Obama's job plan

Care to try and back that statement? I would argue quite the opposite. It was the lack of government intervention and regulation specifically by the GOP led House from 1995 - 2006 that caused this mess, not the aforementioned. Intervention and regulation falls sqaurely in the laps of Congress and in this matter Republicans were a complete and total failure as usual. I would even argue further that Bush himself was a major cause of this meltdown with his so-called "Amercian Homeownership Challenge" policies.

"For years there were bills in Congress to try to address what they called predatory lending, perhaps that was a prejorative -- lax lending -- but it was bad lending, whatever type of adjective you want to put on it. And they just couldn't get the political momentum to get anything done. And I think that was because everybody was making money. Even borrowers were making money if they could keep refinancing."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...wegothere.html

"Republicans were in power from 1995 through 2006 in the House, and they had complete control over what legislation did or did not pass."

“...in the years the Republicans wish to ignore because they cannot defend what happened – is that the Bush administration pushed for even more subprime lending, Alan Greenspan refused to use congressional authority he’d been given in 1994 to regulate it, and the House Republicans blocked any efforts to legislate against it. In fact, as quoted in a story in the Bloomberg News, when the Bush administration ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase significantly the number of loans they bought for people below median income..."

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...s0312092.shtml

And of course there was this back in 2002:

"In June, President Bush announced the national goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million by the end of this decade. Meeting the President's goal will not only help more Americans enjoy the benefits of owning their own homes it will also help strengthen America's economy. According to a study released today by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, meeting the President's goal will involve $256 billion in economic activity in the form of construction and remodeling jobs, spending on household goods, and other benefits."

http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_..._housing.shtml

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Your own statement backs up mine. Do you think this would have occured if the government had not encouraged the lending policies? If Fannie Mae had not bought the loans?

You might be right that Bush deserves more criticism than I give him but if you do the same research on idiots like Barney Frank I bet you would find plenty to blame them for also.

As you have probably noticed unless you have a 60 vote majority in the Senate no one party controls Congress. Just for the record I like it that way. If you can't get 60% of the people to agree on something then it probably should not be done. I would actually prefer a higher percentage.

As many people as there are around here proudly claiming to be Libertarian, I'm surprised that they don't have more seats in the Congress or Texas Legislature.

How many are there anyway?

Right.

I really wish it was a viable party.

Your own statement backs up mine. Do you think this would have occured if the government had not encouraged the lending policies? If Fannie Mae had not bought the loans?

You might be right that Bush deserves more criticism than I give him but if you do the same research on idiots like Barney Frank I bet you would find plenty to blame them for also. Originally Posted by Laz

The thread started off being about the President's proposed jobs bill. If enacted, a very big "If" given the continuing solid wall of opposition from the Southern White Man's Party to anything that might increase the re-election chances of the black man in the White House, these people, http://macroadvisers.blogspot.com/20...-boost-to.htmlsay that it would be good for about 1.3 percentage points of economic growth next year which Might be enough to keep the country from re-entering a recession, technically defined, but not enough to budge unemployment rates.

However, since there seems to be more interest here in whose fault it was that the collapse of the Real Estate Bubble happened, here is some "research" on that:
From Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize in Economics)'s blog in June of last year:

June 3, 2010, 4:35 AM
Things Everyone In Chicago Knows
Which happen not to be true.

It was deeply depressing to see Raguram Rajan write this:

The tsunami of money directed by a US Congress, worried about growing income inequality, towards expanding low income housing, joined with the flood of foreign capital inflows to remove any discipline on home loans.
That’s a claim that has been refuted over and over again. But what happens, I believe, is that in Chicago they don’t listen at all to what the unbelievers say and write; and so the fact that those libruls in Congress caused the bubble is just part of what everyone knows, even though it’s not true.

Just to repeat the basic facts here:

1. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was irrelevant to the subprime boom, which was overwhelmingly driven by loan originators not subject to the Act.
2. The housing bubble reached its point of maximum inflation in the middle years of the naughties:


Robert Shiller
3. During those same years, Fannie and Freddie were sidelined by Congressional pressure, and saw a sharp drop in their share of securitization:


FCIC (GSE=Government Sponsored Enterprise,i.e., Fanny & Freddie Mac)

while securitization by private players surged:


FCIC (MBS=Mortgage-Backed Security)

Of course, I imagine that this post, like everything else, will fail to penetrate the cone of silence. It’s convenient to believe that somehow, this is all Barney Frank’s fault; and so that belief will continue.

Some of the comments to that post were interesting too:

Fannie! Freddie! CRA! Barney Frank! Nancy Pelosi! ACORN!!!

They's the ones what done it! I know it 'cause I heard it on the radio!
Who needs facks & stuff? I can just shout this over & over!

And

Look, Krugman; If you're going to continue to spew facts about what caused the housing crisis, the role of government spending in escaping the Great Depression and the economic realities of "belt-tightening" on a country in recession, I'm just going to have to ask you to leave! We're all doing just fine without any of your darn facts, so keep 'em to yourself. Thank you.
Signed,
The US Business Media
Everyone who consumes the US Business Media
The Tea Party, which doesn't consume the US Business Media first-hand but hears what they say from Other Media.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...chicago-knows/
Then there is this report from the Minnesota Federal Reserve Bank:

"Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown?"

"Two Federal Reserve economists examine whether available data support critics' claims that the Community Reinvestment Act spawned the subprime mortgage crisis."

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/public...ay.cfm?id=4136
Which says in part:

" First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis."

I know, why would anyone stop shouting slogans and change their mind or even think about their beliefs just because someone introduced some facts? Every time a bubble, in real estate or stocks, is inflating there are people riding it who are convinced that This bubble, unlike every other bubble in the history of Mankind, is never going to burst. When it does burst they are very angry at someone, other than themselves, whose fault it surely must be that they did not get/stay rich as they thought they were until the "POP". I am sorry for those who got hurt speculating, maybe not as sorry as for those who lost their jobs when the card tower fell down, but they need to direct their anger in the right direction.

That doesn't mean that Mr. Obama is the savior of his country or seems likely to be. Increasingly he looks like Neville Chamberlain without the bowler hat - someone totally unequal to the task. At the moment there appears to be No One At All in national government who appears to understand the problem, the possible solutions or even care much about the non-rich majority of non-campaign contributors. It is a very sad and discouraging time.

That doesn't mean that Mr. Obama is the savior of his country or seems likely to be. Increasingly he looks like Neville Chamberlain without the bowler hat - someone totally unequal to the task. At the moment there appears to be No One At All in national government who appears to understand the problem, the possible solutions or even care much about the non-rich majority of non-campaign contributors. It is a very sad and discouraging time. Originally Posted by greymouse

I guess there's only one solution to this problem. That of course is... Zombie Churchill.

From Paul Krugman Originally Posted by greymouse

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame.

Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...gman&seid=auto

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame.

Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...gman&seid=auto Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

The most telling part...

"I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons."

Yeah, the obvious reason is... he (Krugman) knows he's an idiot.

The most telling part...

"I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons."

Yeah, the obvious reason is... he (Krugman) knows he's an idiot. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

That's horseshit.

So what makes you think that voting Obama out will make any difference? I've already pointed out that one, the GOP had 8 years to fix the problem and didn't, and two, the current GOP candidates don't have so much as a single thought, much less a plan to fix anything.

For full disclosure, I don't think there's really anything anyone can do to fix this particular problem. Just curious what you're thinking. Originally Posted by F-Sharp

cant get any worse,, well since over half country does not approve of him or his job rating and 43% disapprove his handling of the Country, I think that speaks for itself...and for the record I voted for Obama, Mr F. I thought he would bring vigor and revive our country not keep polarizing it

cant get any worse Originally Posted by RALPHEY BOY

Wanna bet?

There are several ways it could get worse. Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt, Palin, etc. It can always get worse.

the same, I dont see me changing my beliefs anytime soon. I wish I was broke!! that would be a positive,, I am upside down to the tune of $50k, being broke would mean I am at par!! Originally Posted by RALPHEY BOY

I have a couple of friends that used to be upside down in their houses to the tune of about $125,000 each. They lived in Bastrop up until last week. Now Allstate is paying their rent.
Their cloud had a platinum lining.

The most telling part...

"I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons."

Yeah, the obvious reason is... he (Krugman) knows he's an idiot. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

When I saw this my first thought was "what the heck is this?", even though
I should be used to Conservative Republicans responding to a telling
Rebuttal to one of their cherished slogans with a furious attack on the character of the person making the unwelcome argument. That is with yet another adhominen attack that says absolutely nothing about the issue that was at hand before the CR began throwing mud and shouting.

Professor Krugman's thoughts on using the Twin Towers tragedy to gain political advantage drew attacks from enough CRs to get this fellow's attention at the Washington Post:


Paul Krugman’s allegation of 9/11 shame — is he right?
By Greg Sargent
Paul Krugman touched off an explosion of conservative outrage yesterday when he alleged that the memory of 9/11 was “poisoned”by Republicans who exploited the event as a wedge issue for political gain. Krugman wrote:

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons...The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
In response, Donald Rumsfeld claimed he’d canceled his subscription to the Times, and a number of conservative bloggers slammed Krugman throughout the day.

My take: I don’t really know how you would judge whether 9/11 has become “irrevocably poisoned” or whether it has become an “occasion for shame.” I probably wouldn’t have used Krugman’s formulation that leading Republicans rushed to “cash in on the horror.” Making the charge on the 10th anniversary itself seems deliberately provocative, or at least deliberately designed to provoke debate.

But is it really a controversial assertion to say that conservatives seized on the intense focus on terrorism as a major national issue in the wake of 9/11 in order to gain political advantage?

Here’s Karl Rove in the runup to the 2002 midterm elections (via Nexis):

President Bush’s top political adviser said today that Republicans will make the president’s handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy to win back the Senate and keep control of the House in this year’s midterm elections.
“We can go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America’s military might and thereby protecting America,” Karl Rove said at the Republican National Committee meeting here.

And

UPDATE: Krugman weighs in again. I second his recollection of the post-9/11 environment being a “terrible time in America — a time of exploitation and intimidation, culminating in the deliberate misleading of the nation into the invasion of Iraq.”

And it’s worth remembering the crucial point that Krugman is saying nothing now that he didn’t say at the time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...BMNK_blog.html

Krugman's additional comments:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...1-anniversary/



As commenter "Truthwillout"*said:
Well, Krugman made some good points, and I haven't seen his critics dispute his points - just his patriotism in making them.

@greymouse-

I can understand if you disagreed with the reasons we went to war in Iraq.
I think it's certainly been well established that there was some fudging on the intelligence in order to swing the UN and probably the American people behind that war.
I'm curious how you feel about our invasion and subsequent deployment in Afghanistan?

Politicians will be Politicians and I don't think ANY side, Democrat or Republican's are innocent when it comes to taking advantage of situations for political gain. Be it war, natural disasters, the economy, etc etc....each side spins their version for the benefit of political gain.

While I'm sure some Republicans are guilty of this, isn't it possible that some also believed they were doing the right thing?
After the first Gulf War there were numerous people who felt we should have finished the job with Saddam at that time. His constant posturing AFTER that war, deploying his troops close to the Kuwaiti border, his suppression of the Shiites, Kurds and others only added fuel to the debate of whether we should have invaded and finished him during the first Gulf War.
If some in the military felt that way, if some of the American people felt that way, isn't it possible some of the Republican politicians felt that way, maybe even before 9/11?
Did 9/11 make it simpler to justify the invasion? Sure, the way it was spun to the American people and to the UN. Maybe though, had he been taken out in 1991, that would be a moot argument.
My point is, although I don't agree that intelligence should ever be misused, made up, fudged or altered in any way to justify going to war, that doesn't mean that there may not have been a legitimate reason to remove Saddam.
I can tell you that many of the Kurdish people are GLAD that we invaded and got rid of Saddam.
Some of the Shiites are happy as well. The country is still in the early stages of rebuilding.
So why should there be shame? I think it's a little too early in the game for people to draw these types of conclusions. Let's see where Iraq is 20,40,50 years from now.
Maybe then we can talk about shame or whether it was a mistake to invade.

Nothing can change the fact that terrorists viciously and without cause attacked and killed 2,977 Americans on 09/11/2001
For Krugman to say that 9/11 has been "irrevocably poisoned" because of subsequent actions by our Government? I think he's way over the top and simply trying to further stir up hate and division in our Country.