Trickle Down - How's That Working For You

it took clinton 12 years to break the housing market?

youre laughable at best joe Originally Posted by CJ7

No the housing collapse certainly wasn't completely Clinton's fault. It was the end result of lots of bad policy over an extended period. Republicans and Wall Street certainly had a part in the problem too.

My main point is, that the liberal habit putting complete blame on Bush for the subprime collapse is simplistic and dishonest. Just because the collapse happened on his watch does not mean he's completely to blame.

You say the housing market could not have collapsed because of policies put in place twelve years before. I doubt that you actually believe that. The country is going bankrupt because of entitlement programs put into place decades ago. Not all government programs have their full effect immediatley, either good or bad.

My main point Originally Posted by joe bloe

Point? Other than the point on top of Joe the Bloehard's pointed head, he has never had a valid point.

No the housing collapse certainly wasn't completely Clinton's fault. It was the end result of lots of bad policy over an extended period. Republicans and Wall Street certainly had a part in the problem too.

My main point is, that the liberal habit putting complete blame on Bush for the subprime collapse is simplistic and dishonest. Just because the collapse happened on his watch does not mean he's completely to blame.

You say the housing market could not have collapsed because of policies put in place twelve years before. I doubt that you actually believe that. The country is going bankrupt because of entitlement programs put into place decades ago. Not all government programs have their full effect immediatley, either good or bad. Originally Posted by joe bloe

guess when you said

"The housing bubble burst when Bush was in office, but it was not a problem of his making"

you were just being simplistic and dishonest

perhaps...just maybe, we're entering an economic phase of history that's unexplainable by either keynes or freidman. maybe the dogmatists on both sides are taking us down the road to hell by their complete refusal to admit they don't have a fucking clue. possibly, the economy is just a bit more complex than we really know how to handle.

guess when you said

"The housing bubble burst when Bush was in office, but it was not a problem of his making"

you were just being simplistic and dishonest Originally Posted by CJ7

Largely, not a problem of his making. The Bush administration warned congress repeatedly that FNMA and FHLMC needed to be reigned in, seventeen times in 2008, that they were buying to many risky loans, but Congress wouldn't take action.

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09...in-2008-alone/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Largely, not a problem of his making. The Bush administration warned congress repeatedly that FNMA and FHLMC needed to be reigned in, seventeen times in 2008, that they were buying to many risky loans, but Congress wouldn't take action.

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09...in-2008-alone/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM Originally Posted by joe bloe

Perhaps Congress was covering their ass in 2008 because the most unpopular (and incompetent) President in modern history had misled Congress previously? Or have you forgotten that Bush convinced Congress during the spring of 2003 to invade Iraq! DUH!

Perhaps Congress was covering their ass because.... Originally Posted by bigtex

there was an election coming and the refusal to purchase defaulting and upside loans would result in voters losing their homes and the voters would blame the incumbents on not saddling the taxpayers with THEIR mortgages ....

... it had nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan ... (except in BT's fantasies).

At the risk of distressing BT with reality ... the legislation "IS"

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C.§ 2901 et seq.) ....

.. the "vision" of Mr. Clinton was to help low and middle income people to acquire home ownership.

The real culprits are the low and middle income people who bought homes they could not afford, because they could get into them with almost nothing down and five years of payments that didn't even cover the earned interest on the loans and after the 5th year the past due payments and unpaid earned interest were ballooned into one payment that had to be either rolled into the long term loan and thereby increasing the payment on the already increased payment (to meet actual pay down and earned interest) OR they could pay the balloon payment.

The other culprits were the realtors and lenders who were "qualifying" buyers that had no business buying a $150,000 home on a $50,000 budget. But they didn't care, because the realtor got their money and the lenders were covered by a government guaranty.

"Phase II" was the "section 8" subsidy "bailouts" by which the owners of houses they could no longer "dump" on a sagging market, began renting them with section 8 (taxpayer) money until those ran out .. then the renters finished trashing them (what they hadn't trashed while renting) during the eviction process, with the result of the owners having a property that was worth even less than when they tried to sell it the first time. ..... and foreclosures began to increase ...

As President, Bush did not have the "authority" to block legislation that was already in place and the option of Congress was to stop the support of the program and "allow" the housing market to collapse at a time when the economy was sagging (beginning at the end of the Clinton administration).

... it had nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan ... (except in BT's fantasies). Originally Posted by LexusLover

LL is still licking his ill fated and ill advised spring of 2003 Iraq wounds because history has shown that I was right and he was wrong from the get go.

Truth hurts, doesn't it LL?

perhaps...just maybe, we're entering an economic phase of history that's unexplainable by either keynes or freidman. maybe the dogmatists on both sides are taking us down the road to hell by their complete refusal to admit they don't have a fucking clue. possibly, the economy is just a bit more complex than we really know how to handle. Originally Posted by john_deere

No doubt, no one has a complete understanding of economics, or can devise the perfect strategy to get us out of our current mess. Having said that, we still have to decide which plan makes the most sense, in light of past success. For my money, the Keynesian model has been completely debunked. It never works.

Austrian School economics, the Milton Friedman view, has had more success over time than any other theory.

One thing is for sure, if we don't stop the run away spending SOON, we will be destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

Austrian School economics, the Milton Friedman view... Originally Posted by joe bloe

That's incorrect.

The Austrian School view was quite definitively not Milton Friedman's view. In fact, he felt that adherence to Austrian business cycle theory would be very destructive under certain sets of circumstances. He engaged in a longstanding debate with Murray Rothbard (a well-known Austrian School economist) on this and other related issues.

Friedman has generally been considered a monetarist economist. That involves altogether different doctrine.

You might also take a more considered look at the economic history of the Reagan era. If you do so, you'll find that "supply-side" effects, although widely touted by many of Reagan's supporters as the best tonic for the economy, did not contribute significantly to economic growth during the 1980s.

CaptainMidnight isn't exactly a molotov cocktail tossing liberal anarchist, so you rat wang TTards might ought to pay attention to what he says. Of course, since he's a probably Republican of the sort that values facts over doctrine, he may qualify, in your beady little eyes, as one of those "rinos" you idiots are hell-bent on running out of the party. Be my guest. But, he could be a Democrat and if so, he's marginalized over there, too. Pity.

For my money, the Keynesian model has been completely debunked. It never works.

Austrian School economics, the Milton Friedman view, has had more success over time than any other theory. Originally Posted by joe bloe

did glenn beck tell you this? limbaugh?

reality check: the economy is like the weather. certain theories about what happened at certain times look great after the fact, but they do little to prevent tornadoes.

did glenn beck tell you this? limbaugh?

reality check: the economy is like the weather. certain theories about what happened at certain times look great after the fact, but they do little to prevent tornadoes. Originally Posted by john_deere

Joe the Bloehard is the consumate Monday Morning Quarterback when a Dem occupies the White House. In Bloehard world, Joe knows all of the answers, after the fact.

When a Republicant is in the Oval Office they can do no wrong!

guess when you said

"The housing bubble burst when Bush was in office, but it was not a problem of his making"

you were just being simplistic and dishonest Originally Posted by CJ7

Slick Willie did sign the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 which repealed Glass-Steagall and led to the derivative-housing-banking crisis in 2008. That's neither "simplistic" nor "dishonest": it's a fact.

That's incorrect.

The Austrian School view was quite definitively not Milton Friedman's view. In fact, he felt that adherence to Austrian business cycle theory would be very destructive under certain sets of circumstances. He engaged in a longstanding debate with Murray Rothbard (a well-known Austrian School economist) on this and other related issues.

Friedman has generally been considered a monetarist economist. That involves altogether different doctrine.

You might also take a more considered look at the economic history of the Reagan era. If you do so, you'll find that "supply-side" effects, although widely touted by many of Reagan's supporters as the best tonic for the economy, did not contribute significantly to economic growth during the 1980s. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I stand corrected. Milton Friedman was not Austrian School. I always assumed he was, because of his popularity among conservatives.

Economic performance under Reagan:


On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

• Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
  
• Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
  
• Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
  
• The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

http://www.cato.org/publications/pol...conomic-record