• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Obama ecconomics

nlsme said:
As for mcain, just because he might want peace more, doesn't mean he would have any more insite as to how to acheive it. Same with gitmo.
Click to expand...

So, per your statement, experiencing true torture first hand doesn't mean he would have any more insight into how to treat Prisoners of War.
 
Just because you say Im wrong dont make it so. They embraced the sub primes. They blindly refinanced any one and every one. They gave loans to people they shouldnt have. They forced sub primes on people when they would easily qualify for a regular mortgage. The gov might have had a tiny role in sub primes, they hardly created the bubble. Sub primes played a tiny role in the bubble.
 
byteware said:
So, per your statement, experiencing true torture first hand doesn't mean he would have any more insight into how to treat Prisoners of War.
Click to expand...

My statement says nothing about torture, and, I am pretty sure the us doesnt practice torture. My statement his experiance as a pow doesnt give him any added insight into how to achieve peace in iraq/afghanistan, or how to close gitmo. Nice try though.
 
Commodities in 2008 were at a high because of speculation, at least the oil and gas people were busy then. Energy now, specifically oil, is high because of a weak dollar.

Aside from the disagreements I have with Obama. We are doing better than the rest of the world is.

I am not saying we would be in a better boat with someone else, I don't know what it would have been like. I'm just pointing out why we are in the situation we are in now. There is no one issue that caused all of this, there are multiple reasons.


nlsme said:
Just because you say Im wrong dont make it so. They embraced the sub primes. They blindly refinanced any one and every one. They gave loans to people they shouldnt have. They forced sub primes on people when they would easily qualify for a regular mortgage. The gov might have had a tiny role in sub primes, they hardly created the bubble. Sub primes played a tiny role in the bubble.
Click to expand...

So who is more to blame, the banks, or the people who took the loan? What do the people who took the loans and tried to live out of their means learn by being given money by the government to keep their house?
 
nlsme said:
My statement says nothing about torture, and, I am pretty sure the us doesnt practice torture. My statement his experiance as a pow doesnt give him any added insight into how to achieve peace in iraq/afghanistan, or how to close gitmo. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

It might give him some ideas before deciding to commit troops in the first place - something we might have had a bit more of, in my opinion.

And probably you don't consider waterboarding torture then?
 
nlsme said:
Just because you say Im wrong dont make it so. They embraced the sub primes. They blindly refinanced any one and every one. They gave loans to people they shouldnt have. They forced sub primes on people when they would easily qualify for a regular mortgage. The gov might have had a tiny role in sub primes, they hardly created the bubble. Sub primes played a tiny role in the bubble.
Click to expand...
Why dont you blame the homeowners for going after these? Why not blame clinton for forcing banks to be more giving to people. If the Gov would of let the banks run their institute. then I bet the whole housing fiasco wont have happen as most of these foreclosures would of never been as the people would of never got these loans.

So yo u cant blame the banks when they was doing what clinton wanted them to do.
 
@chandler, the blame lies on both parties. More importantly, more blame lies on the government for not regulating it in the first place. The measures taken after werent designned to teach anybody a lesson, they were taken to prevent a further collapse. Guess what, it worked.

@early I said the us doesnt torture, I didnt say they have never tortured. As for not commiting troops, they were already there. Ill agree he might not have started two wars, but, that would have been what he would have been handed. Now again, his desire for peace does not give him any added insight on how to deal with Iraq/Afghanistan. His military experiance wouldn't give him any added insight either. I can see that arguement if he actually had a command position.
 
The banks embraced sub prime loans. To the point of pressuring them on people who would easily qualify for a conventional. The banks were willing to refinance people for 20% more, year after year. They continued to loan for houses that were not worth the amount being financed, often without even looking at income. They did this, because they were able to sell this bad debt. The banks definately hold some of the responsability.
 
nlsme said:
I served my country, I know he laid it all on the line. I'm not bellitling his service. It just has nothing to do with running a country. I'll even say Mccain even had more RELEVANT experiance than Obama. But, not because of his military career. If he had picked somone else as a running mate, I might have voted for him. Not because of his military experiance though. Just because you are far right, doesn't mean everyone who disagrees with you is far left.
Click to expand...

You're wrong here. One of the president's primary roles is Commander in Chief of military forces... So it would be helpful in that regard for a president to have been in the military.

nlsme said:
The banks embraced sub prime loans. To the point of pressuring them on people who would easily qualify for a conventional. The banks were willing to refinance people for 20% more, year after year. They continued to loan for houses that were not worth the amount being financed, often without even looking at income. They did this, because they were able to sell this bad debt. The banks definately hold some of the responsability.
Click to expand...

Yes, the banks had some miniscule amount of responsibility, but they didn't "force" anyone to sign a contract. No one held a gun to the applicant's head and said "Sign our contract or else!"...that would be illegal, after all, and a contract signed under such duress would be considered null and void. Folks simply did not do the research that would have told them not to accept a subprime loan over a standard mortgage.

No, the banks simply took advantage of the fact that people were extremely ignorant, didn't read contracts in full, and wanted to live in a $250,000+ home while making $30,000 or less per year. The majority of the blame lies on the heads of the idiots that signed the contracts without reading, not the wolves that wrote them. And a lesser amount of blame rests on the politicians that passed the regulation changes that allowed the banks to behave as such.
 
Community Reinvestment Act. 1977. Jimmy Carter. research from then until now, don't forget to research what Clinton did with the CRA and HUD.
 
Dude, he didn't hold a position of command in the military. How would he have any added insight as to how to acheive peace in Iraq/Afghanistan? I used to work for a fortune 500 company, does that mean Im qualified to be ceo?
dark4181 said:
You're wrong here. One of the president's primary roles is Commander in Chief of military forces... So it would be helpful in that regard for a president to have been in the military.



Yes, the banks had some miniscule amount of responsibility, but they didn't "force" anyone to sign a contract. No one held a gun to the applicant's head and said "Sign our contract or else!"...that would be illegal, after all, and a contract signed under such duress would be considered null and void. Folks simply did not do the research that would have told them not to accept a subprime loan over a standard mortgage.

No, the banks simply took advantage of the fact that people were extremely ignorant, didn't read contracts in full, and wanted to live in a $250,000+ home while making $30,000 or less per year. The majority of the blame lies on the heads of the idiots that signed the contracts without reading, not the wolves that wrote them. And a lesser amount of blame rests on the politicians that passed the regulation changes that allowed the banks to behave as such.
Click to expand...
I'll play a word game using your words. Who is to blame? There is a zoo, in the zoo there are wolves(banks), sheep(the idiots), and a zookeeper (the gov). In the morning all the sheep are dead. Was it the wolves for naturally bbeing hungry(they are suppose to make money after all, and they have thousands of lawyers that right contracts that are completely unreadable to a laymen), the sheep for not being capable of defending themselves(reading those contracts, good to know you think only idiots cant), or the zookeepers who were suppose to keep everyone alive? Id say the blame lies all around.
 
And if any body thinks hhud had anything to do with the bubble, or the burst, they are not worth the time debating against.
 
nlsme said:
And if any body thinks hhud had anything to do with the bubble, or the burst, they are not worth the time debating against.
Click to expand...

Uhh... why does everyone think everything is so cut and dry. Yes, HUD and government pushing to get more people in homes was PART of the problem.

The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods
Click to expand...

Yes, there was a government push to get more people into more homes.

In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal, in response to accounting scandals, for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal, supported by the head of Fannie Mae, reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Click to expand...

Yes, there was a resistance, much of it lead by Barny Frank, to the type of regulations that would have prevented the mortgage meltdown, in the name of "affordable housing." Meaning, home loans to people who traditionally wouldn't qualify.

But the government HUD/Freddie/Fanny side is only PART of the story.

Banks had no problem writing loans to dang near anyone, packaging them up, getting them AAA rated, and selling and trading them like baseball cards. Because they made A LOT of money doing it.

And people who traditionally wouldn't qualify for a loan, had no problem signing on the dotted line taking on obligations they couldn't afford.


To say any one of these aspects was 100% or 0% the cause shows a huge misunderstanding and oversimplification of the issue.


And these are not the only factors at play either. There is a large demographic element as well. There were too many family homes and not enough families. There was too much money, in retirement accounts, and foreigners chasing too few investments as well.
 
Maybe I should have said, the cause instead of anything. Because the banks voluntary lending practices had far more to do with it.
 
nlsme said:
Maybe I should have said, the cause instead of anything. Because the banks voluntary lending practices had far more to do with it.
Click to expand...

Banks lending practices and standards were regulated by HUD, and part of the reason the lending standards got so lax was because of HUD. Banks, for the most part, didn't fight it, but you couldn't have one without the other.

To try to distribute percentage of blame, to fit a preconceived ideology is stupid.
 
You'd make a good politician... your not very consistent.

Because the banks voluntary lending practices had far more to do with it.
Click to expand...

And if any body thinks hhud had anything to do with the bubble, or the burst, they are not worth the time debating against.
Click to expand...
 
Bush did this ... Obama did that .....

I think the real blame lies with the folks that write the dang laws .... CONGRESS!!! President's lead the way sometimes, and they either sign the law or don't sign the law ... but CONGRESS is hurting us a lot more than Bush or Obama. Republicans and Democrats alike.
 
cipher6 said:
You'd make a good politician... your not very consistent.
Click to expand...
Im talkimg their willingness to refinanace year after year for 20% more. Im talking about the fact they stoppes verifying income. Neither, had anything to do with hud. I clarified my view on hud, sure they played a small role. The banks voluntary lending practices had far more to do with the bubble, then any regulations imposed on them. Im pretty consistant, I just mis worded my statement. For the fifth time, the blame lies at everyones feet. Havent wavered grom that statement. Thats consistent.
 
Your trying to distribute percentage of blame (which in and of it self is kinda silly) to fit with an ideology. ie. banks and big business are evil.

Each element couldn't have happened without the other. Government (like Barney Frank) pushed to ease lending standards, to open up "affordable housing." The banks didn't just decide on their own to change the lending standards.

When some in government saw the oversight was too lax, they pushed for new regulations... which was fought, in the name of "affordable housing." meaning, people who can't afford it.

There are plenty of steps along the way where government, banks, citizens etc could have prevented this from happening.

Im talkimg their willingness to refinanace year after year for 20% more
Click to expand...

The refinancing didn't come until after the meltdown. No one refinances their house so they can owe more. You'll have to provide me with some more details of what your talking about there.

Im talking about the fact they stoppes verifying income. Neither, had anything to do with hud.
Click to expand...

I clarified my view on hud, sure they played a small role. The banks voluntary lending practices had far more to do with the bubble, then any regulations imposed on them.
Click to expand...

Do you know what HUD does? HUD is the entity that sets the standards for government backed mortgages. If you get an FHA loan, you have to meet certain requirements set by HUD.

HUD loosened mortgage restrictions in the mid-1990s so first-time buyers could qualify for loans that they could never get before.[41] In 1995, the GSE began receiving affordable housing credit for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. This resulted in the agencies purchasing subprime securities.[42] In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In addition, HUD required Freddie and Fannie to provide 12% of their portfolio to “special affordable” loans. Those are loans to borrowers with less than 60% of their area’s median income. These targets increased over the years, with a 2008 target of 28%.[43]
In 2004, HUD ignored warnings from HUD researchers about foreclosures, and increased the affordable housing goal from 50% to 56%.

In the early 2000s, Fannie Mae aggressively bought Alt-A securities, where these loans may require little or no documentation of a borrower’s finances. In the early 1990s Fannie Mae had abandoned Alt-A products because of their high risk of default. As of November 2007 Fannie Mae held a total of $55.9 billion of subprime securities and $324.7 billion of Alt-A securities in their portfolio.[45] As of the 2008Q2 Freddie Mac had $190 billion in Alt-A mortgages. Together they have over $500 billion in Alt-A mortgages
Click to expand...

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.

Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more "affordable" loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.
Click to expand...

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis - washingtonpost.com




Now, HUD of course isn't the only key link in the chain of collapse, but they are a key. Yes, most sub-prime loans didn't originate at Freddie and Fanny, but private brokers were churning them out in part because Freddie and Fanny would then buy them up, and the ratings agencies were giving them good ratings.



I just hate it when people try to minimize one aspect of the situation to fit their left/right political ideologies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom