Unemployment down, Participation rate up

Maybe your "proof" impresses others.

 

Funny part is bush was prez and the R's had control in both houses. Yet all they could do was flap their jaws. Never did anything but make it look like they were concerned to the party sheeple.

 

Frank didn't have the power to pass a law about chewing gum as a minority Representative in a House, Senate and Presidency controlled by the Republicans.. But it's all his fault. He talks funny.

 

Um... Bush was being consistent. A bad bill is a bad bill no matter who controls Congress.

They were talking about the financial health of Freddie and Fannie.... just months before the crash.

If 60% of democrats voted for it, then Bush was right to nix it! As it turns out, Bush was right and that is what is really causing your butthurt.

Well, that's what the left has been claiming for the last 4 years.

 

what year did Pelosi and Reid get into power?.. what year did they say "cap and trade"..

 

A bill supported by over 90% of the REPUBLICANS in House, by REPUBLICAN Finance Chair Mike Oxley, and the REPUBLICAN appointed acting head of the OFHEO, the administration agency tasked with oversight of F/F, given the "one fingered salute" by Bush.

And instead, we got ... nothing.

But it's all Barney Frank's fault, right?. He talks funny.

Correct.

Along with over 90% of the REPUBLICANS in House, by REPUBLICAN Finance Chair Mike Oxley, and the REPUBLICAN appointed acting head of the OFHEO, the administration agency tasked with oversight of F/F.

And instead of this bill regulating F/F, we got ... nothing.

Who on the left has been claiming that the Democrats were responsible for the housing bubble?

 

Proof is not there to impress, just to provide the truth. Clearly you opt for impressions-- like the impression that the economy is doing great with a 5% national unemployment rate when the truth is that labor participation rate has risen and 93 million are out of work and have fallen off the unemployment roles.

 

LOL.
Months. R's were in full control for 6 yrs prior. The bubble was in full runaway mode. Everyone knew for years, F & F were gonna get crushed when the crash occurred. But flap jaw along. Pretend to care. R mantra.

 

Because the bill did nothing to fix the impending disaster...so Bush was right!

Ah, the tolerant left speaks once again.

Gald you agree with yourself, but you're still wrong.

Once again, the bill did nothing to stave off the impending disaster of 2008.

No one on the left would ever do that...they'd lose their useful idiot card. The fact is the left always blames the Republicans... even when the Republicans are in the minority.

 

The Republicans and Democrats voted for a watered down ineffective bill for the reasons Bush cited. He clearly wanted an effective regulation because H.R. 1461 "fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large" AND "H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions". Again watch the video and see who believed there was nothing wrong at Fannie and Freddie, history proved them very wrong.

Using your rationale the Republicans did no obstructing in 2009 and 2010

 

The democrats did not cause the crash that led to rampant unemployment.

It was the housing bubble brought on by deregulation of the financial sector in conjunction with the creation of highly leveraged financial vehicles and a complete lack of oversight of these vehicles.

 

barney frank..

 

Uh, the bill never became law because Bush blocked it.

- - - Updated - - -

He does talk funny, right?

 

So instead of the only bill ever to pass a chamber of the REPUBLICAN controlled Congress, a bill supported by over 90% of the REPUBLICANS in the House and REPUBLICAN Finance Chair of Sarbannes-Oxely fame, and by the REPUBLICAN appointed temporary head of the OFHEO, the REPUBLICAN administration agency responsible for F/F oversight, because the Bush administration says it wanted a stronger bill we got .... nothing.

But its all the Democrats fault, even though it was the REPUBLICANS who controlled the House, and the Senate, and the Presidency.

Got it.

You mean the 5 Democrats from 2004 talking about a completely different issue? Why do you think that history proved those 5 Democrats wrong?

Not a lot was obstructed in 2009/2010, though the Dems had a filibuster proof majority only for a few weeks. The GOP obstruction came into play big time when the Republicans got control of the House.

 

again what year did Pelosi gain power and as we see soon after the economy began to swoon as Cap and Trade was looming ...GWB had done a magnifecent job keeping gthe economy healthy after Clintons failures brought on 9/11...

Franklin Raines anyone?

- - - Updated - - -

a correct title to this thread would be : Unemployment up,,, Participation rate down...
the U-3 and U -6 numbers show that

 

The Dems got control of Congress in 2007. Though with Bush still in the WH, they were very restricted in what they could do.

But by that time, the housing bubble had already blown up to its absurd levels and was starting to come crashing down:

RW pap nonsense. Even putting aside his squandering of the golden opportunity of the surplus budget he inherited and squandering our resources in a "mistaken" war in Iraq, Bush's record was amongst the worst of all post war presidents.

Raines was out before F/F embarked on subprime investments in 2005-6 because they were losing market share to the big private financial institutions.

- - - Updated - - -

According to whom? The RW propaganda you listen to? Both U-3 and U-6 are way down from their recession levels.

 

Long story short; It was the D's desire to increase home ownership in the 90's, into the 2000's, that created the "derivatives". The same exact scenario is forming today over "low interest/qualifications" for home loans...add in "College Loans" and a double whammy will hit the next president, probably another R.

Bush's mistake in my opinion, was TARP, then allowing the D's (Obama) to handle half the funds, all of which was paid back with interest, but never returned to the Treasury...last I heard it was a Trust Fund, for what I've never heard...

 

Mr. "Ownership Society" has become a Democrat? When did that happen?


BUSH ADMINISTRATION UNVEILS NEW HOMEOWNERSHIP INITIATIVE
Martinez Announces $1000 Homebuyer Cash Back Incentive

http://archives.hud.gov/news/2002/pr02-075.cfm

“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?pagewanted=all


American Dream Downpayment Initiative The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law on December 16, 2003. The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorized up to $200 million annually. ADDI helped first-time homebuyers with the biggest hurdle to homeownership: downpayment and closing costs. The program was created to assist low-income first-time homebuyers in purchasing single-family homes by providing funds for downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in conjunction with the assisted home purchase.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/addi/

Bush Campaign Promotes Great American Dream
THE NATION Homeownership: The president's program aims to help people with low incomes, particularly Latinos and African Americans.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/16/nation/na-bush16


National Homeownership Month, 2005
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

More Americans than ever own their own homes, but we must continue to work hard so that every family has an opportunity to realize the American Dream. In 2002, I announced a goal to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade. Since then, we have added 2.3 million new minority households. My Administration has also set a goal of adding 7 million new affordable homes to the market within the next 10 years. In my FY 2006 budget, I proposed a single family housing tax credit and two mortgage programs -- the Zero Downpayment mortgage and the Payment Incentives program -- to help more families achieve homeownership. In 2003, I signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, and I have proposed more than $200 million to continue the American Dream Downpayment Initiative to provide downpayment assistance to thousands of American families. By promoting initiatives such as financial literacy, tax incentives for building affordable homes, voucher programs, and Individual Development Accounts, we are strengthening our communities and improving citizens' lives. [/QUOTE]

+++

Bush's HUD relaxes rules on lending:

In 2000, because of a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

Bush' OFHEO, the WH agency responsible for oversight of Fannie you never heard of because you only look at right wing propaganda, dramatically increases the level of conforming loans. It increased the "conforming loan" limits from $252k in 2000 to $417k in 2007. This made it easier to get loans for more expensive houses and reduced the number classified as subprime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conforming_loan[/QUOTE]

Here, from 2002, is President George W. Bush, saying Freddie is “dismantling barriers” to help more people have home ownership, how “deserving families who have bad credit histories” can own homes, and that “the low income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else.”

http://www.alan.com/2010/10/27/flas...wnership-for-those-with-bad-credit-histories/

+++

The affordable housing goal levels set by the WH thru HUD:

42% 1997-2000
50% 2001-2004
52% 2005
53% 2006
55% 2007
56% 2008

http://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Weicher.pdf page 5.

Issue Brief: HUD’s AFFORDABLE LENDING GOALS FOR FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC

HUD has estimated that 11.7 million dwelling units were financed by conventional conforming mortgages in 1998, and that the GSEs provided financing for 55 percent of these units.

In March 2000, HUD issued a proposed rule, significantly increasing the GSEs’ affordable housing goals for the post-2000 period, and this rule was finalized in October. For each year from 2001 through 2003, the goals are: ...

These goals remain in effect for the post-2003 period unless modified prior to 2004.

http://www.huduser.org/Publications/PDF/gse.pdf

The authority to make new financial commitments under TARP ended on October 3, 2010. As of April 30, 2015, cumulative collections under TARP, together with Treasury's additional proceeds from the sale of non-TARP shares of AIG, exceed total disbursements by more than $14.1 billion. Treasury is now winding down its remaining TARP investments and is also continuing to implement TARP initiatives to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure.

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/TARP-Programs/Pages/default.aspx#

 

Nonsense... what you post is LW MSNBC bumper sticker nonsense...

GWB as we see today has been ther greatest Post 9/11 president... if Obama was 1/4 as good as GWB we would be ok.. but Obama and th deams cant count obvioulsy ( math and dems cant coexist as we all know)... not one number you site is correct or accurate..
not one thing is better than when GWB was in power Pre Pelosi and Reid..

After Five Years Of Obamanomics, A Record 100 Million Americans Not Working

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...s-a-record-100-million-americans-not-working/

Back in the early Clinton years, the big public debate was over Hillary Clinton's controversial plan to overhaul the healthcare system. But the Clintons had another major agenda item that was hardly noticed at the time: to aggressively promote homeownership for racial minorities.

Based on a flawed study by the Boston Fed in 1992 (coauthored by an economist friend of Hillary), the Democrats claimed that minority homeownership rates were being held back by "racist" banking practices. The study found that minorities had a higher rejection rate for home loan applications than the general public. Without providing any direct evidence, the authors simply assumed that the underlying cause must be institutional racism in the banking industry.

Common sense tells us, however, that racist lending practices would backfire and harm no one except the very banks, if any, that engaged in such practices. If some banks were willing to pass up good business opportunities in order to deny loans to minorities, other banks would certainly be more than happy to step in and take the business. And if all white-owned banks were racist, a golden opportunity would exist for wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) to open banks in under-served areas and do a booming business with little effort. Any wealthy entertainer or athlete, such as Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, or any of hundreds of other wealthy athletes, could easily sponsor such a bank, for example. To believe that racist banks can stop qualified minorities from getting loans in this day and age, one must believe that (1) all white-owned banks are racist, and (2) no wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) are willing to fill the void and make lots of easy money while providing badly needed services to minority communities.

But the Clintons and many other Democrats apparently believed such economic nonsense. To remedy the alleged racism at banks, they strengthened the "anti-redlining" regulations of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which had originally been passed during the Carter years, and they instituted an aggressive campaign that forced lenders to abandon their established underwriting criteria and drastically lower their standards to accommodate minorities who would not otherwise qualify for a home loan.

Key figures in the matter were Attorney General Janet Reno and her Deputy, none other than Eric Holder. They aggressively intimidated banks with threats of prosecution, lawsuits, stiff fines, and regulatory roadblocks to expansion and mergers. They paid little attention to actual lending practices and underwriting criteria, focusing instead on the end results in terms of percentages of minority loans approved. It mattered not whether the lenders were actually discriminating on the basis of race or whether minorities in general simply had worse credit histories (statistics show that they do). It was classic "affirmative action" for home loans.

Reno aggressively prosecuted several banks for "racist" lending practices, and she also encouraged private lawsuits against banks. One such lawsuit was filed against Citibank by a little-known community organizer and civil-rights lawyer named Barack Obama. Other government agencies also embarked on witch-hunts, including the Comptroller of Currency, the President's Fair Housing Council, and the Inter-agency Task Force on Fair Lending, the latter two having been set up by the Clinton administration specifically to harass banks. They even pressured some banks to open offices in dangerous neighborhoods.

With the US Attorney General and several other government agencies pressuring them to give more loans to minorities, banks and other lenders had no choice but to figure out ways to lower their underwriting standards. They drastically reduced or eliminated minimum down payments, increased limits on debt-to-income ratio, and started counting unemployment checks and food stamps as "income"! Then there were the infamous "NINJA" loans (no income, no job, no assets -- no problem). It was financial insanity run amok -- forced on lenders by the authority of the US government.

Not surprisingly, the reckless lending standards created the largest housing bubble in history. The bubble masked the underlying problem for several years. As long as housing prices were appreciating at a sufficient rate, the problem was not apparent and did not seem particularly urgent, certainly not to the general public. The unqualified buyers who got in early enough did reasonably well. As long as their property value had appreciated sufficiently they could always sell at a profit, or refinance, and not face default and foreclosure. But the unqualified buyers who got in later lost their homes and ended up much worse off than they would have been had traditional, uncoerced banking practices been permitted. It was a classic case of the unintended consequences of bad economic policy -- ultimately harming the very minorities it was intended to help.

In 1995, HUD (The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development) authorized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase mortgage-backed securities that included subprime and other risky CRA home loans. Since Fannie and Freddie are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), this unprecedented move was widely interpreted by banks and Wall Street as implied government backing of subprime mortgages. Though hardly noticed at the time, this development effectively shifted the liability for loan defaults from lenders to taxpayers. By relieving lenders of financial risk for loan defaults, it strongly encouraged them to give more loans to unqualified applicants. As if all that weren't bad enough, it also started the whole secondary market for subprime mortgages, which ended with the massive failures and subsequent bailouts of financial giants such as AIG and Citigroup. Had Clinton not started this bogus "investment" policy back in 1995, the massive TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailouts in 2008 would have been completely unnecessary.

Eventually the housing bubble burst, but not until around 2006 or 2007. By 2008 it brought the entire financial system to its knees, and since the Republicans had the White House at that time, the Democrats and the "mainstream" media were able to pin the brunt of the political blame on them. The general public was hardly aware of the historical roots of the problem, and the party in power was assumed to be responsible, as usual. The general public tends to naively assume that the party in power has full control of the economy and is completely unencumbered by existing laws, regulations, and policies that were in place before they were elected. In the case of the subprime mortgage crisis, that was a very bad assumption.

The Republicans were not completely innocent in the matter, but they were certainly not the driving force behind the subprime mortgage meltdown and the subsequent financial crisis. President Bush promoted legitimate homeownership, but he also caved in to the Democrats' racial demagoguery and "went along" with their program to some extent. However, when Bush and the Republican Congress tried to actually head off the subprime mortgage crisis before it was too late, the Democrats opposed them fiercely.

When the Republicans attempted to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005, for example, the Democrats called them racists, as usual, and thwarted their efforts by filibustering with only 45 votes in the Senate. (A filibuster allows the minority party to block legislation in the US Senate with only 40 of 100 votes.) Hence, the Democrats prevailed even though the Republicans had the Presidency and controlled both house of Congress. But the general public simply ...snip

http://russp.us/subprime.htm

 

I'm not trying to excuse Bush, but contrary to what I'm seeing here, Bush did warn against the policies long before it buckled. I also think Paulson played a roll in TARP, including passing half on to Obama.

 

Bush often said one thing and did another.

 

Like the Republicans are restricted in correcting the mistakes of the last 8 years now?

And their policies failed to correct it.

He inherited a slowdown and recession where the surplus was going away. So you believe the proper response to an economic slowdown and recession is to limit government spending and run a balanced budget?

Nothing mistaken about it.

Really, 52 months of full employment after the one month worst 6.5% unemployment, soaring tax revenues and getting us through the 2000/2001 slowdown recession and 9/11 with only a $400B one year deficit then bringing it down to a paltry $161B.

Compared to the Democrats and Obama taking that $161B falling deficit to $1,400B in just two years and keeping it over $1,000B for the next 4 and have yet to get it down to the worst Bush/Republican? The worst employment record since the great depression and 6 years after the 2009 recession ended the economy STILL in the doldrums with flat economic growth and 40 million having given up even looking for a job.

Yeah let's compare worst record.

 

Sure. They haven't been able to pass the huge tax cuts for the billionaires they're dying to do.

Too late by 2007.

False.

Where were those WMDs again?]

Really, saying Bush had "52 months of full employment" when he inherited a 4.2% UR isn't impressive. Nor is inheriting a $236 billion surplus and running up $5 trillion more debt.

The deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office. But unlike the last three Republicans presidents, it has come down 2/3rds under Obama.

As for the economy, tell your Republican friends to stop the austerity, stop blocking Obama's jobs programs, stop cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs, and stop coddling the richest at the expense of the middle class, and we'd growth more like when Reagan was in office.

But that is not in their political interest, is it?

Sure, what would you like to compare? Job creation? Economic performance? Stock market performance? Change in budget deficits?

 

Just because you spout the name of a democrat who happened to be in congress when the crash happened .... Does not mean that person caused the crash.

Stop being foolish.

 

But he's gay. Plus he talks funny. Must be his fault.