Excessive Debt is the Republicans Fault.....that's right, I blamed you

Do the math. Republicans believe in a safety net, just a smaller one they say. If you add the Republican minimum "entitlement" amount, add the cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan http://costofwar.com/, add the cost of the tax cuts they always push http://costoftaxcuts.com/ and last but not least account for how much more they spend on millitary http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/10/news/economy/romney-defense-spending/index.htm.

Both parties spend. Cutting taxes increases debt to the next generation but buys votes for today. Republicans have been buying votes for decades by cutting taxes and it is catching up to them yet they are blaming Democrats.

Since 1945 every deficit turned into a surplus has been done by a Democrat. And every surplus turned into a deficit was done by a Republican. http://www.google.com/imgres?q=nati...&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0,i:90&tx=100&ty=99

Simple math and statistics show that this is fact. If you want to vote a true Conservative, vote for Gary Johnson. Romney is already talking war with Iran. Because they have blue tarps covering something........

 

I'm getting sick of Republicans attacking people for placing blame on them. You have to be accountable for your actions. Obama didn't destroy our economy BUSH DID. Obama didn't start the war BUSH DID. Gas prices didn't go up because of Obama, THEY WENT UP BECAUSE OF BUSH. The blame is on YOU.

 

Granny says, "Just wait till the full effect of Obamacare hits...

... then we'll see who's really at fault for excessive debt.

 

You mean when people without insurance that go into the ER for free care actually get insurance and go to the less costly doctors office visit? We are paying for it either way, it's just cheaper if they actually have Insurance. BTW health insurance has never been free, you know that right? It's just too bad Republicans voted against it being optional and wanted it mandated.........

 

No responses..........Republicans either learned alot and couldn't respond. Or they are hiding in a corner and don't want to read it because they might disappoint Fox. Classic policy vs. bs win.

 

Presidents don't spend, Congress does.

 

You do know that is was always a republican Congress that turned that deficit into a surplus. You know who they are, the ones that actually control the spending.

LMAO

 

Ya, as you can tell the OP doesn't have much of a grasp on government, facts, or reality.

 

If by destroy our economy you mean caused the housing bubble, which in effect caused the recession, then I would humbly submit to you that Bush was a minor factor in that. A much bigger factor was government fixing a perceived problem and unintended consequences resulting from the Community Reinvestment Act. Specifically I would recommend taking a look at this article here as I would not be able to do the subject justice.

 

Or you're setting up a false dichotomy, and it's exactly that same kind of fallacious nonsense that causes people to skip right over your posts onto something else. I wouldn't be too surprised. If I bust onto this site claiming to be an "independent" who was thinking about voting for Ron Paul, and then spent every available minute licking Obama's crack, I wouldn't expect to be taken seriously either.

 

Gas prices did just as much damage as the Housing Bubble. Look at gas prices before Bush, then everything after his war on ........nothing.

 

Gas prices did just as much damage as the Housing Bubble. Look at gas prices before Bush, then everything after his war on ........nothing.

 

Probably one of the dumbest things I've seen posted here.

 

I took it upon myself to do you Republicans home work again like always. Check the fluxuation in the debt on the chart I posted http://www.google.com/imgres?q=nati...0&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0,i:93&tx=93&ty=54

Now check who controlled congress in those deficit/surplus changing situations. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

My fact remains and you all lose again. You know why? Because Republicans lie about everything. You can always disprove them with a simple stroke of the keys. You can literally watch the control of congress and the debt wave together in unision. Republicans brought it up and Democrats brought it down.

Facts over Fox kids.

 

You don't suppose gas prices hurt businesses that were shipping items in and shipping items out? You don't suppose when gas tripled it hurt every family in America? You don't suppose that I was upset today because I spent $40 on gas for my mower?

Use your brain man. You Republicans are crying that coal is destroying jobs but don't think gas is. Hypocritical morons. Your party is dead.

 

That you could say that rising gas prices did as much damage to the economy as the housing bubble and collapse, without a shred of proof, and still gather enough strength to continue posting, really says all that needs to be said about the level of intelligence that goes into your posts.

I'm glad you decided on the Democratic party after a brief period of being "undecided". It really is the right party for someone like you.

 

Gas destroying economy as much as the house bubble is my opinion. The post is my fact and I proved it. Congress and President. Republicans hurt the national debt more than Democrats. Smiling ear to ear right now because there is no way you can disprove it and I proved it.

 

Whoever that guy is, he makes a lot of conclusions that are unsupported if not questionable.

For example:

But as the years went by, these factors changed. The Fed pushed interest rates down. This made refinancing more attractive, and created an investor demand for yield. Fannie and Freddie popularized low-income securitization. Low defaults and loss rates from lax loans made them seem not as risky as previously expected. A shrinking consumer asset base thanks to the dot com bust created a demand for home-equity loans and high loan-to-value loans, as consumers exchanged high-interest credit card debt for low interest home debt. Speculators seeking higher returns and ordinary home buyers became aware that lax lending standards would allow them to buy bigger homes with little or no money down.

In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...ending-standards-mortgage-rates#ixzz25k9N0EtF

Huh? He goes thru a litancy of his unsupported claims as to what causes lax lending, and then just concludes it was the CRA's fault?

The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards. This was a necessary, although not sufficient, cause for the mortgage mess.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...ending-standards-mortgage-rates#ixzz25k9mSFk1

What isthe basis for that assertion? Why was the CRA a "necessary" component of the crises?

It’s true that the CRA requirements were relaxed during the Bush administration. But at this point the lax lending standards were already in place. In any case, the relaxation took a peculiar form that actually made CRA lending more important rather than less. You see, the government let banks drop things like putting in ATMs in rural areas in favor of letting their compliance be judged entirely on CRA loans. This means the CRA had more of an influence on home lending after the requirements were relaxed, not less.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...ending-standards-mortgage-rates#ixzz25kA2vd6R

Even if that was all true (no evidence) why would that make the CRA have more influence, and even if it did, how did it make that a cause of the crisis?

What's more, George W. Bush was a major proponent of the kind of mortgages that banks had started making under the CRA. He urged low-to-no doc mortgages and the elimination of downpayments, just like the CRA regulators had long done. “We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...ending-standards-mortgage-rates#ixzz25kAMiqZR

I agree Bush's policies encourage home purchasing at precisely the wrong time, but how does that make these "CRA type" loans? What does that even mean?

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...ding-standards-mortgage-rates/2#ixzz25kAguyLh

What is the evidence of this claim?

Again, the regulators told banks that much higher LTVs was an appropriate way to meet the CRA obligations.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...ding-standards-mortgage-rates/2#ixzz25kAz0bjy

Where in his link as support for that statement does it say anything about loan to value ratios?

Regulators instructed banks to consider alternatives to traditional credit histories because CRA targeted borrowers often lacked traditional credit histories. The banks were expected to become creative, to consider other indicators of reliability.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...ding-standards-mortgage-rates/2#ixzz25kBBklTw

Link: "Page not found".

Similarly, banks were expected by regulators to relax income requirements

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...ding-standards-mortgage-rates/2#ixzz25kBPfKJ9

His link cites to a page that does not support this claim. Where is it?

This was another lending innovation praised by regulators to the point that it became mandatory for banks. Those who were not employing automated underwriting would be putting their CRA ratings at risk. Automated underwriting was seen as a way of eliminating bias in lending
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...ding-standards-mortgage-rates/2#ixzz25kBjjw00

He cites his own article for support for his own contention!

•Point out to me where in the CRA or any regulation that any of this is required.

I cannot. But this kind of legislative fundamentalism misconstrues the way laws constrain business activity. An unenforced law exercises little constraint, regardless of how onerous it is worded. Think of the way anti-trust enforcement changes from presidential administration to presidential administration.

In the case of the CRA, it was the activity of the regulators that matters. And each of these credit innovations described above was put into place to satisfy the CRA regulators.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...ding-standards-mortgage-rates/2#ixzz25kC2PbtS

He admits he cannot support his claims with citations to the law. The rest of what he says is completely without support.

That’s an interesting question to which we’ll never have a satisfactory answer. It’s possible. But this kind of counter-factual is just a game. We know that we had the CRA and that it caused relaxed lending standards in the reality we actually live. In another universe, another reality? Well, if you get there send us a post-card and let us know how it turns out.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...ding-standards-mortgage-rates/2#ixzz25kCKNsUK

This is pure speculation on his part. We "know" no such thing. He just makes a conclusion without factual basis and then makes another conclusion based on that.

The government pushed for greater mortgage securitization in an effort to increase CRA lending. At the behest of HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, Fannie and Freddie promised to buy $2 trillion of “affordable” mortgages. The government was intentionally decreasing the risks to the original lenders in order to increase loans to low-income borrowers, and minorities in particular. In short, you can’t blame securitization without coming back around to the CRA.
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...ding-standards-mortgage-rates/2#ixzz25kCeH7rr

No support for this assertion.

•Weren’t the majority of the subprime loans made by mortgage service companies not subject to the CRA?

This is true. But it is largely beside the point. A huge driver of the demand for subprime loans was the demand for CRA bonds. Banks operating under the CRA could meet their obligations by buying up CRA loans or MBS built from CRA loans. The CRA created a demand that the mortgage servicers were meeting.

What's more, many smaller mortage service companies hoped to be acquired by larger banks. Increasing their CRA lending made them more attractive take-over targets.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...ding-standards-mortgage-rates/2#ixzz25kCpG1gD

He at least admits it is true that "the majority of the subprime loans made by mortgage service companies not subject to the CRA" In fact, CRA loans made up only a small percent of all subprime loans, and most were by private lenders not even subject to the CRA.

The rest of his statements are completely without support.

+++

That's just he first two pages.

What I see is that his "analysis" is based in large part on dubious factual assertions, most of which are completely unsourced and unsupported, and those that are sourced are usually to sources that do not support the claim.

I fail to see why his claims and assertions are particularly strong evidence of the positions that the CRA played a major role in the crisis. Of course, there are many authors that say completely the opposite of this article.

 

Is the DNC getting you a bit pumped up woody?

 

I really dig your faux outrage. It's obvious what you're trying to do here. You're trying to excuse Barack Obama for raising the national debt by $5 trillion by changing the subject.

You simply cannot change that reality. He will held accountable on November 6. Shuck and jive all you want, your messiah is in deep, deep trouble.

Now continue with that whining and squealing about Republicans. Personally, I find your desperation hilarious.

 

No, it couldn't be! He's an independent. He swears it's true!

ROFLMAO@liberalsmasqueradingasindependents

 

I know you don't believe me but I still haven't decided between Johnson and Obama. I lean more Conservative but Republicans are no where near Conservative now days. If you think they are, you need to do some research. Oh way, I just did it for you!

 

Thanks for pointing out that the debt increase under Reagan was with a majority dem congress and that a dem congress preceded the crash!

 

Gas prices over the past few months have been almost as high as they were in 2008. I agree higher gas prices can have a negative effect, but if that was the primary driver, we'd be seeing the economy diving and losing hundreds of thousands of jobs each month, not growing and gaining hundreds of thousands of jobs each month.

 

I watched Michelle but haven't finished the first one yet. I gotta tell you. They sell better than the Right for sure. The Right was avoiding policy at all costs. The Left tackled policy and described the reasons it is the way it is.

When is the Libertarian Convention or LNC? Lets trash this Republican party and fight for some real Conservatives. The choice shouldn't be War vs. More Government. It should be more government or less government