Care to talk about FNMA or FHLMC and the embrace of subprime mortgages contributed to the financial crisis of 2008? kthx.
Both parties have been profligate in Federal spending, but the Democrats make the Republicans look like spendthrifts. In other words, both are bad, but one is significantly worse than the other. BTW, don't ever call either President Bush a fiscal conservative.
I used to be a democrat and now I'm a moderate independent. I call them as I see them. This is why I have an advantage over the dems and GOP- I have the ability to think independently and honestly. I'm not pre-programmed to blame one side or the other. I'll leave that to the sheep around here, Julius.
I'm not Barfo, but i'm doing great as well. How is your career as "doing nothing but posting articles to forums all day" going? Is it nearly as good as your "quoting hack-job retarded-baby-exploiting jackasses on message boards" business?
20 years earlier, TV networks (there were 3 major ones, not dozens like now) gave Reagan prime time almost monthly to make his self-promoting speeches. The purpose was to help his popularity ratings. The circular excuse was, "His popularity ratings are supposedly high. The people want this. Therefore, we must do all we can to help his popularity ratings." Well, I changed that a little, but that's the gist, and you can see the insanity of the 80s. Anyway, in EVERY SINGLE SPEECH he put down Carter. He would mention the "recovery" which was a putdown of Carter. (Jobs were far more plentiful under Carter than under Reagan. The "recovery" was only for rich people.) He would say, "America is back." (It was, but only for conservative ideologues.) He would select slanted statistics which made the Carter years look like the valley of the curve. Actually when I say "he" did this, I should say his speechwriters did it. He was too dumb to do anything other than read speeches. Carter, a religious idealist who really tries to practice Love Thy Neighbor, didn't say anything until 6 years in. Then I read a small blurb saying he was getting frustrated hearing this BS. For years I had waited for someone to speak up about Reagan's blaming Carter in every speech and I thought, finally, he's going to defend himself. It didn't happen, because immediately, the little wisecracks against Carter stopped in Reagan's primetime speeches that the networks gave him for free throughout his 8 years. Nixon didn't do this. It was under Reagan that the institutionalized Republican gridlock, sarcasm, and us vs. them anti-big picture attitude started.
June was another stellar employment month! http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-private-sector-June-in-decades-97686554.html That's what happens when you demonize the private sector: they stop hiring.
So, before you switched party affiliation, you were unable to think independently and honestly? How many years ago did you switch, and, given your lack of thinking ability back then, how did you decide to switch? barfo
Sure, let's talk about those. Maybe we could start with how they were created by the 2006 congress? barfo
That's more of a commentary of the failing of our current political structure than an indictment of any one party. Shocking that a party would put political interests ahead of more pressing issues. With that said, blaming Obama for the state of the economy is pretty narrow minded. I would say that the second stimulus did little to help the basic problems of the recession, but the economic issues facing the country are much deeper than any one piece of legislation and a president who hasn't even been in office half his term.
The stimulus wasn't meant to address the basic problems of the economy. It was meant as a band-aid to prevent a revolutionary situation in which millions of people lose their houses.
From what I've seen, Obama's policies have extended and deepened the recession. At what point does it become Obama's economy, if not day 1 of his presidency?
There is certainly plenty of blame to go around, and the Democrats do deserve a healthy heaping of it. But you've failed to support your initial implication that somehow the change of control of congress in 2006 had something to do with it. As for plenty of blame to go around. Yes, many democrats opposed the reforms that Bush rather tepidly advocated. But Bush had 4 years of republican control of congress and the administration, and failed to accomplish anything on this matter. That suggests to me that it wasn't a very high priority for him or the Republicans. Bush gets about as much credit for this as Obama gets for immigration reform (so far). Failing to do something isn't really very impressive. But while he was talking and not taking action on reform, his administration did also manage to make the problem significantly worse. So, plenty of blame to go around. barfo
When did it become Bush's economy, and not Clintons? When did it become Clintons recovery/boom and not Bush 41's?
I would say it was Bush's economy from day 1. Especially since he got his tax cuts passed, and then more tax cuts, etc.
Speaking of saving millions of people from losing their homes... http://www.cnbc.com/id/38110678 New Loan Delinquencies on the Rise Again Just when you thought things might be turning around, the mortgage crisis takes yet another little dip to the downside. Lender Processing Services just put out its May "Mortgage Monitor," and some promising trends aren't so promising anymore, specifically new delinquencies and cure rates. While the total delinquency rate rose 2.3 percent, which is not surprising given how much is in the pipeline, the 30-day delinquent bucket jumped 10 percent. That is surprising because the that number had been coming down of late. The LPS data report says that's because the "seasonal improvement period has expired," but I'm not sure normal seasonal patterns really apply to this market anymore. More likely is that home prices are not rebounding at the expected/hoped for pace, prompting more borrowers who are underwater on their loans to choose not to pay. And while the job market isn't bleeding so much anymore, it's not adding jobs back at the rate we need, nor is it re-instituting those full time jobs that were slashed to part-time, leaving many borrowers still "underemployed." So the delinquency rate nationwide now stands at 9.2 percent from this particular data set, and with the rise in new delinquencies, it won't be coming down any time soon. How do I know this? Because the report also finds that the "cure rate," which is the rate at which bad loans actually get better, i.e. the borrowers start to pay again, is getting worse. After a two-month decline, deterioration ratios increased, with 2.5 loans rolling to a "worse" status for every one that has improved. The number of delinquent loans that "cured" to a current status declined for every stage of delinquency, except in the "greater than six months delinquent" category. This improvement was likely the result of trial modifications made through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) that transitioned into permanent status. Oh good, so the HAMP program is helping "cure" those 6 month+ delinquencies. No, they're just delaying them yet again, since we know that the re-default rate on HAMP is only rising. Forget cure and think remission. Good news? Well, the report shows that both delinquency and foreclosure rates have stabilized. The trouble is that they've flat lined at "historically high levels." And what does that mean for the rest of the world? Continued pressure on home prices. Yes, we will see a bunch of new reports this month, looking backward two months, that show slight improvements in home prices thanks to the run-up to the end of the home buyer tax credit; that's not reality, that's subsidy.
Me also. Real estate has taken off nicely down here and I've got so many buyers I may have to start turning some away. If the pace continues I plan on buying the Blazers next summer and moving them to Beautiful Central Oregon.
