Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Do you really think the "Democrats" deliberately "forced" banks to make loans that would fail.

We already went over this.

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

The Wall Street Journal would beg to differ with them...

Many monumental errors and misjudgments contributed to the acute financial turmoil in which we now find ourselves. Nevertheless, the vast accumulation of toxic mortgage debt that poisoned the global financial system was driven by the aggressive buying of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) -- and their sponsors in Washington -- are largely to blame for our current mess.

How did we get here?
Let's review:

In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of "affordable housing." They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion.

In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse.

It is important to understand that, as GSEs, Fannie and Freddie were viewed in the capital markets as government-backed buyers (a belief that has now been reduced to fact). Thus they were able to borrow as much as they wanted for the purpose of buying mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Their buying patterns and interests were followed closely in the markets. If Fannie and Freddie wanted subprime or Alt-A loans, the mortgage markets would produce them.

By late 2004, Fannie and Freddie very much wanted subprime and Alt-A loans. However, their accounting had just been revealed as fraudulent, and they were under pressure from Congress to demonstrate that they deserved their considerable privileges. Among other problems, economists at the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office had begun to study them in detail, and found that -- despite their subsidized borrowing rates -- they did not significantly reduce mortgage interest rates.

In the wake of Freddie's 2003 accounting scandal, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan became a powerful opponent, and began to call for stricter regulation of the GSEs and limitations on the growth of their highly profitable, but risky, retained portfolios.

If they were not making mortgages cheaper and were creating risks for the taxpayers and the economy, what value were they providing?

The answer was their affordable-housing mission...

It was the CRA that had Fannie & Freddy backing loans to the poor. Banks would make the loans because Fannie & Freddy removed the risk. And also if they didn't, CRA would score then negatively and they wouldn't receive as much money from the government.

[TracyCoxx]

In the news: The Justice Department is sending a small pack of election observers to Arizona as Hispanic groups sound the alarm over an anti-illegal immigration group's mass e-mail seeking to recruit Election Day volunteers to help block illegal immigrants from voting.

Hey 'Hispanic groups'. Illegals have no right to vote... get over it!

[randolph]

8 Nasty Conservative Lies About the Democrats and Obama That Must Be Debunked Before the Election

By Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future
Posted on October 25, 2010, Printed on October 30, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/148614/


There are a number things the public "knows" as we head into the election that are just false. If people elect leaders based on false information, the things those leaders do in office will not be what the public expects or needs.
Here are eight of the biggest myths that are out there:
1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion.
2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.
3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.
4) The stimulus didn't work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.
5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.
6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.
7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.
8) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.
This stuff really matters.
If the public votes in a new Congress because a majority of voters think this one tripled the deficit, and as a result the new people follow the policies that actually tripled the deficit, the country could go broke.
If the public votes in a new Congress that rejects the idea of helping to create demand in the economy because they think it didn't work, then the new Congress could do things that cause a depression.
If the public votes in a new Congress because they think the health care reform will increase the deficit when it is actually projected to reduce the deficit, then the new Congress could repeal health care reform and thereby make the deficit worse. And on it goes.
Dave Johnson blogs at Seeing the Forest and is a Fellow at the Commonweal Institute. He has over 25 years of technology industry experience.
? 2010 Campaign for America's Future All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/148614/

[franalexes]

and other ghost stories abound. It is that time of year.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by franalexes

and other ghost stories abound. It is that time of year.

Hey you read my posts, you must be bored.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

8 Nasty Conservative Lies About the Democrats and Obama That Must Be Debunked Before the Election

Typical liberal M.O.: Accuse others for what liberals themselves are guilty of. The 2008 campaign was run on nothing but lies which was the crest of the wave of lies started in the 2004 campaign. After 9/11 the dems were acting in America's best interest, which happened to be the way Bush wanted to go. But then they realized going along with Bush wasn't going to help them win the election in 2004 so then began the smear campaign of George Bush. There are legitimate things to fault the guy on, but apparently truth wasn't enough for the democrats. Not much of America was buying this BS in 2004, but with the constant liberal bias in the media, enough people bought the lies instead of looking into the truth that the physical embodiment of all the liberal BS appeared in the name of Barack Obama and became president. Without Bush to whine about, and BO having to actually govern rather than drone on and on about his nebulous 'hope and change', Americans have apparently started thinking again and are about to kick the bums out. What do liberals do? Same as always... start spreading lies and apparently resorting to illegal measures to cushion the blow this election day. But back to liberal lies... Randolf, you posted someone's article about debunking "conservative lies", so I'll post someone's article which debunks your article.

Originally Posted by politicalmath

1) President Obama actually reduced the deficit since George Bush?s last deficit was $1.416 trillion.

In a sleight of hand worthy of a 7-year-old magician wannabe, he notes that, since Bush signed the 2009 budget, he is therefore responsible for all the debt in 2009, which was $1.416 trillion. He does not, however, explain that the stimulus was passed that year and added drastically to the deficit for 2009. Why is there no mention this? Because the author is interested only in political point-scoring, not the truth.

2) Obama actually cut taxes

This one is actually true. President Obama did cut taxes as a part of the stimulus. But apparently those tax cuts had no effect on the deficit described above, being replaced by money from the happiness rainbow tree that the author believes Obama keeps in the back yard. It is entertaining that the author says these tax cuts were ?wasted? since he will soon cite the CBO report on the stimulus, which claims that the tax cuts helped stimulate growth. Consistency is apparently not as much fun as throwing poo.

3) President Obama didn?t bail out the banks, George Bush did.

True, but Obama did vote for the bailout, as did John McCain. Perhaps he is claiming that Senators aren?t important and shouldn?t be held responsible for their own actions and that Congress has virtually nothing to do with governing the nation, in which case the whole article seems irrelevant since it?s not a presidential election and changing Congress won?t actually have an effect on anything. It?s hard to tell, he?s short on details.

4) The stimulus totally worked

He cites the CBO report on the stimulus. Whoop-de-do. The CBO report is an estimate based on an algorithm. When the Obama administration went to the CBO before the stimulus, the CBO plugged the numbers into a computer and said ?If you spend X money, you will get Y jobs?. Nearly 2 years later, the Obama administration asked the CBO to plug the numbers in again and ? surprise! ? they got the same result. It is not based on any actual measurement of the job market, it?s based on a model.

A better way of determining if the stimulus worked would be to ask ?Did we follow the unemployment curve the administration said we would?? The answer is ?hell no?. Unemployment is far worse than the administration predicted with the stimulus. This is a point which the author explains at length. I?m just kidding; he totally ignores it, perhaps imagining that he had addressed it but could no longer make out the words from behind the spittle covering his laptop screen.

5) Businesses don?t hire based on tax cuts

Young, small businesses hire more than big businesses. They will usually work the people they have as much as possible until it becomes clear that they cannot pull in any more business without new people. Fewer taxes means more money. More money could simply mean more profit (as it has recently with larger companies), or it could mean more growth, more employees, even more money. It varies from business to business. But saying ?it?s complicated? does not give the author the intellectual political anger management outlet he clearly needs, so I guess we should be glad he?s not biting anyone?s fingers off.

6) Health care reform reduces gov?t deficits

Here, he cites an article from before the health care reform bill was passed. Since then, the estimate has jumped up as things like the 21% cut in Medicare reimbursement was postponed, then postponed again and large companies like McDonald?s got permission to ignore the law when they told the government that they would drop coverage for their employees if they didn?t get a waiver.

Thus, the various cost-savings of the bill have been shown implausible or manipulative (which is exactly what I said would happen to those absurd estimates nearly a year ago). They were nothing but projection manipulation devices and anyone who wasn?t drunk could see that was the case.

7) Social Security is fine. It?s not a Ponzi scheme.

Yes, Social Security has run a surplus? up to this year when it ran a decifit. Projections have it pushing back into surplus for a couple years until, in 2016, it dips back into deficit forever. ?No problem,? the increasingly dense author of the article says, ?There?s a trust fund?. Yeah? a trust fund held in US debt. The SS trust fund buys up US debt, which the government pays back regularly, so it?s a pretty safe asset. That trust fund should last for a while, but eventually we will be paying Social Security returns to older investors (the elderly) from their own money or money paid by newer investors (the younger generation).

That is the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

8 ) Government spending is good for the economy

Here the author talks about how the government spends so much on infrastructure, roads, airports, schools (in an ideal world these things are all good for the economy) but only a ?small part of the government?s budget? is for welfare and foreign aid. I?m kind of funny inasmuch as I think that 60% of our budget is not a ?small part?. (I?m counting SS, Medicare/Medicaid, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and ?other? mandatory programs. But not interest on the debt.)

Roads and schools? (Transportation and Education) They account for 3.3% of the budget. Since welfare and foreign aid are such a ?small part? of the budget, the author won?t mind if we get rid of it. I?d be delighted if we reduced the other parts of the budget so that Transportation and Education made the bulk of it.

Overall, the author targets builds up conservative strawmen of ?lies? and then uses liberal strawmen (and selective data) to ?prove? them wrong. This article is nothing more than red meat for people who already agree and don?t have time to do the research themselves. It?s sloppy, lazy, angry and impotent. And, worst of all, it spreads disinformation. Hopefully this post is something of an antidote.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Typical liberal M.O.: Accuse others for what liberals themselves are guilty of. The 2008 campaign was run on nothing but lies which was the crest of the wave of lies started in the 2004 campaign. After 9/11 the dems were acting in America's best interest, which happened to be the way Bush wanted to go. But then they realized going along with Bush wasn't going to help them win the election in 2004 so then began the smear campaign of George Bush. There are legitimate things to fault the guy on, but apparently truth wasn't enough for the democrats. Not much of America was buying this BS in 2004, but with the constant liberal bias in the media, enough people bought the lies instead of looking into the truth that the physical embodiment of all the liberal BS appeared in the name of Barack Obama and became president. Without Bush to whine about, and BO having to actually govern rather than drone on and on about his nebulous 'hope and change', Americans have apparently started thinking again and are about to kick the bums out. What do liberals do? Same as always... start spreading lies and apparently resorting to illegal measures to cushion the blow this election day. But back to liberal lies... Randolf, you posted someone's article about debunking "conservative lies", so I'll post someone's article which debunks your article.

Thanks Tracy now I have both sides.