Bush: History Will See Him As An Effective President!

[mk 11]

Pure BS propaganda only believed by the gullible.

Or people who understand how to read simple line graphs:Since you obviously have a really hard time with numbers and data, let me help you. Notice how in the top graph, the line goes UP rapidly in the 80s and once again in the 2000s. In the second graph, notice how, starting in exactly 1980, the share of income for the wealthiest 1% of Americans goes up rapidly (top) and the share of the bottom 90% goes down dramatically (bottom).

[El Guapo 8]

I don't understand how people were getting mortgages that they couldn't afford. Wouldn't that be an issue, like, right away?

Actually there were. I don't know if it was any sort of significant percentage, but there were people who got loans that literally never made a payment because they could not afford it and were foreclosed on in the first 3 months.

[CaneBrain 95]

Actually there were. I don't know if it was any sort of significant percentage, but there were people who got loans that literally never made a payment because they could not afford it and were foreclosed on in the first 3 months.

qft. Got to see the emails surrounding a bunch of these. Kinda hilarious. I'd say less than 5% and in a lot of cases these loans were procured through fraud but it happened.

[akoff 0]

does your business rely on a line of credit? any significant interaction with the financial system? do any of your business partners rely on the financial system? customers?I think you see where I'm going with this.

rely, no, helpful at times yes. I do see where you are going and i get it...there should have been something in between. the bottom line is there hasn't been enough penalty for both corporate and personal greed and failure. our system is based on depending how far you reach is relative to how far you fall. When the finanacial industry and individual people were as dumb as they were and fraudulent as they were they should to a great extent be bankrupt...if you are dumb or gamble or roll the dice and lose it comes at a cost. if you are right or win....you are rewarded.I could buy HUGE house based on credit given but i don't...i shouldn't have to bailout others because they were stupid enough to do it. I should be able to buy their house, or business, or investment property for pennies on the $$ because i was disciplined and they were stupid!!be responsible.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

there were people who got loans that literally never made a payment because they could not afford it and were foreclosed on in the first 3 months.

People be stupid.Is there anything inherently wrong with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

[CaneBrain 95]

rely, no, helpful at times yes. I do see where you are going and i get it...there should have been something in between. the bottom line is there hasn't been enough penalty for both corporate and personal greed and failure. our system is based on depending how far you reach is relative to how far you fall. When the finanacial industry and individual people were as dumb as they were and fraudulent as they were they should to a great extent be bankrupt...if you are dumb or gamble or roll the dice and lose it comes at a cost. if you are right or win....you are rewarded.I could buy HUGE house based on credit given but i don't...i shouldn't have to bailout others because they were stupid enough to do it. I should be able to buy their house, or business, or investment property for pennies on the $$ because i was disciplined and they were stupid!!be responsible.

See, if Obama (or Bush) bails em out, he pisses off responsible people like yourself.But, if he let it all go to hell, let AIG and Citi and BoA fail, he would have people lined up Washington Ave with pitchforks and torches (seriously, you know it is true).Easy choice, imo. Sad, but easy.

[CaneBrain 95]

People be stupid.Is there anything inherently wrong with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

Not if you like caste systems and inevitable revolution.

[akoff 0]

See, if Obama (or Bush) bails em out, he pisses off responsible people like yourself.But, if he let it all go to hell, let AIG and Citi and BoA fail, he would have people lined up Washington Ave with pitchforks and torches (seriously, you know it is true).Easy choice, imo. Sad, but easy.

sad but true, it doesn't mean the system will get better without it either. sometimes short term pain is the best cure. in our case i believe we chose long term pain.

[strategy 4]

rely, no, helpful at times yes. I do see where you are going and i get it...there should have been something in between. the bottom line is there hasn't been enough penalty for both corporate and personal greed and failure. our system is based on depending how far you reach is relative to how far you fall. When the finanacial industry and individual people were as dumb as they were and fraudulent as they were they should to a great extent be bankrupt...if you are dumb or gamble or roll the dice and lose it comes at a cost. if you are right or win....you are rewarded.I could buy HUGE house based on credit given but i don't...i shouldn't have to bailout others because they were stupid enough to do it. I should be able to buy their house, or business, or investment property for pennies on the $$ because i was disciplined and they were stupid!!be responsible.

See, if Obama (or Bush) bails em out, he pisses off responsible people like yourself.But, if he let it all go to hell, let AIG and Citi and BoA fail, he would have people lined up Washington Ave with pitchforks and torches (seriously, you know it is true).Easy choice, imo. Sad, but easy.

I was really just trying to say that akoff's business, like the vast majority of businesses, would have been hit unreasonably hard for the mistakes these big players made. when everyone has a bunch of deals with everyone else (as is the case with the big banks) a single failure can lead to a domino effect. overnight, no one, anywhere, can get a loan. this cascades down. even if akoff's business can still function without loans, his customer base probably disappears.I say this without knowledge of his business. I'm just trying to illustrate the alternate no-TARP universe. it would have most likely wrecked his business, and I see that as unfair.

[CaneBrain 95]

I was really just trying to say that akoff's business, like the vast majority of businesses, would have been hit unreasonably hard for the mistakes these big players made. when everyone has a bunch of deals with everyone else (as is the case with the big banks) a single failure can lead to a domino effect. overnight, no one, anywhere, can get a loan. this cascades down. even if akoff's business can still function without loans, his customer base probably disappears.I say this without knowledge of his business. I'm just trying to illustrate the unfairness that would have existed in a world without TARP. it would have most likely wrecked his business, and I see that as unfair.

not to mention the millions of Americans with pensions invested in the big bank stocks.......no TARP and they all get wiped out instead of losing a good chunk of value.AKoff, yeah we definitely traded....but I would say it was more about trading INTENSE short term disaster for long term pain.

[akoff 0]

I was really just trying to say that akoff's business, like the vast majority of businesses, would have been hit unreasonably hard for the mistakes these big players made. when everyone has a bunch of deals with everyone else (as is the case with the big banks) a single failure can lead to a domino effect. overnight, no one, anywhere, can get a loan. this cascades down. even if akoff's business can still function without loans, his customer base probably disappears.I say this without knowledge of his business. I'm just trying to illustrate the alternate no-TARP universe. it would have most likely wrecked his business, and I see that as unfair.

there is much truth to what you are saying...i just don't like it. i like the stimulus less.

[dapokerbum 0]

rely, no, helpful at times yes. I do see where you are going and i get it...there should have been something in between. the bottom line is there hasn't been enough penalty for both corporate and personal greed and failure. our system is based on depending how far you reach is relative to how far you fall. When the finanacial industry and individual people were as dumb as they were and fraudulent as they were they should to a great extent be bankrupt...if you are dumb or gamble or roll the dice and lose it comes at a cost. if you are right or win....you are rewarded.I could buy HUGE house based on credit given but i don't...i shouldn't have to bailout others because they were stupid enough to do it. I should be able to buy their house, or business, or investment property for pennies on the $$ because i was disciplined and they were stupid!!be responsible.

I think this has been covered ... but where does this loss from the other person go after you buy it for pennies on the $$.

[strategy 4]

I think this has been covered ... but where does this loss from the other person go after you buy it for pennies on the $$.

I've not had anything to do with mortgages, but I'm pretty sure the borrower is on the hook for the whole of the loan regardless of the sale price. it really does make sense to just default and let the bank eat the difference between the sale price and mortgage amount, provided you are okay with having awful credit and don't mind losing your home.housing's still very effed up. not too long ago, homes for sale was something like double the usual (12.5 months' worth vs. 6), which seems to suggest prices are headed deeper south.

[hblask 1]

I'm not smart enough about the issue of the reasons for the housing crisis to argue Bush caused it, but I suspect that caused it is incorrect.

"Didn't use his presidential power to prevent..." would be correct. The causes were in motion long before Bush was president.

[dapokerbum 0]

I've not had anything to do with mortgages, but I'm pretty sure the borrower is on the hook for the whole of the loan regardless of the sale price. it really does make sense to just default and let the bank eat the difference between the sale price and mortgage amount, provided you are okay with having awful credit and don't mind losing your home.housing's still very effed up. not too long ago, homes for sale was something like double the usual (12.5 months' worth vs. 6), which seems to suggest prices are headed deeper south.

So then it leads to Bankruptcy or the banks not being liquid anymore? Which then requires the bailout to avoid complete annihilation?

[hblask 1]

Or people who understand how to read simple line graphs:Since you obviously have a really hard time with numbers and data, let me help you. Notice how in the top graph, the line goes UP rapidly in the 80s and once again in the 2000s. In the second graph, notice how, starting in exactly 1980, the share of income for the wealthiest 1% of Americans goes up rapidly (top) and the share of the bottom 90% goes down dramatically (bottom).

I love it when people post these graphs, because they coincide so well with changes in govt. As govt grows and takes a higher percentage of our income, the rich hold a higher percentage of the country's wealth. As govt shrinks, the rich hold a smaller percentage.And then, people use these graphs to demonstrate that we need bigger government, lol. (Not saying that's what you are doing here, but that is what usually happens when these graphs are posted.)

[strategy 4]

So then it leads to Bankruptcy or the banks not being liquid anymore? Which then requires the bailout to avoid complete annihilation?

this article seems really solid. it sums up about a semester's worth of what us finance majors were taught.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cri...07%E2%80%932010

The financial crisis of 2007 to the present is a crisis triggered by a liquidity shortfall in the United States banking system [1] It has resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market has also suffered, resulting in numerous evictions, foreclosures and prolonged vacancies. It is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[2] It contributed to the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars, substantial financial commitments incurred by governments, and a significant decline in economic activity.[3] Many causes have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[4] Both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration,[5] while significant risks remain for the world economy over the 2010–2011 periods.[6]The collapse of a global housing bubble, which peaked in the U.S. in 2006, caused the values of securities tied to real estate pricing to plummet thereafter, damaging financial institutions globally.[7] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability, and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during late 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period as credit tightened and international trade declined.[8] Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st century financial markets.[9] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion, and institutional bailouts.

hard to believe how fucked everything got. sigh.

[akoff 0]

this article seems really solid. it sums up about a semester's worth of what us finance majors were taught.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cri...07%E2%80%932010hard to believe how ****ed everything got. sigh.

QFT

[SweetDee 0]

No, because housing prices always go up!Yes, yes it is an issue right away.Also, that Fannie and Freddie fueled this mess. Every bank and mortgage provider was TRIPPING over themselves to get poor people into homes they could not afford. At the time, everyone was getting rich and no one was thinking long term. I would say 10% or less of the loans I see are Fannie or Freddie related.Also, I should interject here that out and out fraud by appraisers and mortgage brokers (and regular people who bought these mortgages) was a huge problem and any gov oversight at the state of Federal level would have been helpful.

Person comes in "I want to buy a home I can't afford." Bank "Really? I have a way for you to do that, that coincidentally also leaves me with no real risk. Furthermore, I am required to do this for you by law. Lets get to it." A lot of this went away when Fannie and Freddie tightened up lending standards, which still aren't all that stringent, but it's better. What would you do if you could do a transaction with virtually anybody, make money off that transaction and then someone else would finance all the risk from the transaction no problemo? Well, you would do that transaction as fast as humanly possible. It's really not all that complicated- it's the job of a business to make money within the confines of the rules that are presented, as much fun as it is to villify that's just reality.

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

My view would be that the things Bush and his administration did that CAUSED the 7 year boom ALSO CAUSED the housing collapse. That's neat.

Blaming the bush administration for that is dishonest. The deregulation and under regulation of the banking and insurance industry was a bipartisan effort. . Both parties are in the bag for wall street, blaming one or the other is just partisan.

[Balloon guy 158]

I love it when people post these graphs, because they coincide so well with changes in govt. As govt grows and takes a higher percentage of our income, the rich hold a higher percentage of the country's wealth. As govt shrinks, the rich hold a smaller percentage.And then, people use these graphs to demonstrate that we need bigger government, lol. (Not saying that's what you are doing here, but that is what usually happens when these graphs are posted.)

Good point.Also they make the case that the tax cuts created the deficit spending and the gap in wealth. Which is also backwards and without merit.Then there is the reality that congress has something to do with the economy as well:

[Balloon guy 158]

Also helps to consider the percentage of debt to GDP to get a real assessment of what the debt means.Silly to get a raise of 50% in your income, go out and buy a bigger house, then bemoan the fact that now your debt load is bigger, if in fact the debt to income ratio is relatively unchanged.Be curious to see this graph after Obamabama finishes his one and only term

[El Guapo 8]

[Balloon guy 158]

We still beat Canada

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Graphs!