[Tom S.]

I would ask one favor from the forum. Please attack the issue, not the people on the forum. We may have different opinions and views but that doesn't mean that you should attack the person giving the opinion. I will attack an issue, question a specific group (such as the liberal media) or debate a individual on their logical thinking but I won't attack an individual person (calling them names and such).

You are correct - and I have modified my post. However, your own posts are not attacking the issue, but a person instead. You have tried to put the entire blame for a sagging economy on a person who officially took office last week, while ignoring the person who was in office the previous 8 years.

[Tom S.]

We were doomed the minute Clinton and that administration in 1995 relaxed the requirements on Freddie and Fannie. And even sued NCNB for not giving loans to "subprime" candidates.
Bush in 2005 wanted to reimpose the regulations, to an extent, and was cut down. With of course the illustrious Barney Frank going public saying there was nothing wrong with either guarantor. He should be tarred and feathered. Then for good measure boiled in oil.

Don't you find it interesting that Bush had four years in office with a Republican controlled House and Senate, yet failed to address this travesty?

The same thing applies to his "family values" campaign pledge that not only went unfulfilled, it got kicked under a door mat and trampled on. Abortion, one of the issues Republican used to stir up conservatives, could have been outlawed, but then they would have lost one of their biggest vote getters.

Before you break your arm patting yourself on the back, do yourself a favor and read these:

Economist's View: When Did the Recession Begin?

Economist's View: When Did the Recession Begin?

Real Time Economics : The GDP Debate: Did a Recession Start in 2007?

The recession began long before Obama was elected president. By definition, at least a year and a half before. What did the government do to fix it during that time period? Let me refresh your memory - for at least six months, Bush denied there even was a recession.

In the mean time, Obama has been in office for a whole week, and you put all the blame on him?

Tom, it doesn't matter when it started. What matters is what caused it and how do we prevent it from happening again. Of course as we all know most have short memories and it will happen again. We will fall into the same exact traps as to what led us here because of greed and payoffs.

And although Obama has only been President for just a week he was a Senator and did reap benefits, along with Frank and Dodd from Freddie and Fannie. So he does deserve some of the blame.

Don't you find it interesting that Bush had four years in office with a Republican controlled House and Senate, yet failed to address this travesty?

The same thing applies to his "family values" campaign pledge that not only went unfulfilled, it got kicked under a door mat and trampled on. Abortion, one of the issues Republican used to stir up conservatives, could have been outlawed, but then they would have lost one of their biggest vote getters.

Like JavaJoe said, he tried in 2005.

[slomojoe]

Well actually I found the information about it in the paper not talk radio. And it was pretty much as I stated. And it was from some liberal paper at that.

As for your response to Blue, The "Stimulus" package is the wrong place for it.

Well, i would like to see what your reference is, because either it was wrong, or you misread it. It is a basic fact that a) Fannie and Freddie held a minority of subprime mortgages; b) most subprime mortgages were not given to minorities or fall under the purvey of the CRA; c) most subprime mortgages were not issued for home purchases but for refinancing, d) a large faction of these mortgages were not to low-income buyers.

The general picture that has emerged is that as the housing bubble picked up in the early 2000's, a lot of middle class folks simply overextended, by buying homes above their means in the hope that prices would keep rising (thus feeding the bubble), and/or used their homes as ATM machines constantly withdrawing equity as their value rose. As home values kept rising, a lot of private financial speculators thought they had found the perfect cash cow by investing in these loans in ways that they thought (or hoped) could leverage and distribute risk. They were helped in this by the deregulation of financial markets in the past 12 years or so. Everything was more or less fine as long as the market kept going up, and came crashing down when it stopped.

Of course the causes of the sub-prime meltdown are many and complex, but if you want to get a sense of an objective analysis, the NY Fed had a report on the issue in March 2008, before it was politically expedient to blame this or that particular target. They identify 5 key reasons, which pretty much boil down to: the complexity of the mortgage products offered to buyers, and carelessness on their part in understanding them; the complexity of the financial vehicles into which the mortgages were packaged, which invited lack of diligence from investors and managers in the absence of oversight; the consequent opportunities for predatory lending and borrowing that followed the two previous causes; the inherent difficulties in establishing reliable credit ratings.

[JavaJoe]

They were helped in this by the deregulation of financial markets in the past 12 years or so. Everything was more or less fine as long as the market kept going up, and came crashing down when it stopped.

Which puts the start of it right in the time frame of which I spoke.

[slomojoe]

Which puts the start of it right in the time frame of which I spoke.

Everyone agrees that the big push for market deregulation started in the mid-90s, after the takeover of Congress by Republicans (though Rubin and Summers bear some responsibility), and it intensified under Bush. The absurdity is to blame the havoc it wrought on a few Democrats who held some key positions for a short time at the very end of the process . In the spring of last year, Phil Gramm, McCain's chief economic advisor, was still pushing for deregulation, and so was the GOP platform and all other GOP candidates for President.

[Blue]

Everyone agrees that the big push for market deregulation started in the mid-90s, after the takeover of Congress by Republicans (though Rubin and Summers bear some responsibility), and it intensified under Bush. The absurdity is to blame the havoc it wrought on a few Democrats who held some key positions for a short time at the very end of the process . In the spring of last year, Phil Gramm, McCain's chief economic advisor, was still pushing for deregulation, and so was the GOP platform and all other GOP candidates for President.

William Jefferson Clinton put Franklin Raines in at Fannie May.

Don't you find it interesting that Bush had four years in office with a Republican controlled House and Senate, yet failed to address this travesty?

The same thing applies to his "family values" campaign pledge that not only went unfulfilled, it got kicked under a door mat and trampled on. Abortion, one of the issues Republican used to stir up conservatives, could have been outlawed, but then they would have lost one of their biggest vote getters.

And during that period, Frank and Dodd said every thing with Fannie and Freddie were o.k. and brow beat the hell out of the regulators when the called it into question.

Where Bush screwed up in September was by not calling a joint session and asking those ass holes what went wrong, go find out. There shouldn't have been a TARP 1. It didn't work anyway.

[Blue]

By all means, what we should wish for is more unwanted pregnancies among low-income families in tough economic times, am I right? Since Republicans really looove spending on social services for the poor anyway... How much can you save long-term on Medicaid maternity and child care with a paltry $200 millions worth of family planning education?

Frankly, the logic of this argument from conservatives, other than the usual reflexive pandering to the religious right, completely escapes me.

You forget that all conservatives in the country aren't Republicans. I'm not and never have been. You dodged the question just like Nancy Pelosi who herself had 5 children. The question was how does family planning stimulate the economy, create jobs etc.? She has said that that would be the criteria used for the stimulus package.

As far as long term savings from the plan . . . we HAVE been spending on families totaling billions since the LBJ years. It is still a problem. I'm not against a good program with realistic goals. However, it doesn't belong in a TARP or any other stimulus package.

I also think the Gov. of NY made a very good pick for Senator. She has been elected to 2 terms to the House of Representatives.

[Blue]

Tom, it doesn't matter when it started. What matters is what caused it and how do we prevent it from happening again. Of course as we all know most have short memories and it will happen again. We will fall into the same exact traps as to what led us here because of greed and payoffs.

And although Obama has only been President for just a week he was a Senator and did reap benefits, along with Frank and Dodd from Freddie and Fannie. So he does deserve some of the blame.

Obama was the largest recipient in campaign funds from executives from Fannie/Freddie over a 19 year period and he was only in the senate 3 years!

[slomojoe]

The question was how does family planning stimulate the economy, create jobs etc.? She has said that that would be the criteria used for the stimulus package.

As far as long term savings from the plan . . . we HAVE been spending on families totaling billions since the LBJ years. It is still a problem. I'm not against a good program with realistic goals. However, it doesn't belong in a TARP or any other stimulus package.

Great, so it's good policy, yet you are willing to shoot it (and/or the entire stimulus package) down because it's appended to the wrong bill? Insanity

[Blue]

Great, so it's good policy, yet you are willing to shoot it (and/or the entire stimulus package) down because it's appended to the wrong bill? Insanity

If it is in the Wrong bill as you put it because the plan is bogus. If it is a good plan, it should stand on its on merit. What I said was

I'm not against a good program with realistic goals.

One of the reforms that needs to take place in D.C. is to quite Bastardizing bills with a mix of crap. The only reason the do that is to deceive and extort votes from other members.

[Blue]

Great, so it's good policy, yet you are willing to shoot it (and/or the entire stimulus package) down because it's appended to the wrong bill? Insanity

If it is in the Wrong bill as you put it because the plan is bogus. If it is a good plan, it should stand on its on merit. What I said was:

I'm not against a good program with realistic goals.

That's hardly saying a bad piece in the wrong bill is good policy.

One of the reforms that needs to take place in D.C. is to quite Bastardizing bills with a mix of crap. The only reason the do that is to deceive and extort votes from other members.

[JavaJoe]

Great, so it's good policy, yet you are willing to shoot it (and/or the entire stimulus package) down because it's appended to the wrong bill? Insanity

Too funny. When Bush 41 signed a bill that increased taxes but had other items that were worth it he loses the election. The libs put condoms in a bill that shouldn't pass gas and they're heroes. This stimulus package should NOT pass. Neither should the others have been passed.
Here are just 2 links about the deregulation and Bush's trying to rein it in.

FOXNews.com - Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - New York Times

[tranq78]

Of course the causes of the sub-prime meltdown are many and complex <snip>

Naw, it's not that complex.

All hard assets (real estate (mainly), but also oil, copper, commodities, etc.) were assumed to only go up in value, ad infinitum.

All investment and financing decisions hinged on this assumption.

In the entirety of human recorded history every single time we had a period where asset prices were assumed to only ever go up, hindsight told us that it was really a 5 letter word beginning with "p".

P-O-N-Z-I scheme. The politically correct term is asset bubble.

What caused all this?

It began after the Volcker Fed. The guys that came after created a tidal wave of cheap, easy money over a period of 20+ years. We no longer had recessions. No, what we created was asset bubble after asset bubble, meaning that too much money kept chasing too few assets. Until the house of cards collapsed which, in the entirety of human recorded history, always happens in the end.

Subprime was merely a catalyst that triggered a series of economic catastrophes around the world, because that cheap easy money was a worldwide phenomenon.

Man, this is like swapping deck chairs on the Titanic. That dawg just don't hunt.