Blaming government for fiscal crisis is scapegoating
I do not blame President Bush or his party for the Great Recession that occurred on his watch. Yes, there were things he should have done that might have prevented the situation from getting as bad as it did, and there were things he did do that made the situation somewhat worse than it needed to be. When crunch time came in the latter half of 2008, when things really started to fall apart in dramatic fashion, he and his Cabinet responded competently if not perfectly, even if they had to repeatedly strongarm fellow Republicans in Congress to do the smart and necessary thing.
But ladies and gentlemen, we were headed for a fall regardless of what government did, and the fault was our own, as a people and as a culture. We as Americans started believing our own press releases, as the saying goes, and we stopped doing the things that got us where we were. I blame Bush for a lot of things — I still believe he will go down as one of the worst presidents in our history — but I cannot honestly blame him for that.
What inspires that bit of a rant? Take a look at this graph, borrowed from Barry Ritholz’ Big Picture blog.
from http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/
Ritholz uses the chart to suggest that former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan got a little too free and easy with the credit, allowing the real-estate bubble and credit crisis to develop. There’s some truth to that — when the financial history of this mess is written, it will not be kind to “The Maestro.”
But really, look at that chart and ask yourself whether that could be sustained. And again, while Greenspan and the Fed could have moderated some of that spending spree, this was bigger than one man or one agency. (Also note how large that gap between consumer spending and cash income remains even now.)
It’s also interesting to compare the above chart to a similar illustration below charting the rise of our national debt over the same time frame. Notice any similarities?
I’d suggest that the two phenomenon — one consumer spending, one federal debt — share a common source, a belief that as Americans the rules of financial gravity didn’t apply to us. Yeah, that’s what we were being told by many of our leaders, but we as a people chose to believe them because it sure sounded good, didn’t it?
I’d further argue that anybody who thinks we’re going back to our recent heydays is deluding himself, because as these charts demonstrate, those heydays were as false as Bernie Madoff’s financial statements.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
399 comments Add your comment
stands for decibels
February 24th, 2010
9:29 am
If you look at the forty year graph of spending vs. revenues, you might get a clue as to why people are a tad upset with the government right now, and with the Democrats in particular. From 1970 through 2007, the graphs of revenues and expenditures had a similar contour, i.e the same “slope” to use a mathematical term. From 2008 through 2010
And since you’re coming back to this, I’ll do so as well. In 2008, who was able to veto any spending bill that came before him?
Why aren’t you a “tad upset” with that Administration as well?
I might also ask why you continue to focus on two charts that plot essentially the same thing, without scrolling past those factoids to focus on a bigger picture.
For those who might be interested in that bigger picture, I’d ask you and others to have a look at the source of those first two charts, here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/in-depth-look-at-federal-budget.html
Paul
February 24th, 2010
9:30 am
Nice tie-in between the personal and the national. The country’s already experienced the personal, we see the national on the horizon and people are anxious and fed up with representatives of both parties who refuse to take action – just like that Ga Congressman cited earlier.
Isn’t there a movement underway that reflects this?
I would’ve expected harsh condemnation of your crosshairs shifting from Pres Bush to the mirror. Maybe underlying truth hitting home?
Look at what happened – the unusual, or what never would have been believed my many, becomes not at all unusual. We hear what we want to hear to justify our desires – we get fed a line of ‘good reasons’ – then move ahead with our hands over our eyes. “Can’t afford that car you want? Lease it? Sure, you’re just paying depreciation forever, but here’s why it’s a good idea to rent a depreciating asset instead of owning it…” “Can’t afford that house? But you need a bigger one and besides… you’ll make money! So do an interest-only loan…. or a super-low intro rate… and if you have to sell later, well hey, you’ll make money ’cause you’re not just buying it to live in it, you’re going to make money!!!” “No one cooks their own food. Get that credit card and eat out! You’re busy… you don’t have time… and besides, if you can’t eat it all no matter how hard you try, you can have leftovers and get two meals for the price of one!”
And on and on with clothes and trips and everything…. and forget about saving for retirement, ’cause you don’t make enough to even try, right?
N-GA
The Greeks are rioting? Anything to do with the Germans and other EU countries refusing to bail them out? We don’t have anyone to turn to to bail us out, any other countries to pay off our debts, do we?
Jimmy Carter
February 24th, 2010
9:31 am
Enter your comments here
Doggone/GA
February 24th, 2010
9:31 am
“Too many people are blaming the CRA for the economic trouble that this nation is in; it was not the cause”
They know that, but they can’t help themselves. Repeating the lies is all they have.
anonymous coward
February 24th, 2010
9:32 am
I have to agree that the government’s push to get people into homes was a factor in the housing bubble that seems to cause a lot of the toxic asset issues that banks are still dealing with. Lots of poeple had fingers in that pie. However, I will say that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have nearly crippled our economy for years to come with deficit spending that put stimulous packages to shame. As we stupidly continue with the Afghanistan war and try to wind down the Iraq commitments we’re stuck, and we did it to ourselves. It doesn’t matter who was president or what party was the majority at the time. WE THE PEOPLE elected them, and even re-elected them to office. We liked the party, we liked living high on the hog and we didn’t care and most of us are too stupid to know any difference anyway.
It doesn’t matter whether it was goverment policy or people using houses like ATM cash machines – the cause is all the same.
Jimbo
February 24th, 2010
9:32 am
Government got fat, dumb, and happy along with everyone else. Difference is I am cutting my household spending and the government continues operating under the budgets of crazy times. Nobody ever thought that great companies like GM and Citigroup would face bankruptcy or worse. It will happen again with our Federal and State governments because they only know how to expand. Eventually, they will become such a burden our effective tax rate will be 65% like it is in Europe. Difference is the dollar will be near worthless by the time it happens because our government leveraged itself just as many Americans did to start the crisis.
The Eyes Have It
February 24th, 2010
9:33 am
The Greeks are rioting because the Germans had a nude sledding event and did not invite them.
Scout
February 24th, 2010
9:33 am
In case some of you have never seen this, t’s really just this simple:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage
Alexander Tyler
N-GA
February 24th, 2010
9:33 am
that would be “talking” point……..
jt
February 24th, 2010
9:34 am
From the AP-
“Bonuses up 17% on Wall Street”
Why not? They can’t lose with the FED as their slush fund.
No, government is not responsible for THIS crisis. And you will probably believe that they are not responsible for the NEXT either.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 24th, 2010
9:35 am
Dear HDB, what CRA says, and how the regulators enforce it, are at variance with your words. Your words do not address the “consequences” of bureaucratic disapproval of free market activities. And even one (such as your humble correspondent) who detests CRA cannot apportion more than 10% responsibility for the bubble to the statute. However, a law compelling lending to poorer risks would always to lead to systemic risk. Remember, the regulators who enforce CRA merely look at the quantity of lending to those poorer risks, not to the quantity of greater risk introduced to the system. A good rule of life is that every well-intentioned leftist statute has an unforeseeable adverse consequence.
HDB
February 24th, 2010
9:35 am
Bruno: from 1970-1981, this nation was paying the costs of the Vietnam Conflict…..but during the Carter Administration, government spending was basically FLAT, for Carter’s deficits were only $46B each year during his term; the BALLOONING of national expenditures happened during Reagan’s FIRST term, when he QUADRUPLED the deficit to $166B in his FIRST YEAR. Clinton’s eight years produced the first SURPLUS since the 60s….but Bush43 went into deficit spending his FIRST YEAR!! During that same time frame, it’s the Democrats who were the more fiscally responsible….spending on what the nation needed….not looting the Treasury for the profit of friends (see KBR, Halliburton…..)!! It’s not JUST Democrats that the nation should be mad at!!
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 24th, 2010
9:41 am
Dear N-GA, the “purpose” of CRA may well have been as you advise, but the language of the statute, and the regulator enforcement practices, are different. The CRA requires banks to plant branches in low-income areas, even when the bank might prefer to locate most of it branches in more profitable, higher volume areas. The CRA prevents banks from opening profitable branches if they fail to harvest poor communities sufficiently. You misperceive all aspects of CRA.
Scout
February 24th, 2010
9:42 am
Headlines:
#1) “A Third of All U.S. Casualties in Eight-Year Afghan War Have Occurred Since Obama Ordered Escalation… ” Ooops …….. Obama’s War !
#2) “Teacher Tackles Gunman Suspected in Colo. Shooting…” How could this happen? Guns are not allowed on school property in Colorado !
N-GA
February 24th, 2010
9:42 am
Good morning, Paul. It will be interesting to observe Greece and the EU. If the Greeks get bailed out, the Germans and French will riot in the streets while the Spaniards, Italians and Portuguese follow the lead of the Greeks. But you (and I) are old enough to remember that the Grreks are always rioting about something.
I think the EU is a lot like the USA. There are countries (that would be regions here) where the citizens are net savers and do not live above their means. Then there are countries (again, regions in the USA) where citizens routinely live above their means. Ultimately it seems the savers are called upon to bail out the spenders.
HDB
February 24th, 2010
9:43 am
Ragnar: here’s the question — WHY shouldn’t an institution that uses funds deposited in a certain community also SERVE that community by lending to it?? Banks made profits off of the assets of those in poor communities…..but won’t lend to those same account holders?? The CRA ensured that the LENDING occurred. Wihtout it, continual redlining in the real estate market would have occurred…..and the “Ownership Society” wouldn’t have been a possibility!! Expanding a market is what all corporations desire…to maximize profit!!
Laissez-faire economics does NOT always work…..for someone will eventually get screwed by discriminatory practices. Equal opportunity does not make equal results….that’s why insurance covers the risk!!
Gordon
February 24th, 2010
9:44 am
HDB, I haven’t heard many people on this blog give Republicans a free pass. Again, the difference between the two is small compared to what they propose and what needs to be proposed.
Bruno
February 24th, 2010
9:44 am
“For those who might be interested in that bigger picture, I’d ask you and others to have a look at the source of those first two charts, here:”
And what bigger picture might that be, sfd? The “point” of the article you linked was to claim that we have nothing to worry about, that we have had deficits in the past. However, when you look at the data from the past two years, I’d say we have a lot to worry about. Please enlighten us, assuming you have actually read the link.
Unemployed Forever
February 24th, 2010
9:44 am
“Spend less than what you earn”.
But, but, but…..I can’t do that without a job.
N-GA
February 24th, 2010
9:46 am
Ragnar…I guess that the CRA you remember is different than the one I was required to follow. My bank was never required to open a branch where we didn’t want to have a presence. And I was involved with every single bank audit performed by the Comptroller of the Currency on my bank. We never had a problem conforming to the CRA.
danjonglee
February 24th, 2010
9:46 am
A wonderful approval rating of 10% for our leftist congress that has controlled office since 2007
Gordon
February 24th, 2010
9:46 am
“WHY shouldn’t an institution that uses funds deposited in a certain community also SERVE that community by lending to it??”
Because it might not make economic sense to do so. And making decisions that don’t make economic sense is why we are having this discussion.
Proflavors
February 24th, 2010
9:48 am
There wasn’t supposed to be a 10+ years war in Iraq. Spending begets spending. (Since when has war ever written the economic history books, eh)?
Also, Greenspan has admitted that all of his (milk)Fed pronouncements about the non-farm economy were fairy tales told by a deluded Pied Piper. The sudden McCarthy-esque exposure of his role as an unwitting Madoff in front of a house subcommittee proved he did have a sense of decency, at long last. Greenspan’s face looked like the close up of Richard Widmark in the last frames of “The Bedford Incident”. (The World was coming to an end and it was his fault).
So we are left with a decent, broken man who didn’t steal our children.
He left us with the rats, though.
There never has been a correlation between debt and the economic cycle. This new mountain of debt and the recession are on different timelines intersecting only co-incidentally. Like the way Sunni and Shia Islam intersect cartographically.
@@
February 24th, 2010
9:48 am
jay, who is this “WE” of which you speak. Can’t count me and mine among the stupid. It’s cash and carry with us.
The Democrats, for the most part, are the ones who send out the message “You are entitled” and stupid people buy it with no cash-in-hand? Gambling addicts…
my husband never plays poker with money he can’t afford to lose. More often than not, he wins, but he takes into account, those sitting at the table (young family men) who are in over their heads. He walks away with words of advice….
“Are you willing to gamble away your kids’ future? If so, I’m won’t be the one taking it from them, you will.”
Never gamble with the government. They run the house.
Paul
February 24th, 2010
9:51 am
N-GA
“The Greeks are always rioting about something.”
My first laugh of the day – thanks!
As far as savers called upon to bail out spenders – look at what’s going on with the states. Disclaimer: some states do have reasons that hit them harder despite their fiscal policies – states with aging populations who have lots of Medicare costs shifted to them from Washington. Lots of people didn’t really look at why Sen Nelson pressed for that deal for Nebraska.
But the states – so many that refuse to do significant restructuring or that (not my original thought, here) look at the purpose of government as providing benefits for state workers – who then look at citizens in other states to absorb their debt, especially when those citizens have lived without the programs enjoyed by other states…. well, I think there’s a real potential to further harden attitudes and to increase the animosity between people, not decrease it.
jt
February 24th, 2010
9:51 am
N-GA-Said————-
“And I was involved with every single bank audit performed by the Comptroller of the Currency on my bank. We never had a problem conforming to the CRA.”
Wow. Maybe THAT is what happened. What time frame was this?
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
February 24th, 2010
9:53 am
N-GA
So the government only forced banks located in depressed areas to make sub-prime loans. And that makes it the banks at fault for moving into the depressed areas.
Well, we are learning our lesson now. Never give poor people the same conveniences that other people have. I guess this also applies to grocery stores and big box stores.
Wow, you democrats sure know how to keep “your people” in line.
stands for decibels
February 24th, 2010
9:54 am
The “point” of the article you linked was to claim that we have nothing to worry about
If that’s what you think its point was, I think maybe you should re-read it.
It attempted to spell out where the revenues come from, and addressed mandatory spending as an important issue. In fact, here was Conclusion #3:
2.) While mandatory spending has remained constant as a percent of GDP, it’s increase to about 60% of the current federal budget is perhaps the biggest problem the US faces going forward. And as the percentage increase in medicare payments indicates, medical payments are a primary reason for the problems the country faces at the federal fiscal level.
Reading this, it would seem the prudent thing to do would be to address medicare payments, presumably through some kind of comprehensive healthcare insurance reform.
Bubba
February 24th, 2010
9:54 am
I was under the impression that the Great Housing Collapse had a little something to do with the recession. The government certainly shares some blame for that.
Les
February 24th, 2010
9:54 am
Myopic government policies forced onto everyone caused most of the problems.
There’s too many to list.
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
February 24th, 2010
9:56 am
HDB
**Clinton’s eight years produced the first SURPLUS since the 60s…**
That would be one of the few promises that Newt made that he was able to keep. The Republican Congress balanced the budget for four years,
Jimmy Carter
February 24th, 2010
9:57 am
“THE WORST: 10% SAY CONGRESS DOING GOOD JOB ”
But it’s not the govts fault, right?
stands for decibels
February 24th, 2010
9:57 am
ok, so it was really Conclusion #2.
gotta run. Don’t bankrupt anyone while I’m away.
Soothsayer
February 24th, 2010
9:59 am
the BALLOONING of national expenditures happened during Reagan’s FIRST term, when he QUADRUPLED the deficit to $166B in his FIRST YEAR.
Great observation, HDB. For those around during that period and for those who are familiar with history, will recall that Reagan’s economic advisor–Arthur Laffer–theorized that there existed a “revenue-maximizing” tax rate. This “revenue-maximizing” tax rate was, of course, lower than the current rate.
So, Reagan and Congress reduced the tax rates. This coupled with a dramatic increase in military spending resulted in greatly increased deficits. So much so that during the Reagan presidency more debt was incurred than ALL OF THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED.
The upward trajectory of deficits continued through Reagan’s 2 terms and GHWB’s one term. Only during Clinton’s presidency did we see a change in the amount of deficit spending. Not so much because of Clinton but because of an increase in taxes AND a reduction in spending. Remember “Contract with America?” So, Clinton cannot take all the credit.
Of course this was immediately reversed when GWB came into office. One his first acts was to pass a tax cut for the richest Americans. And the upward deficit spiral continued.
Now that the wheels have fallen off the economy, tax revenues are down dramatically. But spending has not fallen. The result? Monumental deficits. Unfortunately, we–as a country–must make some painful choices because we cannot continue on the path we are on.
tscali
February 24th, 2010
10:05 am
soothsayer, the democratic party is not in the habit of forcing their supporters to make painful choices.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 24th, 2010
10:08 am
Dear N-GA and HDB, I do not doubt the sincerity of your belief about the purposes of CRA and its immediate predecessor, the entirely worthless HMDA. But both statutes are founded on an unreal economic assumption, that credit needs are consistent among individuals and communities.
Quite the contrary, young people have the greatest need for external sources of credit. Have to buy a house, have to buy a car, have to get a line of credit to finance receivables, have to pay for the kids’s education. Older people, who have paid for their needs over a lifetime of work, have practically no need for credit – they pay cash for the new car, or to replace the toilet in the bathroom, or to buy a new mattress.
Housing patterns develop similarly – neighborhoods normally reflect an age consistency. Some neighborhoods are populated mostly by old folks, who never borrow anything, and some neighborhoods are populated by younger people with substantial credit needs.
Bankers are fundamentally lazy; while they would prefer to lend money only to older people who have no credit needs – they would thus not have to worry about repayment – that market does not exist. Thus the bank loans follow the population. However, a bank with has a paucity of loans in a geographic area peopled with older non-borrowers will be punished by regulators, for “failure to serve all of its community.” So the bank is compelled to seek out comparatively poorer risks in those areas with lesser credit needs just to keep the bureaucrats at bay. One could reasonably call the laws a “stupid and meaningless interference with the market.”
Jenifer
February 24th, 2010
10:11 am
Did the Baptists ever get out of jail?
TnGelding
February 24th, 2010
10:13 am
It was all unnecessary. The tax changes set the tone and the “ownership society” sealed the deal. Throw in greed, fraud and incompetence and you have the perfect storm. And President Bush almost got out of office before the first rains started, but he wasn’t as lucky as Reagan.
Rightwing Troll
February 24th, 2010
10:15 am
Why nut sacks have a credibility problem: (well… one of many reasons…)
“Stout had earlier confirmed that he also had an extra-marital affair, with his first wife’s mother, 10 years ago. He and his first wife divorced, and Stout remarried in 2005.”
Ladies and Gents (and trolls) I present to you the replacement for Glenn and his Richard…
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 24th, 2010
10:17 am
Dear Soothsayer @ 9:59, the whole truth requires one to note those truths that would affect one’s calculus. I think we have not dispute that national defense is an appropriate, even a Constitutional, obligation of the central government. While you aptly note that the Reagan administration rebuilt a depleted military – seems we always have a depleted military after a democrat administration – you fail to discuss the unnecessary spending habits of the Congresses of that period. How did Congress do on unnecessary spending.
As to your silly note on tax cuts, we would surely agree that Federal revenues rose after the Laffer cut; Incontrovertible. There was no other meaningful change in that morbund economy to cause a rise in revenues, so I am willing to grant the obvious, that tax cuts led to larger revenues due to the improved business conditions. Rising tide lifting all boats, you know the aphorism. Perhaps we would agree that there is presently nothing coming out of this administration that would raise a tide.
Rightwing Troll
February 24th, 2010
10:17 am
soothsayer, the democratic party is not in the habit of forcing their supporters to make painful choices.
and neither is the Republican party…
Rightwing Troll
February 24th, 2010
10:19 am
“Perhaps we would agree that there is presently nothing coming out of this administration that would raise a tide.”
Only if we can agree the tide was receding or well out to sea for years before this administration took office.
Curious Observer
February 24th, 2010
10:20 am
Did the Baptists ever get out of jail?
Reuters reported yesterday that the judge in the case would soon release the two remaining jailed Baptists, citing the lack of criminal intent as the reason. The release itself will probably happen this week.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 24th, 2010
10:23 am
Dear Toll @ 10:17, agreed, as I documented an hour ago. Speaker Pelosi blew the fizz out of the champaign almost two years before Chauncey was elected. While government acts cannot create productive jobs, government acts certainly can destroy them. And she did.
RW-(the original)
February 24th, 2010
10:23 am
The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that new home sales dropped 11.2 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual sales pace of 309,000 units, the lowest level on records going back nearly a half century. The big drop was a surprise to economists who had expected sales would rebound to an annual rate of 360,000 units.WaPO
There is one thing about these various releases that seems to be consistent. The “economists” are always taken by surprise by the numbers, whether it’s housing, unemployment, economic expansion or decline, and it doesn’t seem to make any difference whether the numbers were good or bad, they always shock the people we continue to trust about these things. Why do we continue to pay any attention to them?
I’ll play economist for a second. Spend less than you take in and encourage everyone else to as well. Once we get everybody, including our absurdly bloated government, on that page we’ll be fine.
Curious Observer
February 24th, 2010
10:24 am
that tax cuts led to larger revenues due to the improved business conditions. Rising tide lifting all boats.
A misleading statement if ever I saw one. Go look at the year-by-year revenue picture, Ragnar. For every dollar in tax cuts, the federal government realized a 9-cent increase in tax revenue. I have an offer for you, if you think this is good: give me 100 bucks of your money each year and I’ll give you 9 bucks each year. Deal?
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 24th, 2010
10:27 am
Dear RW @ 10:23, suspect you are quoting AP. Their economists are always surprised by bad economic news in the throes of leftist policies, and their economists are always surprised by good economic news when conservatives are constraining the government. Nevertheless, you have a future as an economist, just not one who would ever be quoted by AP.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 24th, 2010
10:28 am
Dear Curious, I think you yet do not appreciate the role of psychology in economic planning by the private economy. Do you seriously think a businessman will plan expansion when threatened with tax increases?
tscali
February 24th, 2010
10:29 am
**and neither is the Republican party…**
the republican party is looking for their supporters to stimulate the economy, not the government. conservatives are the only ones who can.
N-GA
February 24th, 2010
10:30 am
Ragnar,
Different bankers have have different tolerances for risk. There are those who only make good (low interest) loans at the possible expense of higher profits. Then there are those who make high margin loans in an attempt to make more profit while moderating low margin loans. Meanwhile many banks were taking “idle” funds and investing them in anything risky they could get away with. They were also knowingly breaking the rules that restricted lending to specific borrowers (who “hid” their identities by having more than 1 company, a development corp and a construction company). This practice has been commonplace in community banks (the category with the highest insolvency rate).
Many bankers also showed they lacked common sense by lending excessively to a single market (retail and commercial property/development). As a direct consequence, the banks floundered when the industry bubble burst. They should have “spread the risk” by loaning to many markets. Kinda like investment advisors tell their clients to diversify their portfolios.
All this was exacerbated by the standard banking industry practice of paying loan officers bonuses based on “production”. This was the same stupid practice used for mortgage brokers. The line people were incented to bring in loans and the more senior people were incented to approve them. Iy doesn’t take a Harvard economist to figure out how well that worked.
BTW, many banks in the mid-West pay their loan officers salaries and review their performance annually by examining loan production AND loan performance! A novel idea that also may suggest why banks there aren’t imploding by the dozens.
Rightwing Troll
February 24th, 2010
10:31 am
“Dear Toll @ 10:17, agreed, as I documented an hour ago. Speaker Pelosi blew the fizz out of the champaign almost two years before Chauncey was elected. While government acts cannot create productive jobs, government acts certainly can destroy them. And she did.”
Ahhh, of course the old fallback, Nasty Pelosi did it… Even though W could’ve vetoed any budget she put in front of him, it’s her fault, and by extension mine for not supporting W.
Got it.
Sam
February 24th, 2010
10:31 am
cant belive this CRA drumbeat is still being played, i’m sure hannity probably mentions it 5 times a day. the ‘banks’ involved in the mortgage meltdown were not the community banks covered by CRA…Investment Banks are a completely different story….like everything else its an easy target to lay the blame. greedy mortgage brokers, mortgage-backed securities run amok, ratings agencies, amateur real esate investors stupid borrowers, there’s where the blame lies….CRA is way, way down the list if its even on the list…but again its a good sound bite for people to repeat (over and over and over and over……)
Scooter
February 24th, 2010
10:33 am
RW-(the original)
February 24th, 2010
10:23 am
That makes too much sense RW. It will never happen!
Kamchak
February 24th, 2010
10:35 am
http://imgsrv.gocomics.com/dim/?fh=70377a866f4d496a832e764f757e9efd&w=900.0
Sam
February 24th, 2010
10:35 am
why are the baptists in jail?
Rightwing Troll
February 24th, 2010
10:36 am
“the republican party is looking for their supporters to stimulate the economy”
God help us all if they get to “stimulate” our economy any more. W’s 8 years were enough to bring us to the edge of the precipice.
Just as the voters in Paulding county have recently proven to us, “conservatives” don’t learn from past mistakes any better than liburals. Not that we needed that lesson reinforced (again)…
RW-(the original)
February 24th, 2010
10:36 am
Ragnar,
The WaPo email alert did in fact come from an AP dispatch. Look at this other nugget the full story contains.
The January decline will heighten fears about the fledgling recovery in housing. Economists were already worried that an improvement in sales in the second half of last year could falter as various government support programs are withdrawn.
Never blow the opportunity to claim we need more government intrusion and miss the fact that government tricks just shift the buying cycles artificially I guess.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/24/AR2010022402108.html?hpid=topnews
Rightwing Troll
February 24th, 2010
10:37 am
Sam,
The better question is why do you always take more than one southern baptist fishing with you?
Sam
February 24th, 2010
10:37 am
“The CRA prevents banks from opening profitable branches if they fail to harvest poor communities sufficiently”
not sure who sad this but its completely false….
Sam
February 24th, 2010
10:38 am
i dont know Troll, why do you always take more than one southern baptist fishin with you?
Rightwing Troll
February 24th, 2010
10:39 am
Cause if you take only one, he’ll drink all your beer…
N-GA
February 24th, 2010
10:40 am
Regarding federal revenues increasing after tax cuts, this is a myth for the most part. The portion of federal revenues that increase are the result of reductions in Capital Gains taxes. I think most would agree that the wealthy benefit most when Capital Gains tax rates are reduced. When that reduction occurs, people rush to realize (sell) their gains (at a lower tax rate), thus paying more to the government. For example, if Donald Trump owned a NYC building that he had purchased several years earlier for $200 million (when LT Capital Gains rate was 20%) and sold it for $350 million (when the LT Capital Gains rate was 15%), look how much money he saved. But federal revenues went up.
Sam
February 24th, 2010
10:41 am
i went to a southern baptist wedding a few years ago….no booze, no music, no dinner. it sucked! are all baptist weddings this lame?
RW-(the original)
February 24th, 2010
10:44 am
…look how much money he saved. But federal revenues went up.
So we should forego something that brings more money into the treasury just so that evil, rich Donald Trump won’t make more money?
Geez, I guess we’ve reached Silly Hour on the day shift, so I’m going to head to the forest. See y’all this evening.
MrLiberty
February 24th, 2010
10:45 am
Let’s start by pointing everyone in the direction of a wonderful economics site that will give everyone the eduation they actually need to see through all the lies – mises.org.
It is not unfair to blame the goverment. They created the Federal Reserve which has the ability to control the money supply and interest rates (rather than a sound monetary system with market based interest rates). The result has been cheap credit, horrible interest rates on savings (so no savings) and an easy route for government to expand its deficit spending. Everything you point out ties all back to the Fed.
Greed and stupidity are always going to be with us. You don’t encourage it by creating an organization like the Fed to destroy the dollar, destroy savings, and allow the government to run amok with deficits. The free market did not create this problem. We do not have a free market and anyone who suggests we do is both a liar and completely misinformed. The Federal Reserve is blatantly inconsistent with a free market. End The Fed.
Disgusted
February 24th, 2010
10:54 am
Sam
February 24th, 2010
10:41 am
i went to a southern baptist wedding a few years ago….no booze, no music, no dinner. it sucked! are all baptist weddings this lame?
I don’t know whether all are, but I went to one last summer. No expense had been spared in renting a luxurious facility, providing great food for a dinner (salmon and filet mignon), and offering a band for the music. But nary a drop of alcohol anywhere. Sounds like you got hosed. I at least had good music (but no dancing permissible) and a fine dinner.
N-GA
February 24th, 2010
10:54 am
Darn RW….is that what I said?
N-GA
February 24th, 2010
10:56 am
RW….the problem (since you need it spelled out to you) is that cutting income taxes doesn’t increase revenues. It actually decreases revenues.
Curious Observer
February 24th, 2010
11:00 am
the problem (since you need it spelled out to you) is that cutting income taxes doesn’t increase revenues. It actually decreases revenues.
But . . . but . . . didn’t you read what Ragnar wrote about the psychology of businessmen? I mean, sure, you lose money big-time, but the people running the businesses and getting the tax cuts feel great about it.
John
February 24th, 2010
11:01 am
Nice try.
Here are the facts: Bush suggesrted reigning in the derivatives. He actually supported gov’t regulation. It was the Dem Congress that blew it.
Look, there’s a very easy fix to the current problem. But, the Dems don’t want to do anything that suggests giving a break to corps or the wealthy. They have substituted the old tired race warfare with class warfare. Where it used to a a white v. black thing, to the Dems today it’s all about the haves v the have-nots. That’s been their game for decades and frankly I’m sick of it. Why don’t you write a column about that? You blast the GOP and Bush at every chance. Why not show a little credibility by blasting the Dems?
The easy fix? Replace the income tax with a sales tax. That would fix the current financial and employment problem almost immediately. If Obama really was all about change (and if he really is as smart as some believe) he should move in this direction (over the screams of the liberals). Often, the most complex issues have the simplest solutions. This is one of them.
Sam
February 24th, 2010
11:04 am
yeah no dancing either….why can baptists drink while fishing but not at weddings? someone shouldve told me this…i didnt even like the guy that much, i figured ‘hey a wedding at least I’ll get drunk and rub up on some girls on the dance floor’ boy was i surprised…the cereminy took longer than the reception….i blame our current economic probelms on southern baptist weddings
Kamchak
February 24th, 2010
11:05 am
The easy fix? Replace the income tax with a sales tax.
Another FairTaxer?
Oy to the vey.
Sam
February 24th, 2010
11:06 am
n-GA, you’re making good, sensible points based on fact. you are in the wrong place brother…talking points, misinformation, lies…thats what takes the day around here…
Rightwing Troll
February 24th, 2010
11:06 am
Sales tax. Right. Like I, as a small business owner, want to be forced to become a tax collector for the fed. Running a small business is hard enough without that with just trying to get those wonderful and pristine corporations to pay thier bills to the small businesses that support them. Now I need to become a tax collector and IRS agent…
john
February 24th, 2010
11:08 am
Wow, I have to eat my words. Jay, I think you are dead on here. I work in the financial services industry as a financial planner. I can’t tell you how many times I have/do meet clients in there homes and they are telling me how important it is to save for Suzy and Johnnie’s education and retirment is really, really important!!
Meanwhile, they have 4 flat screen tv’s everywhere in the home and when I mention we need to save $200 a month, they look at me in disbelief as if I’m asking for thousands!! That’s the problem….everyone wants there toys now, but don’t want to save now!!
John Birch
February 24th, 2010
11:09 am
Contrary to Rag’s rants, the CRA did not ‘compel’ a single bank to make a single sub-prime loan. CRA from inception in 1977 until today never mandated a single sub prime loan. 50% of sub primes were made by independent mortgage companies, 25% by partially regulated subsidiaries and affiliates, and only about 1 in 4 by fully regulated banks.
And non-CRA loans wound up in default twice as often. However, the CRA did ‘encourage’ sub-prime lending. If the bank wanted to open more branches or engage in certain merger and acquisitions they had to make CRA zip code loans (but not necessarily sub-prime).
The real fault of government is the failure to regulate, allowing commerical and investment banks to load their portfolios with mortgage-backed securities, allowing AIG to load up on CDS’s, allowing CDS’s in the first place when no one really understood the risk. Greenspan at the Fed, congressional banking committee members, and Dugan, the Comptroller of the Currency should have been the gatekeepers, and they failed horribly.
md
February 24th, 2010
11:09 am
“Why nut sacks have a credibility problem: (well… one of many reasons…)”
And the irony continues, but seems to be lost on this individual.
From the desk of Phil Gramm
February 24th, 2010
11:09 am
U B Suckers. The swiss sure know how to welcome a fella. I would send a postcard but… .
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
February 24th, 2010
11:10 am
Oh yeah, government has never, ever unduly influenced the housing market, why, of course not-
A $1.25 trillion program from the Federal Reserve which has held down mortgage rates is set to end March 31 and tax credits to bolster home buying are scheduled to expire at the end of April.
However, the big news from that same article-
The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that new home sales dropped 11.2 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual sales pace of 309,000 units, the lowest level on records going back nearly a half century. The big drop was a surprise to economists who had expected sales would rise about 5 percent over December’s pace.
Let’s say that “Bookman’s economists expected,” shall we?
N-GA
February 24th, 2010
11:12 am
John,
Too bad things aren’t that simple. Kinda like solving world hunger or achieving peace in our time.
There are those who make minimum wage and spend 100% of their income on necessities (the price of those necessities would rise to cover this replacement tax). Too bad for them.
Meanwhile the very, very rich would spend perhaps 10% of their incomes (taxable with the new tax) and invest the rest. They would pay no taxes on 90% of their initial income, nor any tax on the investment profits. Also, they would pay no US taxes on goods they purchase in foreign countries (real estate, cars, luxury items, etc.) as long as they left them there. So their incentive is to have a second (or third) residence in another country and buy goods there. That way its not spent in the USA and subject to the new tax. Maybe they could buy a cabin in Canada, then a car too. License it in Canada and drive it across the border and…..you get the picture.
Not so “simple”, huh?
Bud Wiser
February 24th, 2010
11:12 am
Meanwhile, as Obowo and his congressional dullards slog forward toward their desired dominance of the health care plan, the Associated Press just reports that January new home construction reportedly fell by 11.2%.
Follow this progression, please; all facts, no bull:
1. Americans want jobs, they think they need them, everything about their lives revolves around the ability to bring home a paycheck and support their families (in some places, that is)
2. Obowo and the dimwittocrats still push forward on an issue that has already cost them dearly in 3 state elections, pushing like nothing happened…health care;
3. The dull witted leftists like Bill Maher and others go on national TV, and say (Maher on Larry King) “Americans are stupid…”, they know not what they want.
4. Americans do not particularly think they are stupid, in fact, they have already reversed controlling political party s in 2 states gubernatorial elections, one in the Senate.
5. The Democrats plod along their merry suicidal way, like nothing has changed;
6. Question: who is the stupid collection here, a huge number of average or above Americans, or an elitist set of politicians, so disorganized and ignorant that they could not even ram through 1 significant piece of legislation when they had numbers just too large to defeat, the ubiquitous ’super majority’?
I know you leftists will whine and bleat and obfuscate, because facts just scare you to death.
Sam
February 24th, 2010
11:13 am
You Report, We Ignore
Proflavors
February 24th, 2010
11:13 am
CNN just reported that Evil Kneivel Jr. has signed with Caesar’s Palace in Vegas to drive a Toyota through a Drive-in Restaurant and order a hotdog.
Lloyd’s of London refuse to insure the crazy suicide stunt.
Rightwing Troll
February 24th, 2010
11:13 am
Au Contraire Mon Ami,
I zeroed in on the irony quite nicely.
Such as: It’s ironic that folks such as yourself constantly decry the current state of affairs, when you helped to create said state as much as anyone out there… doesn’t get much more ironic than that.
Crenshaw8
February 24th, 2010
11:16 am
Why do libs always resort to ridicule of baptists? Is it because the light that Bookman has shined on them is too glaring?
BLINDED BY THE LIGHT like a deer caught in headlights.
md
February 24th, 2010
11:17 am
“when you helped to create said state as much as anyone out there…”
Care to explain your rationale on that one?
These assumptions should be good, so fire away.
USinUK
February 24th, 2010
11:19 am
Bud – not new home construction (which was actually up), new home SALES … which, given the crap weather during January, isn’t a surprise
Sam
February 24th, 2010
11:19 am
crenshaw, baptists are okay its their weddings that suck..
md
February 24th, 2010
11:20 am
“Why do libs always resort to ridicule of baptists?”
Some folks are of the intolerant tolerant persuasion, the scary part is they can’t see it.
Kamchak
February 24th, 2010
11:20 am
50% of sub primes were made by independent mortgage companies, 25% by partially regulated subsidiaries and affiliates, and only about 1 in 4 by fully regulated banks.
Not really
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.
Rightwing Troll
February 24th, 2010
11:22 am
Who did you support in the last 3 national election cycles?
USinUK
February 24th, 2010
11:22 am
“baptists are okay its their weddings that suck”
man. no kidding. I mean, mints and peanuts – you call THAT a reception???
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
February 24th, 2010
11:23 am
N-GA
**Meanwhile the very, very rich would spend perhaps 10% of their incomes (taxable with the new tax) and invest the rest. They would pay no taxes on 90% of their initial income, nor any tax on the investment profits. Also, they would pay no US taxes on goods they purchase in foreign countries (real estate, cars, luxury items, etc.) as long as they left them there. So their incentive is to have a second (or third) residence in another country and buy goods there. That way its not spent in the USA and subject to the new tax. Maybe they could buy a cabin in Canada, then a car too. License it in Canada and drive it across the border and…..you get the picture.**
Yep. Them rich people suck. It’s all their fault Let’s tax the crap out of them and that will make everything OK.
Thank goodness that we have a government that knows who the really bad people are. And all those limousine millionaires that infest the democratic Party? they are GOOD rich people because they believe that they are bad.
Down with rich people. The govment is fixin to fix everything.
Someday we will be a god country with health insurance for everybody. You know, like Cuba.
USinUK
February 24th, 2010
11:23 am
hey kam – turns out Cole’s £400K fine isn’t just for having an affair, it’s for breaking the rules and bringing girls back to his room during away games …
like I said – there isn’t enough penicillin in the world that would make me want to touch him … ew.
md
February 24th, 2010
11:25 am
“Who did you support in the last 3 national election cycles?”
You ask the question after you presume to know the answer?
There in lies your truth.
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
February 24th, 2010
11:26 am
USinUK
**man. no kidding. I mean, mints and peanuts – you call THAT a reception???**
Yes, but it’s really fast. A catholic wedding will take over an hour. You can marry the entire congregation of a Baptist church in an hour.
I say: Say the vows, eat the mints and peanuts and head out. Time’s a wastin’.
From the desk of Phil Gramm
February 24th, 2010
11:28 am
I didn’t do nothing wrong. Go Dawgs.
Scout
February 24th, 2010
11:29 am
Headline: “Obama & Dems in 2005: 51 Vote ‘Nuclear Option’ Is ‘Arrogant’ Power Grab Against the Founder’s Intent…”
Hummmmm ………….. until “you” get in office.
md
February 24th, 2010
11:29 am
I say skip the wedding and use the money on starting a life together with less debt.
Kamchak
February 24th, 2010
11:30 am
hey kam – turns out Cole’s £400K fine isn’t just for having an affair, it’s for breaking the rules and bringing girls back to his room during away games
Yeah, I figured it was a morals clause kinda thing, but if I put on my Blue Lions fan cap, I can look past that kinda thing while the team is at the top of the table.
Meanwhile it looks as if Cheryl has kicked him to the curb.