Reply With Quote
"housing bubble was unpredictable"
no, it wasn't. The Fed refused to see it and the Fed "owns" the economics profession.
Several people saw the housing bubble expand, and predicted when it popped, the results would be disastrous.
I'm talking about the tech bubble. It burst before bush took office. The housing bubble was unpredictable, but Y2K was a major driver of the tech bubble.
"housing bubble was unpredictable"
no, it wasn't. The Fed refused to see it and the Fed "owns" the economics profession.
Several people saw the housing bubble expand, and predicted when it popped, the results would be disastrous.
Unpredictable as for when it would burst. Not unpredictable that it would burst.
Nearly the entire economics profession, from the Fed/Treasury on down, even admitted a housing/credit bubble existed.
They were called on it. It was those like Barney frank who denied there was a problem.
"They were called on it"
by whom?
I'm not going to look up 9 year old history to show you wrong. Everyone knows you as a clown anyway.
so, you were talking out of your ass?
you had no idea whom you meant when you said "they were called on it?"
you have to look it up?
I remember seeing video, and even here people have posted it. Republicans saying that there would be a housing financial with current law for 2003, and Barney Frank and others disputing it.so, you were talking out of your ass?
you had no idea whom you meant when you said "they were called on it?"
you have to look it up?
Has everyone forgotten?
who called out the economist/Fed/Treasury as missing the housing/credit bubble when house prices were skyrocketing way above the long-term price trend?
You guys are total idiots. Make me waste my time, finding something you should already know.
Barney Frank caused the housing bubble, right. He originated how many toxic mortgages to undo ented, unqualified borrowers? You right wingers keep LYING that the govt caused the housing bubble to protect the financial sector that REALLY caused the housing bubble and got away with defrauding millions with MERS and other fraudulent practices, and still do.
That's not what I said now, is it ShazBot? He and other demonrats kept meaningful reform from occurring. They are squarely to blame.
Fair enough WC. But then I'd say that the fault wasn't Clintons, but Democrats in Congress.
Spitzer and 18 other state AGs went to the Feds during the bubble to get predatory lending stopped. dubya shut them down.
(Then dubya had the FBI take down Sheriff-of-Wall-St Spitzer for kicking Greenberg out of AIG)
But, you'll blame Bush instead of congress when it suits you, right...
Why didn't Clinton do something about it?
Not to get in the way of your typical GOP masturbation but Phil Gramm and Bill Clinton tagteamed to change the law. The Financial Services Modernization Act was from a GOP congress and signed with vigor by Clinton. The whole bull during that time period was the 'spirit of bipartisanship' and we end up with deregulated banks defaulting.
Well, you blamed Clinton. I just pointed out it really escalated under Bush's tenure. Also, Clinton likely didn't do anything because it didn't escalate greatly while he was President. Also, it would have been up to Congress to change it in the first place.
Clinton signed it into law. Bush tried to have congress fix it. The presidency is not a dictatorship. The republicans said it would be trouble, the demonrats scoffed, and look at who was right...
WTF are you talking about?
What was the significant political event in 1994? Oh that's right, the GOP took control of the house for the first time in 40 years. It's only known as the Republican Revolution.
And boys and girls, what branch of government controls the treasury and housing departments? Oh that right the POTUS.
IOW, you do not blame the president for a bill being passed. Just like you don't exonerate the president when the enforcement of said changes goes to 5 years later.
Bush was head of the bureaucracy when the treasury and housing departments were making the directives and went sour. If you can point me to the part of the 1995 amendment that said 'give poor people ty loans' then that is fine. Else, it just shows a firm misunderstanding of how laws are legislated and how they are executed.
That was a pretty ty era. That was when the banking industry once again asserted political dominance that they had lost 60 years before. Special interest has always been an issue but it was that time with Clinton, Gingrich and Gramm just tag teaming the federal government with that bull .
We need to do better than that this era. We don't want to go down in history like that.
I love it when I get you to argue my points about who has the power to do what in the government.
Thing is, the republicans took the majority in the 1994 elections. not 1994. That is still demonrat legislation. What I am doing, is faulting the sitting president for not vetoing it. Even if it was 1995 and done by republicans. Clinton did not veto it. Surely he had advisers telling him of the impact it would have.
I am sure you just love me demonstrating how you do not know what the you are talking about.
What's the date on your chart?
Who was in control of Congress that year?
Nevermind that this is just another example of the WC strategy to oversimplify so that even a caveman can do it. LOOK BLAME CLINTON!!!
You can point to 20 years of ty treasury secretaries, either party or the banking lobby that is the real driver of financial policy overhaul that went on over that time. I agree that Clinton is just as much a as the rest of them but your GOP rah rah doesn't help.
And demonrat? really?
repug, demonrat, what difference right?
So you're saying that his advisors knew what the impact would be? They were able to predict when the e would occur? If so, how come the Republicans writing this bill didn't know about it?
Yes, if they had any knowledge of the jobs they filled.
No. Now when, but that it would.
I forget the exact time. I thought this was drafted in 1994. Republican or democrat doesn't matter much. They are both writing legislation to keep them in power. Those supporting the bill were wrong in doing so, and the president who signed it was too.
How many times have implied one way or another that politicians keep buying our votes (in general) with our own money? They don't give a flying about us, past us being the means to grab more power.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions