1. Are you ready for the Galaxy S20? Here is everything we know so far!

Obama ecconomics

Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by Crude, Feb 10, 2011.

  1. byteware

    byteware Android Expert

    So, per your statement, experiencing true torture first hand doesn't mean he would have any more insight into how to treat Prisoners of War.
     



    1. Download the Forums for Android™ app!


      Download

       
  2. nlsme

    nlsme Android Expert

    Just because you say Im wrong dont make it so. They embraced the sub primes. They blindly refinanced any one and every one. They gave loans to people they shouldnt have. They forced sub primes on people when they would easily qualify for a regular mortgage. The gov might have had a tiny role in sub primes, they hardly created the bubble. Sub primes played a tiny role in the bubble.
     
  3. nlsme

    nlsme Android Expert

    My statement says nothing about torture, and, I am pretty sure the us doesnt practice torture. My statement his experiance as a pow doesnt give him any added insight into how to achieve peace in iraq/afghanistan, or how to close gitmo. Nice try though.
     
  4. chandler583

    chandler583 Newbie

    Commodities in 2008 were at a high because of speculation, at least the oil and gas people were busy then. Energy now, specifically oil, is high because of a weak dollar.

    Aside from the disagreements I have with Obama. We are doing better than the rest of the world is.

    I am not saying we would be in a better boat with someone else, I don't know what it would have been like. I'm just pointing out why we are in the situation we are in now. There is no one issue that caused all of this, there are multiple reasons.


    So who is more to blame, the banks, or the people who took the loan? What do the people who took the loans and tried to live out of their means learn by being given money by the government to keep their house?
     
  5. EarlyMon

    EarlyMon The PearlyMon
    VIP Member

    It might give him some ideas before deciding to commit troops in the first place - something we might have had a bit more of, in my opinion.

    And probably you don't consider waterboarding torture then?
     
  6. Dark Jedi

    Dark Jedi Guest

    Why dont you blame the homeowners for going after these? Why not blame clinton for forcing banks to be more giving to people. If the Gov would of let the banks run their institute. then I bet the whole housing fiasco wont have happen as most of these foreclosures would of never been as the people would of never got these loans.

    So yo u cant blame the banks when they was doing what clinton wanted them to do.
     
  7. nlsme

    nlsme Android Expert

    @chandler, the blame lies on both parties. More importantly, more blame lies on the government for not regulating it in the first place. The measures taken after werent designned to teach anybody a lesson, they were taken to prevent a further collapse. Guess what, it worked.

    @early I said the us doesnt torture, I didnt say they have never tortured. As for not commiting troops, they were already there. Ill agree he might not have started two wars, but, that would have been what he would have been handed. Now again, his desire for peace does not give him any added insight on how to deal with Iraq/Afghanistan. His military experiance wouldn't give him any added insight either. I can see that arguement if he actually had a command position.
     
    EarlyMon likes this.
  8. nlsme

    nlsme Android Expert

    The banks embraced sub prime loans. To the point of pressuring them on people who would easily qualify for a conventional. The banks were willing to refinance people for 20% more, year after year. They continued to loan for houses that were not worth the amount being financed, often without even looking at income. They did this, because they were able to sell this bad debt. The banks definately hold some of the responsability.
     
  9. dark4181

    dark4181 Well-Known Member

    You're wrong here. One of the president's primary roles is Commander in Chief of military forces... So it would be helpful in that regard for a president to have been in the military.

    Yes, the banks had some miniscule amount of responsibility, but they didn't "force" anyone to sign a contract. No one held a gun to the applicant's head and said "Sign our contract or else!"...that would be illegal, after all, and a contract signed under such duress would be considered null and void. Folks simply did not do the research that would have told them not to accept a subprime loan over a standard mortgage.

    No, the banks simply took advantage of the fact that people were extremely ignorant, didn't read contracts in full, and wanted to live in a $250,000+ home while making $30,000 or less per year. The majority of the blame lies on the heads of the idiots that signed the contracts without reading, not the wolves that wrote them. And a lesser amount of blame rests on the politicians that passed the regulation changes that allowed the banks to behave as such.
     
  10. Community Reinvestment Act. 1977. Jimmy Carter. research from then until now, don't forget to research what Clinton did with the CRA and HUD.
     

  11. Silly human THE Patriots controls it all :p know what I'm talking about? La Le Lu Le Lo.
     
  12. yeah! that Tom Brady is cute too! for a guy that is....
     
  13. nlsme

    nlsme Android Expert

    Dude, he didn't hold a position of command in the military. How would he have any added insight as to how to acheive peace in Iraq/Afghanistan? I used to work for a fortune 500 company, does that mean Im qualified to be ceo?
    I'll play a word game using your words. Who is to blame? There is a zoo, in the zoo there are wolves(banks), sheep(the idiots), and a zookeeper (the gov). In the morning all the sheep are dead. Was it the wolves for naturally bbeing hungry(they are suppose to make money after all, and they have thousands of lawyers that right contracts that are completely unreadable to a laymen), the sheep for not being capable of defending themselves(reading those contracts, good to know you think only idiots cant), or the zookeepers who were suppose to keep everyone alive? Id say the blame lies all around.
     
  14. nlsme

    nlsme Android Expert

    And if any body thinks hhud had anything to do with the bubble, or the burst, they are not worth the time debating against.
     
  15. cipher6

    cipher6 Android Enthusiast

    Uhh... why does everyone think everything is so cut and dry. Yes, HUD and government pushing to get more people in homes was PART of the problem.

    Yes, there was a government push to get more people into more homes.

    Yes, there was a resistance, much of it lead by Barny Frank, to the type of regulations that would have prevented the mortgage meltdown, in the name of "affordable housing." Meaning, home loans to people who traditionally wouldn't qualify.

    But the government HUD/Freddie/Fanny side is only PART of the story.

    Banks had no problem writing loans to dang near anyone, packaging them up, getting them AAA rated, and selling and trading them like baseball cards. Because they made A LOT of money doing it.

    And people who traditionally wouldn't qualify for a loan, had no problem signing on the dotted line taking on obligations they couldn't afford.


    To say any one of these aspects was 100% or 0% the cause shows a huge misunderstanding and oversimplification of the issue.


    And these are not the only factors at play either. There is a large demographic element as well. There were too many family homes and not enough families. There was too much money, in retirement accounts, and foreigners chasing too few investments as well.
     
    nlsme and cjr72 like this.
  16. nlsme

    nlsme Android Expert

    Hence me saying the blame lies at everyones feet.
     
  17. cipher6

    cipher6 Android Enthusiast

    But then why say this?

    HUD was the entity that oversaw Freddie and Fanny.
     
  18. nlsme

    nlsme Android Expert

    Maybe I should have said, the cause instead of anything. Because the banks voluntary lending practices had far more to do with it.
     
  19. cipher6

    cipher6 Android Enthusiast

    Banks lending practices and standards were regulated by HUD, and part of the reason the lending standards got so lax was because of HUD. Banks, for the most part, didn't fight it, but you couldn't have one without the other.

    To try to distribute percentage of blame, to fit a preconceived ideology is stupid.
     
  20. nlsme

    nlsme Android Expert

    Again, the blame lies at EVERYONES feet.
     
  21. cipher6

    cipher6 Android Enthusiast

    You'd make a good politician... your not very consistent.

     
  22. JimmyRayBob

    JimmyRayBob Android Enthusiast

    Bush did this ... Obama did that .....

    I think the real blame lies with the folks that write the dang laws .... CONGRESS!!! President's lead the way sometimes, and they either sign the law or don't sign the law ... but CONGRESS is hurting us a lot more than Bush or Obama. Republicans and Democrats alike.
     
    byteware, ElasticNinja and EarlyMon like this.
  23. nlsme

    nlsme Android Expert

    Im talkimg their willingness to refinanace year after year for 20% more. Im talking about the fact they stoppes verifying income. Neither, had anything to do with hud. I clarified my view on hud, sure they played a small role. The banks voluntary lending practices had far more to do with the bubble, then any regulations imposed on them. Im pretty consistant, I just mis worded my statement. For the fifth time, the blame lies at everyones feet. Havent wavered grom that statement. Thats consistent.
     
  24. cipher6

    cipher6 Android Enthusiast

    Your trying to distribute percentage of blame (which in and of it self is kinda silly) to fit with an ideology. ie. banks and big business are evil.

    Each element couldn't have happened without the other. Government (like Barney Frank) pushed to ease lending standards, to open up "affordable housing." The banks didn't just decide on their own to change the lending standards.

    When some in government saw the oversight was too lax, they pushed for new regulations... which was fought, in the name of "affordable housing." meaning, people who can't afford it.

    There are plenty of steps along the way where government, banks, citizens etc could have prevented this from happening.

    The refinancing didn't come until after the meltdown. No one refinances their house so they can owe more. You'll have to provide me with some more details of what your talking about there.

    Do you know what HUD does? HUD is the entity that sets the standards for government backed mortgages. If you get an FHA loan, you have to meet certain requirements set by HUD.

    Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis - washingtonpost.com




    Now, HUD of course isn't the only key link in the chain of collapse, but they are a key. Yes, most sub-prime loans didn't originate at Freddie and Fanny, but private brokers were churning them out in part because Freddie and Fanny would then buy them up, and the ratings agencies were giving them good ratings.



    I just hate it when people try to minimize one aspect of the situation to fit their left/right political ideologies.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Obama ecconomics
  1. MNottaRobot
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    4,143

Share This Page

Loading...