How are we going to pay for all this shit?

These aren’t your words. What rag did you get this from?? Originally Posted by bambino

Why, you need another tampon?

Instead of the messenger, how about you address the message.

What in that article do you not agree with?

who said Gramm-Ruddman?

who lit the HUD fuse? Slick Willie Blythe

1995


FACT Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I've already shut down that lie.

There were no bad loans from 1995-2000 in the 2008 crash!

Why you may ask? ARM were not the rage. No money down...again, not the rage. No doc loans....once again, not the rage.


I've already pointed out who spurred on those things and why.

You just can't believe you are parroting a false narrative so you are doubling down.

the thread is how are we going to pay for this shit

with the people in charge of biden attacking production/ supply on one hand and over stimulating demand with free money and huge government spending on the other

its no wonder getting employees to work is very difficult and inflation is rampant

I personally think its purposeful that things are turning this way Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

you are correct. the game is afoot ... an insidious anti-America game led by the globalists and their minions the DemonKKKrat party Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Pleas expound on this hideous conspiracy theory.

I can't wait to hear the thought process...

This article will help those parroting the false narrative of Steven Moore and Larry Kudlow to stfu with that lie. It is not supported by the FACTS.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/heres-w...ousing-crisis/




There are other reasons to doubt that subprime borrowers were responsible for the financial crisis. For one, a large number of subprime mortgages originated in non-CRA banks, and “none of the 300+ mortgage originators that imploded were depository banks covered by the CRA.”

As noted in a study by McClatchy from 2008, “Federal Reserve Board data show that more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions;” “private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year;” and “only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.”

A second question to ask is why, if the CRA and subprime borrowing were the problem, did a very similar housing bubble and financial crisis occur in scores of other countries that didn’t have legislation like this?

A third argument, the one Kudlow and Moore cite, is that declining lending standards by Fannie and Freddie brought about by the requirements of the CRA helped fuel subprime loans. But once again, this argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

As Barry Ritholtz pointed out in 2011, “The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.”


The reason Fannie and Freddie were losing market share is that loan standards on mortgages issued by private lenders were falling. Fannie and Freddie eventually adjusted some of their conditions for obtaining a loan in an attempt to prevent a further loss in market share, but it’s very clear that they were followers, not leaders, in the erosion of lending standards.

Finally, if subprime loans were the problem, noted Ritholtz, “the housing boom would have been in CRA regions.... Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions. What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities.”

The attack on the CRA began in 2007

Pleas expound on this hideous conspiracy theory.

... Originally Posted by WTF

a pat on the head for attempting to color your posts by sprinkling in adjectives

hideous likely wouldn't have been most people's first choice but kudos to you for trying

pleas though you may make, I will defer at this time

Why you may ask? ARM were not the rage. No money down...again, not the rage. No doc loans....once again, not the rage.


I've already pointed out who spurred on those things and why.

Specifically which post # was this? I want to go back and review myself.
Originally Posted by WTF

No doc loans.... By this you mean no credit check or income verification done to qualify for the loan?

Pleas expound on this hideous conspiracy theory.

I can't wait to hear the thought process... Originally Posted by WTF

I agree with you. Wall Street investment banks like Morgan Stanley and ratings house Moody's were working with each other to run the scam. They were not working with the government or any political party.

No doc loans.... By this you mean no credit check or income verification done to qualify for the loan? Originally Posted by adav8s28

I got a million dollar no doc loan in 2006 ... intrest only with a one year balloon. It was a construction loan. It was crazy times.

I agree with you. Wall Street investment banks like Morgan Stanley and ratings house Moody's were working with each other to run the scam. They were not working with the government or any political party. Originally Posted by adav8s28

That blows up Waco's narrative.

He thinks minorities were the cause of the housing market collapse...Bill Clinton giving money to the coloreds is how he is spinning it!

Despite Clinton leaving office in 2000. The collapse in 2007 and private lenders doing the majority of loans, not HUD.

.

Hey, adav8s28! How's everything out in the Sacremento area these days? I just got back yesterday from a couple of days semi-camping out in a remote rural area of Texes with little internet connectivity, so I'm just now getting caught up with the news.

Obama/Biden cleaned up the mess that Bush and Dick Cheney left behind. They did? How effectively, responsibly, and competently did they do that? You make it seem that Bush43 cleaned up his own mess. I don't believe that to be the case. All you have to do is read the time line of your wiki link (don't tell that to Lexus Lover he is always critical of me when I quote from wiki) LOL.

In your post #546 you wrote Obama did not bailout anyone at the top of post. Near the bottom of the post you wrote that Obama mishandled the bailout of GM? You can't have it both ways. I can't? Watch me! Plus TARP did not end until 2014. Bush43 left office Jan 20th, 2009.

So, Let's see what you got Captain. What I've got is facts. You might try collecting some and taking them for a test drive one of these days! Originally Posted by adav8s28

Apparently you didn't read the article to which I posted this link:

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publ...he-rule-of-law

If you're going to try to coherently discuss this issue, you need to begin by understanding the key points Professor Zywicki makes here -- or, absent that, offer a reasoned argument as to why you disagree.

One obvious point that seems to be lost on you is that the GM "bailout" initiated by Bush was accomplished in an arguably illegal fashion but with funds diverted from the $700 billion TARP legislation passed in October of 2008. Barack "You didn't build that!" Obama dithered for ideological reasons while he was trying to figure out how to shower his political supporters with tons of cash. (Since his chief of staff was Rahm "Don't let a crisis go to waste!" Emanuel, what else would you expect?)

GM should have gone into a Chapter 11 reorganization long before it did, but it tried to play sort of a "game of chicken" with the government for as long as it could. Obama dorked around with the whole fucking process until he could figure out how to bail out the UAW by egregiously wasting about $26 billion on the project of paying off Democratic Party campaign donors. So he bailed out the unions, not GM. The process was well-described here:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...62650268680454

Obama's corrupt "bailout" was probably seen as a fine thing for left-wingers in the AOC/Bernie camp.

But you're an AOC fanboy, aren't you? Maybe you've studied the works of the 20th-century economist whose legacy she famously mentioned a year or so ago, the iconic Milton Keynes.

.

a pat on the head for attempting to color your posts by sprinkling in adjectives
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Care to offer an opinion on how we are going to pay for all this shit as Tiny so raptly put?

Here is mine :

We're not. We are going to put it on revolving credit just like we have with all the military spending since Reagan ramped up deficit spending in 1980!

Why, you need another tampon?

Instead of the messenger, how about you address the message.

What in that article do you not agree with? Originally Posted by WTF

WTF
---- well written TRUTH - Good sir!

One obvious point that seems to be lost on you is that the GM "bailout" initiated by Bush was accomplished in an arguably illegal fashion but with funds diverted from the $700 billion TARP legislation passed in October of 2008. Barack "You didn't build that!" Obama dithered for ideological reasons while he was trying to figure out how to shower his political supporters with tons of cash. (Since his chief of staff was Rahm "Don't let a crisis go to waste!" Emanuel, what else would you expect?)

GM should have gone into a Chapter 11 reorganization long before it did, but it tried to play sort of a "game of chicken" with the government for as long as it could. Obama dorked around with the whole fucking process until he could figure out how to bail out the UAW by egregiously wasting about $26 billion on the project of paying off Democratic Party campaign donors. So he bailed out the unions, not GM. The process was well-described here:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...62650268680454

Obama's corrupt "bailout" was probably seen as a fine thing for left-wingers in the AOC/Bernie camp. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

....the works of the 20th-century economist whose legacy she famously mentioned a year or so ago, the iconic Milton Keynes.

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Biden proposed that buyers of electric vehicles built with union labor receive an extra $4,500 tax credit. This would take the total tax credit per vehicle up to $12,500. This is in the current draft of the Build Back Better bill being debated in the House.

That's just nuts. I'd guess that the main beneficiaries of the tax credits will be the well off. Red states with non-unionized labor will get the shaft.

As to AOC, it bears repeating that the woman has a degree in economics.

Biden proposed that buyers of electric vehicles built with union labor receive an extra $4,500 tax credit. This would take the total tax credit per vehicle up to $12,500. This is in the current draft of the Build Back Better bill being debated in the House.

That's just nuts. I'd guess that the main beneficiaries of the tax credits will be the well off. Red states with non-unionized labor will get the shaft.

As to AOC, it bears repeating that the woman has a degree in economics. Originally Posted by Tiny

Is that anything like the new Tax laws ushered in 2017 that eliminated federal deductions of local and state taxes that hurt blue state residents?

I can to this tit for that forrrrrrrever

Elections have consequences. Who said that?

Like I told oeb....life ain't fair.

Is that anything like the new Tax laws ushered in 2017 that eliminated federal deductions of local and state taxes that hurt blue state residents?

I can to this tit for that forrrrrrrever

Elections have consequences. Who said that?

Like I told oeb....life ain't ". Originally Posted by WTF

Agreed, absolutely it is like imposition of the $10,000 SALT cap. The "irony" is that by removing the cap or jacking it up to $80,000 to $100,000, the Democrats are mostly helping better off taxpayers, despite their protestations about wanting to sock it to the rich. And yes, elections have consequences, which will manifest in your stock portfolio if the Democratic Party is someday able to implement its "climate" agenda.