage, we cannot write bills that exclude one company, and GE has paid the TARP funds back, which was a Bush program anyway, LOL
And you are subsidizing it so that the companies don't cut the coverage before of the impending Health care bill as they would have a tendency to do so, it is cheaper for all the pay for people's care before hand through insurance than wait until they get sicker or must look entirely for public assistance. It serves as a bridge to the new health insurance marketplace to be established through State-based Health Insurance Exchanges in 2014. And again TARP was under Bush
As stated GE has paid the TARP money back, and TARP itself was a Bush program. Additionally, if your concerned with GE paying so few taxes, easy solution, raise corporate taxes and get rid of the loopholes, oh but wait, you're a Republican, that would be against your religion.
@Rundstedt1: Proof that the fk'ing corrupt Democrats are lying & will answer to this shit, including Obama:
They said it was "open" for all corporations to apply. Well isn't that weird. Money was already being handed out to these select corporations with reports of funds running low even before anyone was aware the program existed.
That's only proof that the program was needed and successful. And again, any company that met the criteria could receive funds and the only people who didn't 'know' (which is most likely a lie anyway, they knew) about the program are those Right-wingers now making the false accusations
@Rundstedt1: There's proof, bitch. The $80 million software program for ERRP applications wasn't even in place until early September 2010 ----- GE and the others had long received their money the previous June. Once the program became more known, they were suddenly running out of funds. They've since stopped all applications.
You mean the June three months before September? And the Software has nothing to do with the actual implementation of the program, it's just for analysis of it, to help make it more efficient. This is all a Red Herring talking point delusion from a misinformed Fox News propagandist. Oh and the program is to run until 2014 although it needs to be given proper funding.
@Rundstedt1: WRONG. Stop making shit up as you go along. You're pathetic
The $80 million software contract is to "develop and deploy the ERRP application and payment systems, as well as support all ERRP operational departments". Do you see that? Can you read?
Besides, it takes a special kind of idiot to say an $80 million software program is designed for "efficiency". It was "supposed" to run thru 2014. They're already running out of money. The funding was already in the h/c bill, dope
@Rundstedt1: More proof of Democrats' lies & stupidity
Information Week Health, 8/13/2010: "General Dynamics Wins $80 Million Health and Human Services (HHS) Contract" ... Development of software for Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP)"
a) Costing me another $80 million on top of the funds to employees?
b) $80 million software for a program that's out of money in less than a year? Applications have stopped already
c) No software in August, yet GE & others already had ERRP money?
Waa, Waa, waa, go somewhere else to cry your crocodile tears, the program still continues and is needed. You don't like it, well there's a much better idea that you Righties would have killed the Democrats for if they even realistically suggested it: Single Payer Universal Care.
@Rundstedt1: LOL ... what an ass-licking pussy you are. Just admit that you don't care what kind of corrupt scam there is because it's Democrats
NO evidence that this money was "needed", idiot. Again, GE profited billions & paid no taxes. Aww .. poor retirees w/pensions .. the lowly little taxpayers need to pay their h/c too.
But with ERRP, high-powered K Street Lobbyists giving millions to Democrats, you just keep shouting "Koch" -- that's what MSNBC retarded viewers are trained to do
@Rundstedt1: Another recipient of this slush fund is GE. You know, the corporation who received a $50 billion bailout in 2009, paid no taxes last year, and whose CEO sits on Obama's "Economic Advisory Panel"?
Beyond outrageous.
But you Libtards keep screaming about "Koch Brothers".
No, it is not a 'slush fund' that is just pure talking point BS.
Again, it aims to make certain, that companies employees that meet the qualifications, who retire early still have health insurance coverage before they reach Medicare eligibility age.
"All Qualified Applications" For ERRP "Will Be Approved" And "Will Be Processed In The Order In Which They Are Received." From the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program website
@2010GOP ooh, good catch, I sometimes cut and paste while trying to get my ire under the character limit. my editing isn't always that great. I mean, if I thought that intelligent ideas presented clearly and free of grammatical errors would have any impact on you I would take the time to proof read. but sadly, you've traded reason for bitterness, bigotry, guns, nostalgia and tax cuts. my time is better served showing card tricks to my dog.
Or that it wasn't really a 'Republican' bill per se, but one only proposed by Chuck Hagel a maverick Republican who voted against Bush's tax cuts and that most other Republicans claimed at the time should have really been a Democrat and so they didn't support it either .and it was really the Republican controlled House that killed Hagel's bill(S 190). And just as they later killed Barney Franks (HR 1427) later real attempt to regulate the housing finance industry.
@Rundstedt1 holy crap and I thought I was throwing up a wall of text. Its good to see someone else throwing it at that dickwad in a well read and easily understood fashion... its a shame the playground antics of others is about all anyone deals in these days. A fine cut jib you have there. now if you excuse me I am going to go back to pulling his hair and throwing the dodge ball at him. that guy is such a doodoo for brains peepeehead.
LOL, I 've seen this fool many of times, he's always trying to spread his lies on TYT videos; I wouldn't doubt that he's a paid agent of the Koch brothers trying to spread disinformation. The Right wingers actually run classes on how to do it, its been documented. He tries hard, but when you really look into his garbage none of it has any real merit. He needs a few dodgeballs thrown at him, a rock or too also maybe, have at it :)
@Rundstedt1 I said it before... in this thread maybe... I don't know whether to blame ignorance for republicans or blame republicans for ignorance. i think im paraphrasing me, but the idea is sound. i'm having bumper stickers made.
Where's your concern w/Obama doling out money to Corporate Executives for their 'personal bank accounts', in addition to receiving bailout money, unlike Koch?
CBS News, GE, Washington Post, Verizon, AIG, IBM, etc
Will Richard Maddow report on the high-powered K Street lobbyists finding a loophole that enabling them to surpass donation limits .. Chevron & Wal-Mart largest contributors .. Nine of the top 10 recipients are Democrat
I suppose we're supposed to guess what your BS reffers to.
And, Oh you mean because of the 'Citizens United' decision which was a Republican dream.
And you also vaguely reference a very skewed report that ONLY looked at the democrats, K street gives more to the Republicans and is really a Republican invention.
a) Yet another elementary-level spelling word that the so-called "teacher" can't spell.
b) When the report showed "Nine of the top 10 recipients were Democrats", just a tad bit of logic would tell you that Republicans were looked at, hence the one Republican out of the 10.
Again this is UTube, and writing and posting in a hurry, spelling is not a concern and typos happen, and to reiterate: the UTube Grammar Cop, the last refuge of a troll without any real merit.
And again, the report is BS, it ONLY looked at Democrats and did no reporting on Republicans for comparison, can you say 'skewed bullshit' because that's what is was.
Again that is a BS report that did not look at the real picture but only cherry picked information to arrive at a preconceived notion.
"It became a devastating scandal for the Republican Party, and Exhibit A in the culture of corruption that helped drive the GOP from power in 2006. Indeed...
The elaborate scheme has not been fully resuscitated, at least not yet. But there are certainly hints in that direction...
What's more, in May, GOP leaders announced they were "keeping score" when it came to corporate PACs' campaign donations. If lobbyists intended to start writing legislation again, the way they did during the last Republican majority, the implication was that they'd have to start buying that influence once again.
All of this, of course, comes under the leadership of John Boehner, who makes no secret of his affinity for lobbyists, whom he turns to for practically everything.
And we're only two months into the new GOP House majority. It's only going to get worse."
Again the report you so tout is a skewed piece of propaganda, it does not look at the whole picture, K street is a republican baby. And since you're going to berate people who make innocent spelling errors, I'm going to have to point out you extremely childish derogatory name calling like replacing Rachel with Richard, you really show who's the child here.
Instead of your garbage all should check "The Warning" by PBS which clearly explains that the Crisis was one caused by the very 'free-market' mantra that is at the heart of Republican policies and the presided over by the 'Free-market' Ayn Rand cultist Greenspan
This is a clear sign that Sarah Palin will be our next President. She will completely fix this whole mess caused by Dubya and the DEMS! The DEMS WILL be an EXTINCT party! We WILL have a 1 party GOP ALL WHITE CONSERVATIVE WOMEN government! The reason why Dubya failed to stop the DEMS from this debacle is BECAUSE HE HAS A PUSSY!
@2010GOP So, it was liberal who were in the bank, with a gun, forcing banker to give loan and household to take them? Get real, please! Because, one could point out the 1977 congress' CRA as a cause of the housing bubble, while the problem was on the balance sheet on every single financial intermediaries in USA because interest where low, the law were stupidly small in the shadow banking system, and stupid microeconomic belief about what type of good a house is.
NY Times, 9/30/1999: "Fannie Mae has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans".
Obama / ACORN - sued banks claiming disparate lending practices. Hence the mandate of a certain % of minorities approved, regardless of credit worthiness
Look, you twisting propagandist, the banks were sued because they were discriminating by rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. I repeatedly show that your crap about the CRA is wrong and like the lying propagandist you are you just insist on continuing. But your Gobbles-like big lie won't work here.
"The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA.
Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley
Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks.
It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance.
And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness." September 29, 2008, Bloomberg Business Week"
@2010GOP 3 Thing: 1. That's in 19 fucking 99, the crisis start in 20 07. The bank had 8 years to adapt: if they can't dig that, your banking system deserve to fail and you deserve to be bankrupt.
2. That like 6% of the subprime that are qualify under government mandate loan? You know what, I let you go with 18% - what about the other 82%?
3. Obama linked with ACORN to sue on disparate lending? Oh, and the Saxon had constitution that the norman kill? Spare me that B.S.
@2010GOP Because you are blaming the wrong guy and are just pointing fingers! The investment banks, hedge funds and insurers take way too much risk, and add advantage to do so because of macroµeconomic condition and absence of regulation and laws. This have little to do with the democrat or the GOP, but have to do with personal responsibilities firstly, than the law.
You could legally do 400mph on the autoban, but it will be stupid. This is what some financial intermediaries try to do.
@2010GOP Plus, the disparate lending practices... So, you are for disparate lending practices? You are for a black not getting is loan just because he is black and not follow federal laws? And having some ghetto in Chigago and New-York?
Sorry, I prefer walking in fucking Berlin than in some part of New-York. Sure, the east-part of the city look poorer, but it's not a ghetto and I don't have the beggar asking me for spare changes at every street corners!
Hey Guess what? I've looked into the history of this '2010GOP' account, and he's a sockpuppet for "HowTheWorldWorks" (Lee Doren), a well-known scumbag lobbyist in the Righty propaganda organ The Competitive Enterprise Institute. He IS being paid to be here by the Koch Brothers. And I apparently he's also posting with other Socks here supporting himself, this guy has no shame, let alone honesty.
@Rundstedt1 I'm not surprise he is full of it, his accusation have barely any macro or micro basis; he miss the elephant in the room. The only thing he point out is the lack of information... Sure, there are some problems there, but there are more important problems than that in the short term... And, in the long term: information, even if always problematic, did get better, if you have the time to look for it, which you do if you are a trader on the stock exchange since it is your job....
No actually Krugman was correct and the gov't didn't force any risky mortgages, the CRA program specifically forbade Sub-prime loans and the CRA loans had a lower default rate than even the 'regular' loans. And the Sub-Primes which were the creation of the private banks all on their own did not start the crisis by themselves. The problem was magnified by the exotic un-regulated financial instruments like the Credit Default Swaps, it was totally a crisis brought about by the 'free-market'
Krugman is just another one of Sarah Palin's DICKLESS and BALLESS BITCHES and PUSSIES! Palin is a VASTLY SUPERIOR economist over Krugman. She will completely discredit and debunk him along with Friedman and Keynes when she implements Palinomics! President Palin will EXPOSE their PUSSIES!
Clinton and BOTH Bushes are TRULY Sarah Palin's DICKLESS and BALLESS BITCHES and PUSSIES! They truly wore the skirts while Hitlerly, Barbara and Laura wore the pants! Palin will be a SUPERIOR POTUS over these ass-clowns and she will completely clean up this whole mess with Palinomics! Palinomics will prevent another bubble from bursting and make the economy of the world completely stable and robust. There will NEVER EVER be another collapse and recession in the Palin Planet!
Sean Hannity is the bottom of the barrel. He's as irrational and hyperpartisan as it gets.
What was the deficit under Bush? We had to fight wars, that affected the economy.
What's the deficit under Obama? He had to clean up Bush's mess. That affects the economy even more so. It's a stupid argument, Sean, and you know it.
You can't just wipe your hands clean because Obama supposedly made it worse, when it's not worse. It just flat out isn't. We're gaining jobs now. You can't say that for Bush.
@loveofphysics after checking your sources, only one by the name of Clubbingshawn actually exists, so I sent him a message to confirm your claims. The other two doesn't exist which makes me look at you more with skepticalism. And no, unless you give me evidence on this issue, you will still be looked upon as a liar, so links or it didn't happen
Thanks to the GOP's complete insanity during the previous administration we're in this current economic crisis. GW got the US involved in two wars (the Iraq war the US entered based on a lie). Obama is attempting to fix the damage done. If by neuter the military u mean do away with the pointless PMCs good. These parasites deserve to be done away with. Unlike GW Obama isn't bending over & letting his rich friends make billions off the US. Funny how under Obama the economy is improving isn't it.
psychohorrorfan 3 weeks ago
Huh, it sounded like 'Dickensian model.' That's closer to the real cause.
snappycatchy 2 months ago
You don't fix the economy by spending almost a trillion dollars to keep state and local government from bankruptcy. Obama's aim was to raise the federal government's spending level up to 25% of GDP, and to keep it there,to create a European style welfare state at the same time that Europe is crashing under the load of its ,social spending, even without significant spending on defence. As for American defence, he wishes to neuter the US military, down to 1930 spending levels.
JRobbySh 3 months ago
Richard Eskow is my favorite sub on TYT. More of him and not so much of Michael Shure.
ypsidan04 5 months ago
Sean annity looks like a wild boar
alexandreleverrier 5 months ago
Hannity is controlled.
RADICAL LEFT?
THAT MAKES HIM RADICAL RIGHT!
MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS FOR DEAD HEADS.
Infoman665 6 months ago
Who has been throwing billions upon billions of dollars at the Military on the ongoing War for Oil, the biggest scam that has ever accosted taxpayers in the US?? Hannity has been trashing Democrats and Obama at a fever pitch lately, because he knows that 95% of those who watch Fox News will buy any lie you put in front of them, but there's a hypocrisy amongst Conservatives and even moderate Republicans that is so completely evident and is truly destroying our country. Hannity is so blind.
KoenHead 7 months ago
My theory is Obama is playing a long game to let the Republicans self destruct. He has a plan to throw in at the last second, and he will. he just knows there's no way in hell they'd let it pass otherwise.
The Republicans are doing this to themselves and to us. Now the Tea Party has rebelled. Yay. Thanks, idiots, for voting even bigger morons in. Who's next, Zippy?
SisterOfKarn 7 months ago
As a proud republican I say to Obama-"I dare you to let America default". The only way for American's to know how much damage the liberal agenda has done is to crash the ecomomy. There will be no hiding then.
GOPkicksbutt 7 months ago
@GOPkicksbutt you are just as blind as Sean Hannity.
imraw17 6 months ago
TIME TO TAX BILLIONAIRES !
kn9ioutom 7 months ago
@kn9ioutom There aren't enough Billionaires in the country to even make a DENT in the Deficit. You are talking Billions when the deficit is TRILLIONS. 61 % increase in the Deficit with Pelosi as speaker of the house.
$14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt.
MetalDetroit 7 months ago
@MetalDetroit (1/5)
And most of that debt is because of Republican 'free-market' policies that have done nothing but shift wealth upward and create bubbles and a resultant crash, which then must be repaired with a temporary increase in spending. And the majority of the debt that isn't the direct result of Bush W's garbage, can be laid upon the feet of Reagan and Bush the First's 'trickle down' voodoo crap.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@MetalDetroit (2/5)
"On Sunday, the New York Times published a chart demonstrating the relative contributions to the deficit made by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Short version: The total cost of new policies initiated during the administration of George Bush: $5.07 trillion. Barack Obama: $1.44 trillion."
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@MetalDetroit (3/5)
"Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non-defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@MetalDetroit (4/5)
A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@MetalDetroit (5/5)
Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up." - from the aforementioned NY times article.
"How the Deficit Got This Big" - NY times, Published: July 23, 2011
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
Dude makes mad sense!
datniggami6 7 months ago
Sean Hannity is anti - semite & hate Jew !
Burn in hell, Sean !
Stevie68000 7 months ago
REPUBLICOM PROPAGANDA IS LIKE NAZIE PROPAGANDA ! HOT AIR !
kn9ioutom 7 months ago
Noam Chomsky pointed out not long ago that there was effectively no stimulus because state by state spending was decreased to about the amount of the stimulus itself. So everything equalized.
PurpleHoneyBear 7 months ago
mr. hannity is one of the most uninformed host there is ,when he starts ejaculating all his misinformed rhetoric in the guise of knowing beyond a doubt could be know farther from the truth than nancy pelosi's lips on george bush's ass
stinkykuntz 7 months ago
you guys are still bickering over democrats vs. republicans? guess what, they are both a bunch of wealthy modern day aristocrats who dont give a fuck about average american people. Is the government fixing our education, economy, infrastructure? No, instead they pretend they are working on important issues when a decade goes by and shit is worse not better.
janses08 7 months ago
Ever hear of the Snowball Effect Hannity? It just takes one problem to start it. That 1 problem becomes 2. Then those 2 problems cause 4. The 4 turns to 16. The 16 becomes 256. The 256 becomes 65536. The 65536 becomes 4294967296. As you can see I just went from 1 to 4294967296 in 7 steps. You can see how Obama, in 3yrs, can accumulate more debt than Bush did in 8. I may not be a rocket scientist but i know enough to know you're full of shit Hannity
srch4trth 7 months ago
Comment removed
srch4trth 7 months ago
Is anyone shocked by the fact that Hannity would spew this bs? He's the dolt who thinks a criminal like Oliver North is a true American hero. What a douchebag.
lovecraftis 7 months ago
they ran a train on him
thedelta88 7 months ago
holy crap i am so suprised to see sean hannity is so full of crap. and lying like a sack of bricks. no i am not, he is one of the worst cases of brown noses, damn he will need 20 showers to get his nose clean. good god, bush did not accumulate this debt? i guess those tax breaks bush gave to the rich where really obama's idea. oh dear god, what a fool hannity is.
whedonfreak976 7 months ago
Sean Hannity = a useless bag of snake shit.
oneupagain 7 months ago
@grahamccollins,
I was reading through the comments and simply amazed at yours. GOP2010 posted irrefutable facts. How could you be so ignorant as to not recognize facts over "Rundstedt's" lies & 100% left-wing childish rhetoric? This country is on it's knees now. Somehow, people still refuse to engage in rational & logical thinking & choose to ignore facts laid before them, just to defend their party. That is despicable.
ronster064 7 months ago
490 likes, 19 dislikes 304 views
rud8420 7 months ago
Jesus Loves FOX NEWS because the Retards say so. Yes as long as your a retard you can Use GOD and the bible to Manipulate Christians for Greed, lies, Theft and wars for Corporate profits. Yes Acorn is unconstitutional for what they did because FOX news investigated them. FOX is Jesus number one network because Retards say so.
MegaELECTRICEYE 7 months ago 3
very good points. I like this guy
CoDisafishy 7 months ago
Sean Hannity is funny man!
HAHAHAHA
TOTCD 7 months ago
Hannity always rudely interrupts & talks over guests -- why even go on his show
DillonDee1 7 months ago
@DillonDee1: Not true. I always know the Libtard's position who appear on his show. Even if I heard only 75% of it, that's better than Chrissy Tingles' or Richard Maddow's show ----- I typically only hear positions from their fellow Libtards.
2010GOP 7 months ago
@grahamccollins
I don't drink Kool-Aid or ingest any Kraft product, sorry.
Keep taking it deeply, you will get your reach around as soon as they get one hand free, really, I promise this time. Just focus on your breathing... the Red Shield thanks you for your service.
jag10 7 months ago
These pundit clowns don't seem to understand that economists are outright wrong half the time.
The stimulus didn't work because it didn't make it into the hands of those who could make it work: the consumers. If that money had made it into the hands of the mindless American consumer whose appetite has no end, just think of all the crap that would have been bought! Talk about a booming economy!
And it would help in the long run if those jobs that went overseas came back home.
ChipArgyle 7 months ago
@ChipArgyle No actually it didn't work because government stimulus never works, no matter who gets the money. Government cannot give to one without taking from another.
Huboons 7 months ago
Comment removed
ChipArgyle 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Huboons It's not giving to one by taking from another. It's returning to the consumer what they took away from that very consumer in the first place in the form of personal taxes. Ease up on the Republican rhetoric and do the math.
ChipArgyle 7 months ago
Keynes WAS WRONG LOL
According to Keynes, inflation and unemployment could never rise simultaneously (stagflation). That was impossible. Well its happened, twice.
Look Sean Hannity is an idiot overall but Omfg stimulating the economy is going to make things much worse. Using that logic why dont we stimulate 100 trillion? If its true that stimulus creates real jobs and real gdp, then why dont we? If stimulating has no consequences then why not stimulate and create a 'real boom' ;)
wow...
treysparker 7 months ago
@treysparker Careful there: Keynes never say that it could not happen at the same time, he say that there were some corolation between them, and, regarding cost-push inflation, like in stagflation crisis in 1974, he touch tha it was mathematical possible but that cost tend to go down in real term over some period time. Was he wrong? No, he just have a good partial explanation - monetarist&behaviour economic complete some of these explanations. Like Einstein complete Pointcarré ;)
therrydicule 7 months ago
*WHERE THE HELL IS CENK?*
Vladimir0538 7 months ago
Okay, first of all that was a great video. Second, these commercials are becoming far too long,
lazysmurf101 7 months ago
Cenk, Hannity...
...same shit, different toilet.
st4ticblu3 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW CAN An EARTHQUAKE "SWALLOW" A River?GOD SAID-WHOEVER CURSE ISRAEL WILL BE CURSED AND WHOEVER BLESS ISRAEL WILL BE BLESSED!VISION Of The ATTACK Of ISRAEL That Is Coming! Osama Bin Laden Dead May 1,2011/Hitler Dead April 30,1945 66 Years Apart!Another 6 is coming this year.Microchip-666 in hands and foreheads.Hell is real!Middle East and Israel conflict,WWIII?TO NON BELIEVERS REPENT SAVE YOUR SOULS.JESUS IS COMING!Get raptured not suffer the great tribulation.LISTEN TO PAUL BEGLEY IN YOUTUBE.
TheENTERRAPTURE17 7 months ago
The problems didn't start under Bush, they actually started under Clinton. "Clinton ran a surplus" is the biggest B.S. lie that the left tries to feed us. Clinton handed Bush a recession. Your nobel prize winning Paul Krugmen hasn't been right on anything in the past, why trust him now? He couldn't even detect the housing bubble. Ha! Liberalism is a disaster! I would love him debating someone like Peter Schiff. He would get destroyed. This guy doesn't know **** about economics.
tonyg0123 7 months ago
@tonyg0123 wtf are you even talking about? Krugman talked about the housing bubble all the time, people on the right called economists like Krugman "bubbleheads" because of it.
billthebutcher2 7 months ago
@billthebutcher2: Krugman is a complete fk'ing nut. In 2007, he said free market principles were causing the instability in the housing market. Anyone w/at least 1/2 a brain knows that "government" was the culprit in forcing the creation of risky mortgages.
I guess it shouldn't be a surprise. Krugman also said that 3 million new private sector jobs would be created in 6 months after the stimulus was signed. LOL
Krugman is as every bit freakish as he looks
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP Nobody says the government caused that outside of RW partisans, you made that up. You likely made up that Krugman said that, he always was skeptical about just how much it would create because it was small. And the CBO estimated that it create around 3 million jobs anyway.
billthebutcher2 7 months ago
@billthebutcher2: Holy shit. Are you retarded? Virtually everyone on the planet knows that Democrats' initiative of forcing the creation of risky mortgages was one of the main culprits. What rock did you just crawl out from under? Go argue w/the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission & virtually anyone else with a brain.
Couple the above w/fierce opposition to Republican legislation for more oversight on Fannie/Freddie accounting. Let Bill Clinton tell you: /watch?v=BMPPGlOpUiM
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP So by democrats you mean hank paulson lobbying for deregrulation of the financial system?!?!
huskersfan1515 7 months ago
@huskersfan1515: What are you talking about? Paulson wasn't sworn in until July 2006.
NY Times, 9/30/1999: "Fannie Mae has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans".
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP (1/2)
Hey you missed this next line which continues:
"and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates"
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
(2/4)
So while the Clinton admin. might have wanted more lower income people to be able to get home loans, it was the private banks themselves, and Fannie and Freddy were also totally private at the time, that took it upon themselves to make them risky Sub-Prime loans. It was also the under regulated private banking industry that decided to make the Liar Loans, misrepresenting peoples incomes and lying to people about the payment schedules. The Gov't actually had nothing to do with all that
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (3/4)
And let's look at what Bush said in 2004:
"Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, and dignity, and independence. Thanks to our policies, homeownership in America is at an all-time high. Tonight we set a new goal: seven million more affordable homes in the next 10 years so more American families will be able to open the door and say: Welcome to my home."
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: Yep ~ Bush's American Dream Act
To promote homebuyer education for "responsible" homebuying .. for "qualified" buyers. Read the guidelines on it. Standard 30 year fixed rate with DTI restrictions. You know, common-sense guidelines.
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
And so he presided over the Huosing market scams and the Sub-Primes. Sorry it was his ideology of deregulation that allowed the crises to occur.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: I don't know how else to explain to you that YOU'RE A RETARD. For the love of God, even some Democrats admit they fk'd up.
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP (4/4)
Increased home ownership is a goal of almost every administration, but it was the 'free-market' atmosphere, the mantra pushed by the Republicans, that it happened in and that was at the root of the crises, not anything that Clinton directly did or said but was directly rooted in the 'free-market' garbage of the Republicans.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (1/14)
Boy do you have it typically backassward. The crises was one of private unregulated capital not anything that the 'gov't forced on anyone' To qualify for a CRA loan the client had to meet requirements designed to show that they could meet its obligations. The sub-prime loans were NOT part of the CRA program but were put into being by the private sector well before Freddie and Fannie even got into the game.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: UNBELIEVABLE STUPIDITY
Who in the hell do you think Fannie/Freddie are & who do you think backed the majority of mortgages in this country? Why do you think we bailed out the GSEs?
I never said anything about CRA -- that was only a smaller sliver of the problem. The issue was with the literally hundreds of risky/exotic mortgages, and not necessarily sub-prime, pushed by Democrats/created by Fannie/Freddie
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
As stated, Fannie and Freddy were privately owned and run companies
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 WROTE: "As stated, Fannie and Freddy were privately owned and run companies".
ROFLMAO!!!!! Fannie & Freddie are GSEs. Do you know what that stands for?
Why are you debating on a subject that you clearly know NOTHING about? You're embarrassing yourself but too ignorant to realize it.
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP (2/14)
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two private companies that had started as government agencies, have been the particular subject of vilification. As has been the government program called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which encourages banks to lend to underserved communities.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (3/14)
Had it not been for these efforts as lending to the poor, so the argument goes, all would have been well. This litany of defenses is, for the most part, sheer nonsense. AIG's almost $200 billion bailout (that's a big amount by any account) was based on derivatives (credit default swaps) - banks gambling with other banks. The banks didn't need any push for egalitarian housing to engage in excessive risk taking.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (4/14)
Nor did the massive overinvestment in commercial real estate have anything to do with government homeownership policy. Nor did the repeated instances of bad lending around the world from which the banks have had to be repeatedly rescued. Moreover, default rates on the CRA lending were actually comparable to other areas of lending - showing that such lending, if done well, does not pose greater risks. (CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than other mortgages)
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1
Are you kidding? The loans were backed by the government so the banks purposely lent money they knew couldnt be paid back because if it didnt work out, dont worry, the government has your back. And thats exactly what they did.
On top of that they shorted the mortgage market knowing the downturn was inevitable. If they KNEW a downturn was coming they wouldnt be lending out money unless the loans were taken care of by the government.
treysparker 7 months ago
@treysparker: LOL .. good luck with "Rundstedt1". I'm talking DUUUMB
He doesn't even understand the very basics of who Fannie/Freddie are, their function within the market, nor any of the basic details of the economic meltdown. As I said, good luck ...
2010GOP 7 months ago
@treysparker: Actually, just to clarify, it wasn't just that the government backed the loans. Fannie/Freddie actually write the loan underwriting guidelines. Banks input the application into Fannie/Freddie's automated underwriting systems ("Desktop Underwriter" - DU .. and "Loan Prospector" - LP).
2010GOP 7 months ago
@treysparker
What loans are you talking about? The Toxic loans were issued by private banks on thier own accord. As stated by Stiglitz, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's mandate was for "conforming loans," loans to the middle class, and NO responsible source blames Freddie or Fannie or he CRA for the Mortgage scams.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago 4
@Rundstedt1 Actually the root of the problem occurred when the Clinton Administration started using the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to force banks to give mortgage loans to millions of people based on skin color or political ties rather than ability to repay. This went on for about 10 years so we had 10 years of worthless loans that the government forced into the economy. Fannie and Freddie were not only directly responsible but were exclusively so.
Huboons 7 months ago
@2010GOP (5/14)
The most telling point though is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's mandate was for "conforming loans," loans to the middle class. The banks jumped into subprime mortgages -- an area where, at the time, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae were not making loans -- Without any incentives from the government. ... Later on, years after the private sector had invented the toxic mortgages, the PRIVATIZED and UNDER-REGULATED Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decided that they too should enjoy the fun.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (6/14)
Their executives thought, Why couldn't they enjoy bonuses akin to others in the industry? Ironically, in doing so, they helped save the private sector from some of its own folly: Had they not bought them, the problems in the private sector would have been far worse, though by buying so many securities, they may have also helped fuel the bubble. Joseph E. Stiglitz, "Freefall" p10-11
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (7/14)
"CRA has been in existence since 1977; plus, it only applies to depository institutions (regular banks). Meanwhile, we had a subprime bubble that mostly took place after 2002, with most of the loans made by institutions that weren't subject to the CRA. That's why everyone who's looked at this honestly says that the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the crisis." -
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (8/14)
"The attempt to blame it all on the CRA is just an attempt at blame-shifting -- an attempt to make liberals and nonwhite people the villains of a story that is actually about runaway financial institutions and the free-market ideologues who refused to regulate them." Paul Krugman, "Washington Post"
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (9/14)
It was the unregulated private mortgage companies that issued the toxic loans, NOT Freddie and Fannie. It was private companies like HSBC and GMAC. Freddie and Fannie only fell prey to the mortgage securities market, which was de-regulated, and those mortgage agencies. You maliciously try to blame the victims; the people that were taken advantage of, and there are a plethora of examples where the loan 'officers' took advantage of people.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (10/14)
You just show that you are a troll and can only repeat the easily debunked garbage that your corporate run 'think tanks' spew. NO responsible source blames Freddie or Fannie for the Mortgage scams. The toxic mortgages were issued by other totally private mortgage companies as I said, NOT Freddie and Fannie, and the CRA program had a lower default rate than even standard mortgages.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (11/14)
And while Clinton might hold some blame for not reigning in the financial markets he was after all only following the exact same sort of policies that are so pushed by the Republicans. The real problem is that this country has shifted so far to the Right that even the democrat presidents aren't really on the Left anymore.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (12/14)
And instead of your BS quote mined 40 second video which doesn't tell the entire story in context, and ignores that the proposed Republican policy was a sham that really didn't do much but move the deck chairs on the Titanic around, or that the Republicans actually were in control of congress at the time and didn't even have the desire to pass their own bill as they are ideologically opposed to any regulation.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: "they are ideologically opposed to any regulation"
While you're getting an education on the basics of everything else, you may want to research & learn that ALL Republican Senate Banking Cmte members voted for the legislation .... ALL Democrats voted against. Democrats pigeonholed the bill. For shit's sake, even Bill Clinton himself admits that.
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
Ahh than it would have made it out ot the commitee for the Republicans had the majority at the time
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: No, it wouldn't have .... again, in addition to everything else you're clueless on, you're also clueless on governmental procedures.
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
And you're just a talking point hack with absolutly no veracity behind your garbage, sorry none of it will fly here.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: LMAO! You're the stupid ass who is so fk'ing clueless that you haven't the slightest inkling of who Fannie/Freddie is, nor what their function is.
This conversation is like trying to teach calculus to a 1st grader.
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
Again you are nothing but a talking point hack trying to shift the blame from where it correctly belongs, and that is: the 'free-market' and deregulation mantra of the Republicans.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: Sorry, junior. Those are basic facts that the majority of educated & competent grown-ups are aware of.
Please cite the Bush/Republican financial deregulation.
Which party was called "racist" for opposing the risky loan initiative?
Who protected their Fannie/Freddie buddies' erroneous accounting practices, saying there is nothing wrong w/their stability.
Explain what specifically caused asset toxicity with MBSs and how that relates to GSEs
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
Junior? LOL Sorry, I teach history as well as Government classes and the one whose ignorant as well as younger here is you. Again none of your accusations have any real merit, why don't you go watch the PBS special I recommended instead of spreading your lies.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: "and the one whose ignorant"
Why don't you learn how to spell words that most of us learned in 3rd grade prior to teaching? No wonder kids today are fk'ing stupid
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
Ahh, the the Utube Grammer Cop, the last refuge of the Trolls without anything of real merit behind them.
Gee, it's called being in a hurry asshole.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1: "the Utube Grammer Cop"
And now the so-called "teacher" can't even spell "grammar". LMAO!!!!!
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP okay, you read fox transcripts and you are clearly allowed to use the internet unsupervised..., that puts you at about the 3rd grade level, (8th in most red states). lets not throw out words like calculus to impress folks. its like a 1st grader being taught calculus by a 3rd grader. you don't know WTF you're talking about, you only remember bits, but you're older brother told it to you so its gospel. bad news buddy, it aint gospel. its not even church... unless you count LDS. its cult.
tigerbloodrock 7 months ago
@tigerbloodrock: "but you're older brother".
You may also want to learn the difference between "you're" and "your". Just some more 3rd grade curriculum that I'd advise you to brush up on.
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
There's that childish trolling Grammer Cop shit again, the last refuge for those with no real merit.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: When will Richard Maddow and Chrissy Tingles report on Obama's slush fund of billions to his favorite corporate executives? These taxpayer funds are for the executives' PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNTS.
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
There is no 'slush fund' the money is to pay for health insurance for early retirees. And is part of the Health care bill to ensure that those early retirees retain health coverage until they can get Medicare coverage. And gee one of those companies receiving the funds was 'The Washington Post" a paper with a well conservative bent. Again your talking point BS holds no merit.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: Why don't you do a little research, idiot. In the hearings, it was admitted that these funds are merely handed over ... no tracking of actual usage.
"The Washington Post" is owned by CBS News, hardly right-wing, dipshit.
Lastly, I fail to see why it's "my" responsibility as a taxpayer to subsidize executives' health care for "selected" corporations, most of who are receiving pensions, etc.
2010GOP 7 months ago
Glenn Greenwald has called Post's Op-Ed page the "leading outlet for neoconservative and related right-wing advocacy." And the funds were all part of the ERRP, and aims to make certain that their employees who retire early still have health insurance coverage before they reach Medicare eligibility age, the companies are only 'select' in that the ones receiving it are those that applied and have an already-in-place early retiree health insurance programs. Just more of you bogus talking point BS
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FK'ING MIND? Why is it my responsibility as a taxpayer to pay for their employees? GE gets a bailout of $50 billion, pays no taxes the next year, and now I'm suppose to take care of their employees?
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
GE meets the criteria because it is one of the few companies that actually offers early retiree health coverage, we cannot write bills that exclude one company, and GE has paid the TARP funds back, which was a Bush program anyway, LOL
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: WTF? Once again, you're lost.
a) Do you actually think that every company who offers early retiree health coverage was approved for ERRP? If so, you are sadly fk'ing mistaken.
b) If a company already offers early retiree health coverage, why in the hell am I having to subsidize for more coverage on top of it?
c) TARP was most heavily supported by Democrats ---- GE has also received additional bailout money through the Obama Admin.
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
Do have any proof that that any were turned away, or exactly why they might have been? NO!
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP
And you are subsidizing it so that the companies don't cut the coverage before of the impending Health care bill as they would have a tendency to do so, it is cheaper for all the pay for people's care before hand through insurance than wait until they get sicker or must look entirely for public assistance. It serves as a bridge to the new health insurance marketplace to be established through State-based Health Insurance Exchanges in 2014. And again TARP was under Bush
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP
As stated GE has paid the TARP money back, and TARP itself was a Bush program. Additionally, if your concerned with GE paying so few taxes, easy solution, raise corporate taxes and get rid of the loopholes, oh but wait, you're a Republican, that would be against your religion.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1 "And the funds were all part of the ERRP".
No shit. The slush fund is ERRP, newly created, stuck deep inside the 2,700 pg h/c bill
2010GOP 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: Proof that the fk'ing corrupt Democrats are lying & will answer to this shit, including Obama:
They said it was "open" for all corporations to apply. Well isn't that weird. Money was already being handed out to these select corporations with reports of funds running low even before anyone was aware the program existed.
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
That's only proof that the program was needed and successful. And again, any company that met the criteria could receive funds and the only people who didn't 'know' (which is most likely a lie anyway, they knew) about the program are those Right-wingers now making the false accusations
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: There's proof, bitch. The $80 million software program for ERRP applications wasn't even in place until early September 2010 ----- GE and the others had long received their money the previous June. Once the program became more known, they were suddenly running out of funds. They've since stopped all applications.
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
You mean the June three months before September? And the Software has nothing to do with the actual implementation of the program, it's just for analysis of it, to help make it more efficient. This is all a Red Herring talking point delusion from a misinformed Fox News propagandist. Oh and the program is to run until 2014 although it needs to be given proper funding.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: WRONG. Stop making shit up as you go along. You're pathetic
The $80 million software contract is to "develop and deploy the ERRP application and payment systems, as well as support all ERRP operational departments". Do you see that? Can you read?
Besides, it takes a special kind of idiot to say an $80 million software program is designed for "efficiency". It was "supposed" to run thru 2014. They're already running out of money. The funding was already in the h/c bill, dope
2010GOP 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: More proof of Democrats' lies & stupidity
Information Week Health, 8/13/2010: "General Dynamics Wins $80 Million Health and Human Services (HHS) Contract" ... Development of software for Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP)"
a) Costing me another $80 million on top of the funds to employees?
b) $80 million software for a program that's out of money in less than a year? Applications have stopped already
c) No software in August, yet GE & others already had ERRP money?
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
Waa, Waa, waa, go somewhere else to cry your crocodile tears, the program still continues and is needed. You don't like it, well there's a much better idea that you Righties would have killed the Democrats for if they even realistically suggested it: Single Payer Universal Care.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: LOL ... what an ass-licking pussy you are. Just admit that you don't care what kind of corrupt scam there is because it's Democrats
NO evidence that this money was "needed", idiot. Again, GE profited billions & paid no taxes. Aww .. poor retirees w/pensions .. the lowly little taxpayers need to pay their h/c too.
But with ERRP, high-powered K Street Lobbyists giving millions to Democrats, you just keep shouting "Koch" -- that's what MSNBC retarded viewers are trained to do
2010GOP 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: Another recipient of this slush fund is GE. You know, the corporation who received a $50 billion bailout in 2009, paid no taxes last year, and whose CEO sits on Obama's "Economic Advisory Panel"?
Beyond outrageous.
But you Libtards keep screaming about "Koch Brothers".
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
No, it is not a 'slush fund' that is just pure talking point BS.
Again, it aims to make certain, that companies employees that meet the qualifications, who retire early still have health insurance coverage before they reach Medicare eligibility age.
"All Qualified Applications" For ERRP "Will Be Approved" And "Will Be Processed In The Order In Which They Are Received." From the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program website
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP ooh, good catch, I sometimes cut and paste while trying to get my ire under the character limit. my editing isn't always that great. I mean, if I thought that intelligent ideas presented clearly and free of grammatical errors would have any impact on you I would take the time to proof read. but sadly, you've traded reason for bitterness, bigotry, guns, nostalgia and tax cuts. my time is better served showing card tricks to my dog.
tigerbloodrock 7 months ago
@2010GOP (13/14)
Or that it wasn't really a 'Republican' bill per se, but one only proposed by Chuck Hagel a maverick Republican who voted against Bush's tax cuts and that most other Republicans claimed at the time should have really been a Democrat and so they didn't support it either .and it was really the Republican controlled House that killed Hagel's bill(S 190). And just as they later killed Barney Franks (HR 1427) later real attempt to regulate the housing finance industry.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1 holy crap and I thought I was throwing up a wall of text. Its good to see someone else throwing it at that dickwad in a well read and easily understood fashion... its a shame the playground antics of others is about all anyone deals in these days. A fine cut jib you have there. now if you excuse me I am going to go back to pulling his hair and throwing the dodge ball at him. that guy is such a doodoo for brains peepeehead.
tigerbloodrock 7 months ago
@tigerbloodrock
LOL, I 've seen this fool many of times, he's always trying to spread his lies on TYT videos; I wouldn't doubt that he's a paid agent of the Koch brothers trying to spread disinformation. The Right wingers actually run classes on how to do it, its been documented. He tries hard, but when you really look into his garbage none of it has any real merit. He needs a few dodgeballs thrown at him, a rock or too also maybe, have at it :)
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1 I said it before... in this thread maybe... I don't know whether to blame ignorance for republicans or blame republicans for ignorance. i think im paraphrasing me, but the idea is sound. i'm having bumper stickers made.
tigerbloodrock 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: "Koch Brothers" <--- HAHAHA!! MSNBC much?
Where's your concern w/Obama doling out money to Corporate Executives for their 'personal bank accounts', in addition to receiving bailout money, unlike Koch?
CBS News, GE, Washington Post, Verizon, AIG, IBM, etc
Will Richard Maddow report on the high-powered K Street lobbyists finding a loophole that enabling them to surpass donation limits .. Chevron & Wal-Mart largest contributors .. Nine of the top 10 recipients are Democrat
2010GOP 7 months ago
*that enabled
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
I suppose we're supposed to guess what your BS reffers to.
And, Oh you mean because of the 'Citizens United' decision which was a Republican dream.
And you also vaguely reference a very skewed report that ONLY looked at the democrats, K street gives more to the Republicans and is really a Republican invention.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: Damn ~ you really are a dumbf-ck.
a) Yet another elementary-level spelling word that the so-called "teacher" can't spell.
b) When the report showed "Nine of the top 10 recipients were Democrats", just a tad bit of logic would tell you that Republicans were looked at, hence the one Republican out of the 10.
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
Again this is UTube, and writing and posting in a hurry, spelling is not a concern and typos happen, and to reiterate: the UTube Grammar Cop, the last refuge of a troll without any real merit.
And again, the report is BS, it ONLY looked at Democrats and did no reporting on Republicans for comparison, can you say 'skewed bullshit' because that's what is was.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: Can you say, "RETARD"? If you're truly an adult, that's alarming. If you're truly a teacher, that's fk'ing scary.
"Nine of the top 10 recipients were Democrats" <-- why is that so difficult for your fk'd up little head to comprehend?
You wrote, "Fannie and Freddy were privately owned and run companies" <--- LOL!! There's proof you're a lost little soul on the VERY basics
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP (1/3)
Again that is a BS report that did not look at the real picture but only cherry picked information to arrive at a preconceived notion.
"It became a devastating scandal for the Republican Party, and Exhibit A in the culture of corruption that helped drive the GOP from power in 2006. Indeed...
The elaborate scheme has not been fully resuscitated, at least not yet. But there are certainly hints in that direction...
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (2/3)
What's more, in May, GOP leaders announced they were "keeping score" when it came to corporate PACs' campaign donations. If lobbyists intended to start writing legislation again, the way they did during the last Republican majority, the implication was that they'd have to start buying that influence once again.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (3/3)
All of this, of course, comes under the leadership of John Boehner, who makes no secret of his affinity for lobbyists, whom he turns to for practically everything.
And we're only two months into the new GOP House majority. It's only going to get worse."
March 2011, Washington Monthly
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1: An Obama ass-licker has the balls to bring up lobbyists?
In addition to Democrats being the top recipients of high-powered K street Lobbyist donations, let's be reminded of this:
Obama 2008: "Lobbyists will not be part of my administration".
Obama 2009 - appoints record number of lobbyists in administration. Of the 40+ lobbyists, 3 actually hold high-level Cabinet positions.
Where's Richard Maddow w/those facts?
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP
Again the report you so tout is a skewed piece of propaganda, it does not look at the whole picture, K street is a republican baby. And since you're going to berate people who make innocent spelling errors, I'm going to have to point out you extremely childish derogatory name calling like replacing Rachel with Richard, you really show who's the child here.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP
Oh and sorry, before you pull some more Grammer Cop BS, it should have been: "what *it* was"
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
now.. kick him in the groin! the eyes boo! go for the eyes!
tigerbloodrock 7 months ago
@2010GOP (14/14)
Instead of your garbage all should check "The Warning" by PBS which clearly explains that the Crisis was one caused by the very 'free-market' mantra that is at the heart of Republican policies and the presided over by the 'Free-market' Ayn Rand cultist Greenspan
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2010GOP
This is a clear sign that Sarah Palin will be our next President. She will completely fix this whole mess caused by Dubya and the DEMS! The DEMS WILL be an EXTINCT party! We WILL have a 1 party GOP ALL WHITE CONSERVATIVE WOMEN government! The reason why Dubya failed to stop the DEMS from this debacle is BECAUSE HE HAS A PUSSY!
ecwaufisxtreme 7 months ago
@2010GOP So, it was liberal who were in the bank, with a gun, forcing banker to give loan and household to take them? Get real, please! Because, one could point out the 1977 congress' CRA as a cause of the housing bubble, while the problem was on the balance sheet on every single financial intermediaries in USA because interest where low, the law were stupidly small in the shadow banking system, and stupid microeconomic belief about what type of good a house is.
therrydicule 7 months ago
@therrydicule:
NY Times, 9/30/1999: "Fannie Mae has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans".
Obama / ACORN - sued banks claiming disparate lending practices. Hence the mandate of a certain % of minorities approved, regardless of credit worthiness
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP (1/6)
Look, you twisting propagandist, the banks were sued because they were discriminating by rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. I repeatedly show that your crap about the CRA is wrong and like the lying propagandist you are you just insist on continuing. But your Gobbles-like big lie won't work here.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (2/6)
"The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (3/6)
Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (4/6)
Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (5/6)
It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP (6/6)
And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness." September 29, 2008, Bloomberg Business Week"
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@2010GOP 3 Thing: 1. That's in 19 fucking 99, the crisis start in 20 07. The bank had 8 years to adapt: if they can't dig that, your banking system deserve to fail and you deserve to be bankrupt.
2. That like 6% of the subprime that are qualify under government mandate loan? You know what, I let you go with 18% - what about the other 82%?
3. Obama linked with ACORN to sue on disparate lending? Oh, and the Saxon had constitution that the norman kill? Spare me that B.S.
therrydicule 7 months ago
@therrydicule:
1) Were you still in diapers when people had 5, 7 & 10 year ARMs with teaser rates expiring & people unable to afford their adjusted payments?
2) It wasn't just "subprime", dumbass. It was 100's of loan programs (Alt A, exotic terms), pushed by Democrats.
3) Uh... Obama doesn't even deny his association w/ACORN on representing them on disparate lending practices. CitiBank was one of them he sued.
4) Why are you debating on a subject to which you're completely clueless?
2010GOP 7 months ago
@2010GOP Because you are blaming the wrong guy and are just pointing fingers! The investment banks, hedge funds and insurers take way too much risk, and add advantage to do so because of macroµeconomic condition and absence of regulation and laws. This have little to do with the democrat or the GOP, but have to do with personal responsibilities firstly, than the law.
You could legally do 400mph on the autoban, but it will be stupid. This is what some financial intermediaries try to do.
therrydicule 7 months ago
@2010GOP Plus, the disparate lending practices... So, you are for disparate lending practices? You are for a black not getting is loan just because he is black and not follow federal laws? And having some ghetto in Chigago and New-York?
Sorry, I prefer walking in fucking Berlin than in some part of New-York. Sure, the east-part of the city look poorer, but it's not a ghetto and I don't have the beggar asking me for spare changes at every street corners!
therrydicule 7 months ago
@therrydicule
Hey Guess what? I've looked into the history of this '2010GOP' account, and he's a sockpuppet for "HowTheWorldWorks" (Lee Doren), a well-known scumbag lobbyist in the Righty propaganda organ The Competitive Enterprise Institute. He IS being paid to be here by the Koch Brothers. And I apparently he's also posting with other Socks here supporting himself, this guy has no shame, let alone honesty.
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1 I'm not surprise he is full of it, his accusation have barely any macro or micro basis; he miss the elephant in the room. The only thing he point out is the lack of information... Sure, there are some problems there, but there are more important problems than that in the short term... And, in the long term: information, even if always problematic, did get better, if you have the time to look for it, which you do if you are a trader on the stock exchange since it is your job....
therrydicule 7 months ago
@2010
No actually Krugman was correct and the gov't didn't force any risky mortgages, the CRA program specifically forbade Sub-prime loans and the CRA loans had a lower default rate than even the 'regular' loans. And the Sub-Primes which were the creation of the private banks all on their own did not start the crisis by themselves. The problem was magnified by the exotic un-regulated financial instruments like the Credit Default Swaps, it was totally a crisis brought about by the 'free-market'
Rundstedt1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2010GOP
Krugman is just another one of Sarah Palin's DICKLESS and BALLESS BITCHES and PUSSIES! Palin is a VASTLY SUPERIOR economist over Krugman. She will completely discredit and debunk him along with Friedman and Keynes when she implements Palinomics! President Palin will EXPOSE their PUSSIES!
ecwaufisxtreme 7 months ago
@tonyg0123
Clinton and BOTH Bushes are TRULY Sarah Palin's DICKLESS and BALLESS BITCHES and PUSSIES! They truly wore the skirts while Hitlerly, Barbara and Laura wore the pants! Palin will be a SUPERIOR POTUS over these ass-clowns and she will completely clean up this whole mess with Palinomics! Palinomics will prevent another bubble from bursting and make the economy of the world completely stable and robust. There will NEVER EVER be another collapse and recession in the Palin Planet!
ecwaufisxtreme 7 months ago
The left is spending like crazy?
Funny, I'm pretty sure that Reagan tripled the deficit, Bush Sr doubled it, and Bush Jr tripled it.
Saaduk92 7 months ago
Sean Hannity = Republican Drone!
rocky19421 7 months ago
Sean Hannity is the bottom of the barrel. He's as irrational and hyperpartisan as it gets.
What was the deficit under Bush? We had to fight wars, that affected the economy.
What's the deficit under Obama? He had to clean up Bush's mess. That affects the economy even more so. It's a stupid argument, Sean, and you know it.
You can't just wipe your hands clean because Obama supposedly made it worse, when it's not worse. It just flat out isn't. We're gaining jobs now. You can't say that for Bush.
dEdGrimley 7 months ago
It has always seemed to me that Hannity is a tool.
SpoiledLogic 7 months ago
@loveofphysics after checking your sources, only one by the name of Clubbingshawn actually exists, so I sent him a message to confirm your claims. The other two doesn't exist which makes me look at you more with skepticalism. And no, unless you give me evidence on this issue, you will still be looked upon as a liar, so links or it didn't happen
Setsotama 7 months ago
Obama has made a bigger mess of the economy
hanksnow82 7 months ago
More Richard Eskow with Ana. Less of the annoying blond women and the terrible unfunny comedians.
TYT - sign up Richard Eskow to a regular slot!
Surlish 7 months ago
Fox LIES!
MobRulesNow 7 months ago