Would Romney-nomics differ from Bush-nomics?
2004 AP file photo
Let’s chat, shall we? Let’s have a serious discussion of how we got in this rough economy, and what our approach should be going forward. And let’s begin with this, a chart compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics documenting job loss or gain since 2008:
As the chart documents, when President Obama took office in late January of 2009, he did so at the peak of a historic collapse in the U.S. job market that had begun a year earlier. In just four months — November and December of 2008 and January and February of 2009 — 3 million Americans lost their jobs, which is more than had been lost in the entire 1981-83 recession. All told, before things could be turned around, 8.7 million Americans were put out of work in the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Here’s another way to look at it, also from BLS:
Now: Here’s the question that ought to dominate the political discussion in the next six months:
What would lead you to believe that returning to the policies that were in effect under President Bush — lower taxes, particularly on the wealthy (the “producers,” if you choose); more defense spending; a loose regulatory rein on Wall Street — will produce a better outcome than it did the first time around?
What evidence — and blind ideological faith is not evidence — can you cite to justify an argument that this time it would be different?
UPDATE: In comments below, Jack mentions the collapse of the construction industry. Because it’s a point of particular concern here in the Atlanta area, I’ll post the following chart. Note that the upsurge in construction related work begins in 2003 and peaks in early 2006.
– Jay Bookman
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
535 comments Add your comment
Mighty Righty
June 11th, 2012
12:16 pm
Isn’t it funny how the very people who preach “tax cuts” don’t stimulate the economy, are now screaming that if the Bush tax cuts and the Obama’s tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of this year, our economy will be plunged back into a recession?
GT
June 11th, 2012
12:16 pm
The problem now with any economic model is we have legitimized the system with our bailouts and the unpredicted results of banks that were being bailed out not reinvesting that money into the economy. This was a Bush invention thrown at the nation with a ransom note and 24 hours to respond. If was pushed by the banks that put us in the mud in the first place, given very little discussion and will be a misspelled tattoo forever.
stands for decibels
June 11th, 2012
12:16 pm
What Rags says:
the credible threat, by Nancy Pelosi in December 2006 of nonrenewal of the Bush tax cuts was alone sufficient to throw the economy into reverse.
What people hear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL1Xt3T9ZnY
UNCLE SAMANTHA
June 11th, 2012
12:16 pm
jay
the economic crisis began in the CLINTON administration when your boys RUBIN, GREENSPAN, SUMMERS and GEITNER squashed BROOKSLEY BORN whe she pointed out the GROWING DANGER of the deriviative and cds markets and their need for oversight with the help of GRAHAM and the Republican Congress
Lord Help Us
June 11th, 2012
12:16 pm
‘It can’t possibly play out untill all the facts are on the table. Someone withholding evidense is certainly criminal in my opinion….’
Opinions are like…oh, nevermind…at least you admit it is an opinion.
Jay
June 11th, 2012
12:17 pm
And Moosa, thanks for that data. I didn’t FRED had those numbers (although they don’t break out civilian from military).
For example, the 51K increase in total fed employment under Obama includes 106K in defense and homeland security approved before he took office. The Bush numbers are probably similarly skewed by additional military manpower.
ragnar danneskjold
June 11th, 2012
12:17 pm
Dear Both @ 12:11, think you misread. The Bush tax cuts were enacted with an expiration date – due to the presence of leftists with typical economics-deficiencies in the 2001 Congress (and their control of the Senate) – the tax cuts were enabled only through a compromise, on that created an expiration date. Those long-term tax cuts had they normal beneficial effect on the economy, and it was Ms. Pelosi’s credible threat, to allow the cuts to expire, that crippled economic growth and caused the immediate implosion of the housing bubble.
They BOTH suck
June 11th, 2012
12:17 pm
Rags
Community Investment act is one story. Banks giving zero down loans and people taking them another. The derivative game being played with bundled mortgages as if they were going to go up forever had nothing to do with the Community Act and is yet another story
UNCLE SAMANTHA
June 11th, 2012
12:18 pm
congress
2007-2011
worst 2 congresses ever financially
democrat controlled
speaker of the house- nancy PE-LOUSY
Brosephus™
June 11th, 2012
12:19 pm
Copying and pasting from some left wing blog really don’t help your case… Just saying…
LOL!!!! You’re talking about helping a case? Let me know when you actually get one, then tell me how mine can be helped. Regardless to where the information comes from, a direct quote of someone saying something is just that, a direct quote. Can you show me proof that Romney did NOT say those exact words? Post your proof when you can. Otherwise, go buy you a case so you can help your own as you just killed yours with that crap.
ragnar danneskjold
June 11th, 2012
12:19 pm
Dear Jay @ 12:10, perhaps we can agree that leftists always laugh at rational economics, or otherwise assume that overlord behavior has no measureable effect on the private economy (that’s what it is doing so well, you understand.) Did you both to digest the Higgs quote? Think he nailed it.
UNCLE SAMANTHA
June 11th, 2012
12:20 pm
JAY
do you give credit to Obama for pulling troops out of IRAQ or do you credit BUSH under whose administration the agreement for withdrawal was signed?
was wondering if blame/credit is applied evenly
ragnar danneskjold
June 11th, 2012
12:20 pm
Dear Both @ 12:17, disagree. CRA was the cause, derivatives were the effect.
Tom Middleton
June 11th, 2012
12:20 pm
Well, if the purpose of our government is to help the rich get richer while we middle class and poor do worse or stay the same, then Romney-nomics would be the reasonable choice, right? I mean, what is it President Clinton said, Romney’s policies would be Bush’s on steroids? God please help us before it gets too late!
Lord Help Us
June 11th, 2012
12:21 pm
‘ it was Ms. Pelosi’s credible threat, to allow the cuts to expire, that crippled economic growth and caused the immediate implosion of the housing bubble.’
It had nothing…NOTHING to do with CDS’s and enormous gambles from AIG, Lehman, GS, BAC, etc…
At least Joseph admits his overblown rhetoric is opinion…you, not so much…
Don't Forget
June 11th, 2012
12:22 pm
Dear Both @ 12:17, disagree. CRA was the cause, derivatives were the effect.
You mean the CRA that was enacted in 1978?
UNCLE SAMANTHA
June 11th, 2012
12:22 pm
AND WHAT ELSE DID CLINTON SAY
I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN
(FINGER POINT AND WAVE)
Joseph
June 11th, 2012
12:22 pm
It’s a simple decision come November. Do you want a community organizer for President or a man with a sterling business record to lead us out of this economic mess?
Lord Help Us
June 11th, 2012
12:23 pm
‘do you give credit to Obama for pulling troops out of IRAQ or do you credit BUSH under whose administration the agreement for withdrawal was signed?’
Your question ignores the reasons we went to Iraq in the first place…should have never gone.
Williebkind
June 11th, 2012
12:23 pm
Brosephus™
June 11th, 2012
12:10 pm
He said we need more “fireman”–What about volunteers?
We need more “policeman”–not really if you start charging OWS for its violations.
We need more “teachers”–not a problem just make them pay for their own retirement like everyone else and pay for performance.
We need more “government workers(federal workers)”–Yeah Vegas will love you dems even more!
Erwin's cat
June 11th, 2012
12:23 pm
TM – “Well, if the purpose of our government is to help the rich get richer while we middle class and poor do worse or stay the same, then Romney-nomics would be the reasonable choice, right?”
Where have you been the last 3 years?
UNCLE SAMANTHA
June 11th, 2012
12:24 pm
THE FINANCIAL CRISIS WAS CAUSED BY BOTH PARTIES TOGETHER ALONG WITH. WALL STREET, CORPORATE AMERICA AND A WILLING CITIZENRY
WE ALL HAVE RESPONSIBILITY
Jeffrey
June 11th, 2012
12:24 pm
“Reagan proved that when he engineered the biggest and most effective economic boom that this country has ever seen and he did it by lowering taxes, letting the private sector solve it’s own problems and getting out of the way.”
Actually Kayaker, Reagan pumped billions into the economy by defiect spending on a massive military buildup,that is classic Keynesian economics.
Also the greatest economic boom was the post WWII era when Democratic programs built the middle class.Your side has done nothing but attack the middle class since Nixon.
Lord Help Us
June 11th, 2012
12:24 pm
‘CRA was the cause, derivatives were the effect.’
Complete, utter, BS…
Jay
June 11th, 2012
12:25 pm
“Those long-term tax cuts had they normal beneficial effect on the economy, and it was Ms. Pelosi’s credible threat, to allow the cuts to expire, that crippled economic growth and caused the immediate implosion of the housing bubble.”
Rags, the expiration date of those tax cuts was the end of 2010.
So your attempted explanation is that a mention by Pelosi in 2006 that the tax cuts might be allowed to expire four years later caused an otherwise strong economy to experience an historic collapse?
That’s your logical, hard-headed, facts-based assessment, huh?
You came closer to the truth — as in, the same universe as the truth — in your surely accidental admission that the housing bubble was in fact a bubble.
You see, bubbles ALWAYS burst. Always always always. Even without Nancy Pelosi.
Williebkind
June 11th, 2012
12:25 pm
Lord Help Us
June 11th, 2012
12:23 pm
“Your question ignores the reasons we went to Iraq in the first place…should have never gone.”
That really shows how informed you are!
Mighty Righty
June 11th, 2012
12:25 pm
Did anyone notice the president’s non news conference on Friday, the president said he was offended at the “notion” that someone in the white house would leak classified information but he did not say it wasn’t the truth? Being offended at the “notion” is not a denial. Then Friday night, he appointed Eric Holder to investogate the leaks. Who is to say Holder isn’t the leaker? The fact that the Justice Department is doing the investigation places a legal bar stopping the Senate or House from obtaining documents or interviewing witnesses. Coincidence? I think not. This is a deliberate move by the white house to keep us from knowing the truth and to protect the leakers from prosecution.
UNCLE SAMANTHA
June 11th, 2012
12:25 pm
LORD
it goes to the root of all the arguments both sides WHINE AND CRY ABOUT
do you apply evenly the credit/blame?
the answer is neither side does
yall blame the other side if its negative……… but take credit if its positive
stop the deflection
try introspection
They BOTH suck
June 11th, 2012
12:26 pm
Ok rags
No one was made to bundle loans and sell them over and over as if they would always go up.
But you believe as you wish, but at the end of the day NO LAW or REG made anyone play the derivative game. It was done out of greed. Plain and simple
For a smart man as yourself, you are attempting to fit the CRA into a nice little box where almost every if not every angle fits your narrative.
Even though it is not true, believe and think as you wish. World is much more complicated than just the typical right / left narrative both sides love to play and dumb down the masses with.
the cat
June 11th, 2012
12:26 pm
Why is Romney’s gubenatiorial record never put forth as his shining star? Oh wait, it was dismal.
Brosephus™
June 11th, 2012
12:26 pm
Joseph
Also
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/romney-obama-touch-private-sector-16526401
Go to about the 1:30 mark and tell me what that “liberal” blog attributed to Romney that he did not say. I dare you to prove that quote wrong…..
Jay
June 11th, 2012
12:26 pm
“THE FINANCIAL CRISIS WAS CAUSED BY BOTH PARTIES TOGETHER ALONG WITH WALL STREET, CORPORATE AMERICA AND A WILLING CITIZENRY
WE ALL HAVE RESPONSIBILITY”
That may be the first thing on which Sam and I agree.
ragnar danneskjold
June 11th, 2012
12:26 pm
Hey, Jay, inquiring minds want to know: when Nancy Pelosi proclaimed an end to the Bush tax cuts, why would any employer think about expanding his business? When Obamanomics threatened per employee fees, why would any employer keep any marginal employees? Do you seriously think the leftist looniness had no effect on those whose money is on the line?
Joseph
June 11th, 2012
12:26 pm
Brosephus™:
Only a fool would believe a lib. Give me some creditable video evidence or perhaps just audio. None can be produced because like libs do he is taken out of context. The Axelrod debacle this weekend on the morning shows certainly don’t help Barry or his case to be re-elected.
Madmax
June 11th, 2012
12:27 pm
what is it President Clinton said, Romney’s policies would be Bush’s on steroids?
Isn’t that the same president who said Romney had Sterling credentials to be president?
Lord Help Us
June 11th, 2012
12:27 pm
‘do you give credit to Obama for pulling troops out of IRAQ or do you credit BUSH under whose administration the agreement for withdrawal was signed?’
Or, better yet…it’s like setting someones house on fire and wanting credit for calling 911…
Steve
June 11th, 2012
12:27 pm
MightyRighty, go back to listening to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity…regurgitating their crap is a huge yawner.
Steve
June 11th, 2012
12:28 pm
No, Madmax, Clinton said Romney had a sterling BUSINESS career. Since when have good businessmen made good government leaders? Apples and oranges. Governments and businesses are NOT THE SAME THING.
Tom Middleton
June 11th, 2012
12:28 pm
That wasn’t a serious statement, Erwin’s cat; get a clue.
Oscar
June 11th, 2012
12:29 pm
the cat
June 11th, 2012
12:26 pm
———
It was the same for RR in California. He passed prop 1 which lead to lower taxes and deficit spending. Result lowered tax revenues and Califoria is still in a crisis becaure of what Ronnie did there as governor.
Joseph
June 11th, 2012
12:29 pm
Brosephus™
That’s the problem with liberals. Do you even understand the context of what he was talking about? LOL… You people are off your rocker… And you wonder why the shellacking took place in Wisconsin…
getalife
June 11th, 2012
12:29 pm
Wow, a con admitted a fact.
Lets celebrate.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
June 11th, 2012
12:31 pm
That really shows how informed you are!
Yeah, ’cause the smoking gun is the mushroom cloud.
Jm-pass TSPLOST unless you really love congestion
June 11th, 2012
12:31 pm
Joseph
Sterling business record please!
Jimmy62
June 11th, 2012
12:31 pm
According to that graph, it sure looks like Bush did a damn good job til the housing market collapsed, and that wasn’t really his fault. As a matter of fact, he is on record going to Congress and asking them to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So excluding the housing collapse, and excluding the bursting of the tech bubble, both of which were going to happen no matter who was President, Bush presided over a whole lot of job creation. Maybe Bush-enomics isn’t so bad.
Lord Help Us
June 11th, 2012
12:31 pm
‘when Nancy Pelosi proclaimed an end to the Bush tax cuts, why would any employer think about expanding his business?’
Because we ALL know that any good business man would rather not make ANY money than pay approximately 3% more in taxes…omfg…
Brosephus™
June 11th, 2012
12:32 pm
Williebkind
Why are you asking me? I simply posted proof of what That Black Guy was asking for. Take those questions to the candidates and not me. I’m not running for any office as I would probably not be very electable. You can’t really tell people to kiss your ass and then expect to win office.
ragnar danneskjold
June 11th, 2012
12:32 pm
Dear Both @ 12:26, No. CRA made them originate, and FNMA and FHLMC made it possible to comply with the stupid law without exposing the originating bank. “Greed” attributed as the basis for anything bad that ever happened is simple-minded. “Greed” is the basis of capitalism, people acting in their own best interest. To the extent that you would block the government-enabling, i.e., FNMA and FHLMC, you have my full support. To the extent you deny the integral role of government in causing both the bubble and the economic collapse, you lose me.
Jay
June 11th, 2012
12:32 pm
Sam asks:
“JAY
do you give credit to Obama for pulling troops out of IRAQ or do you credit BUSH under whose administration the agreement for withdrawal was signed?”
Neither.
Bush was forced to sign that agreement by the Iraqis or face being kicked out of the country much much earlier. Given Iraqi cooperation, Bush would have extended our presence for a long long time. So no credit there.
Obama also could not renegotiate that agreement, for the same reason that Bush failed: The Iraqis wanted us gone. So Obama too does not deserve credit for pulling out altogether.
However, had Obama arranged a way to stay, he had already made it clear that he would have stayed with a lot fewer troops than would Bush.
Steve
June 11th, 2012
12:34 pm
Job creation that was more government jobs under Bush than private..
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/presidential-job-records/
Madmax
June 11th, 2012
12:34 pm
Steve
That’s a nit. But since you bring it up, since when do community organizers make good government leaders?
Joseph
June 11th, 2012
12:34 pm
Brosephus™
Last I checked police, fireman, and school teachers were hired and paid for on the local level. Not the federal level. Is Obama saying he wants to take over all gubmints? Local and state too! Just giving you an example of the lack of understanding you freaks on the left have with quotes. Obama is all for pissing away more tax dollars to expand the gubmint even more though. That’s obvious…
UNCLE SAMANTHA
June 11th, 2012
12:35 pm
jay
fair enough
They BOTH suck
June 11th, 2012
12:35 pm
“Nancy Pelosi proclaimed an end to the Bush tax cuts, why would any employer think about expanding his business?”
maybe demand or lack there of………… Contrary to what you think, businesses have expanded at higher tax rates than are currently in place.
This notion that any given company with known or projected demand that is outpacing its current ability to meet that demand is going to forgo expansion in some form or fashion because of a “threat of a tax increase” that even YOU know wasn’t going to get by Bush is poppycock. Not say it never happens, but on a macro level?
The demand is not arbitrarily going to automatically go away because of a “threat of a tax increase”. Outside of some contractual issue or need for a patented product or service provided by a select few companies, someone will fill that void. I think that is called the “free market”………
Jm-pass TSPLOST unless you really love congestion
June 11th, 2012
12:35 pm
Jimmy62
You’re on to something
Oscar
June 11th, 2012
12:36 pm
If we were kicked our of Iraq does that mean we won or lost?
Steve
June 11th, 2012
12:36 pm
Since when do actors make good government leaders?
ragnar danneskjold
June 11th, 2012
12:36 pm
Dear Lord @ 12:31, you reflect a lack of basic economic knowledge. Higher revenues, as a response to new government-imposed expenses, are not an alternative; due to “greed,” intelligent businessmen are always achieving the highest potential revenues.
When governments arbitrarily impose higher expenses, whether through tax or regulation, the businessman’s only alternative is to cut expenses. Variable expenses are tremendously easier to cut than fixed expenses. I note, without further comment, that in a service economy the highest variable expense, is “compensation.”
Joe Hussein Mama
June 11th, 2012
12:36 pm
R. Danneskjold — “CRA was the cause,”
Utter bunk. 80% of subprime loans were made by lending institutions that weren’t even subject to the CRA at all.
Paul
June 11th, 2012
12:36 pm
ragnar
I know it won’t stop that from being repeated, but according to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, that was not the case.
Well, there was one holdout. One of ten. From the American Enterprise Institute.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/economy/26inquiry.html
But the overwhelming majority held for other causes:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
Joseph
June 11th, 2012
12:36 pm
Jm-pass TSPLOST unless you really love congestion:
Thats what Bill Clinton said!!!!
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-clinton-praises-romneys-sterling-business-career-we-shouldnt-say-its-bad-work/
Steve
June 11th, 2012
12:37 pm
Businesses hire when they have DEMAND. Tax changes do not change how a business hires, silly. If demand goes up, they hire more. If taxes go up, they cut something else in their cost structure.
Paul
June 11th, 2012
12:37 pm
ragnar
The “That” was “‘CRA was the cause, derivatives were the effect.’”
ragnar danneskjold
June 11th, 2012
12:37 pm
Dear Steve @ 12:36, did you realize that Ronald Reagan was the only US President who majored in Economics in college? (Of course, he majored in Economics before the Keynesian corruption to the science.)
Brosephus™
June 11th, 2012
12:37 pm
Joseph
Is it your automatic kneejerk response to label someone a liberal when they don’t agree with you? That, in itself, reveals you for the intellectual midget you really are. You further expose yourself with your ideological revisionistic rants here. Why don’t you explain the context then. He’s said he would cut government, and he said that Wisconsin is a sign that the government wants to cut government as well.
Explain the context please. I’m tired of you dumbass pseudo-conservatives spewing stuff without backing it up.
stands for decibels
June 11th, 2012
12:38 pm
we ALL know that any good business man would rather not make ANY money than pay approximately 3% more in taxes…omfg…
…which this not-yet-a-Speaker is somehow going to accomplish in 2007 over a Presidential veto.
Lord Help Us
June 11th, 2012
12:38 pm
‘you reflect a lack of basic economic knowledge. ‘
I know enough to state that a 3% difference in the amount of tax I pay on my income does not make me want to make less money…
ragnar danneskjold
June 11th, 2012
12:38 pm
Dear Paul @ 12:36, call me shocked – the government panel absolved the government of responsibility.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 11th, 2012
12:39 pm
Jimmy62 — “As a matter of fact, he is on record going to Congress and asking them to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
He’s also on record telling states that they couldn’t institute tougher regulations and requirements on real estate loans, even on risky loans.
One of those states that *wanted* to — but was told it couldn’t — was Georgia. You might have heard about all the bank failures that state has experienced in the last few years.
ragnar danneskjold
June 11th, 2012
12:39 pm
Dear Joe @ 12:36, error – nearly 100% of those loans were funded by institutions subject to CRA, and those funding institutions got regulatory attaboys as if they originated.
Joseph
June 11th, 2012
12:40 pm
Steve:
Since when have community organizers made good leaders?
Joe Hussein Mama
June 11th, 2012
12:40 pm
R. Danneskjold — “CRA made them originate”
Again, bunk. 80% of sub-prime RE loans were made by outfits that weren’t subject to the CRA.
Brosephus™
June 11th, 2012
12:41 pm
Last I checked police, fireman, and school teachers were hired and paid for on the local level.
You need to update your fact checker then. The fed level is full of police. There’s the capitol police, the Secret Service has a uniformed division, Border Patrol, CBP, ICE, the FBI, and many other policing agencies on the fed level. School teachers are hired on the fed level to educate kids on military bases in foreign countries. You also have firemen on the fed level as well, both civilian AND military. Get your facts together dude so you don’t look so intellectually unarmed in the future.
ragnar danneskjold
June 11th, 2012
12:41 pm
Dear Lord @ 12:38, agree, but that is not the question – the question is “how will you keep earning more money when your expenses are arbitrarily raised 3%?” Additional revenues are not within the ambit of potential solutions.
Paul
June 11th, 2012
12:41 pm
ragnar
“call me shocked – the government panel absolved the government of responsibility.”
When you don’t read the reports or the summaries, of course you’ll post wildly inaccurate statements such as that.
Joseph
June 11th, 2012
12:42 pm
Brosephus™:
Absolutely not but anyone who would frequent this blog is either a foaming at the mouth liberal or a common sense Conservative on here to make libs wet their pants.
SwamiDave
June 11th, 2012
12:42 pm
“What would lead you to believe that returning to the policies that were in effect under President Bush — lower taxes, particularly on the wealthy (the “producers,” if you choose); more defense spending; a loose regulatory rein on Wall Street — will produce a better outcome than it did the first time around?”
Lower Taxes: Allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn and make the personal determination what to do with what they earn is only reasonable. This allows everyone to achieve and grow without having another entity skimming (and redistributing) what is theirs. In most rational definitions, taking that which is owned from one individual or group without an equitable exchange in value is called theft. It matters little whether you are stealing for your own benefit or the supposed benefit of others (that -you- the altruistic apportioner of benefit expect credit for nothing save the forced exchange). Any movement away from an economic philosophy based on theft is an improvementand will produce better outcomes for those who work to earn them.
More Defense Spending: While I would like to think that we can begin to place growth limits on our Defense Spending, if there are actual needs in defense of the United States, then that is a constitutional role of our government. Where there is contention for limited resources, our government has the responsibility to target our spending where it is chartered to focus. America’s problem with spending is not on Defense (that is its main Constitutional role), but on the myriad of programs, benefits, and transfer payments that are outside of its charter. Government as the insurer of an environment for economic activity is its role; the problems occur when it is empowered as arbiter or equalizer of outcomes.
Wall Street controls:Again, our most recent problems were an outgrowth of government involvement and regulation where there should have been none. As stated earlier, it was in response to government requirements that some of the most damaging behaviors were spawned (CRA, etc.). Mandates to support lending to borrowers without the means to repay was a main impetus for the environment which inevitably (and expectedly) imploded. Government should prosecute those who defraud, but should definitely not be party to the fraud by creating the very mechanisms to obscure risk or pay benefits to current receipents based on confiscations from current workers (see: Ponzi).
Freedom and Opportunity work every time they are tried; they work when you do!
-SD
Joe Hussein Mama
June 11th, 2012
12:42 pm
R. Danneskjold — “error – nearly 100% of those loans were funded by institutions subject to CRA, and those funding institutions got regulatory attaboys as if they originated.”
Sorry, but you’re mistaken. Once again, 80% of subprime loans were made by institutions that were not even *subject* to the CRA.
Joseph
June 11th, 2012
12:43 pm
Brosephus™:
Keep on spewing… Wow the lack of intellect..
stands for decibels
June 11th, 2012
12:43 pm
(Of course, he majored in Economics before the Keynesian corruption to the science.)
Yep, once good ol’ President “I don’t Recall” got his sheepskin in ‘32, the Dismal Science headed right for the crapper.
ragnar danneskjold
June 11th, 2012
12:43 pm
Dear Joe @ 12:40, you continue to deny the plain truth, that institutions that funded mortgage originators get CRA attaboys. Institutions that buy CRA loans get CRA attaboys. And nothing that you have said makes CRA even remotely within the realm of intelligent legislation.
Steve
June 11th, 2012
12:43 pm
Wow – Raygun majored in economics and then went on a borrowing/spend binge that led to the recession at the end of his term. See a pattern here?
Joseph
June 11th, 2012
12:44 pm
We do need more Secret Service though. The prostitutes are hungry….
Brosephus™
June 11th, 2012
12:44 pm
Absolutely not but anyone who would frequent this blog is either a foaming at the mouth liberal or a common sense Conservative on here to make libs wet their pants.
And you forget about those of us who just come here to laugh at the delusional people here, from both sides. Thanks for my daily laugh. :lo:
ragnar danneskjold
June 11th, 2012
12:44 pm
Dear Stands @ 12:43, that was the basis for my posting the Higgs quote earlier.
Paul
June 11th, 2012
12:44 pm
I think Republicans on this blog who support the current policies have breathed a sigh of relief that ragnar’s diversionary bid for attention seems to have taken hold, as it removes from them the ongoing embarrassment of not being able to generate more than a feeble rebuttal to
“What would lead you to believe that returning to the policies that were in effect under President Bush — lower taxes, particularly on the wealthy (the “producers,” if you choose); more defense spending; a loose regulatory rein on Wall Street — will produce a better outcome than it did the first time around?
What evidence — and blind ideological faith is not evidence — can you cite to justify an argument that this time it would be different?”
Lord Help Us
June 11th, 2012
12:44 pm
‘Additional revenues are not within the ambit of potential solutions.’
They are for me…and being the capitalist pig I am, I am not going to forego additional revenue because I might have to pay an additional 3$ income tax.
btull27
June 11th, 2012
12:45 pm
The question is whether or not Romney’s economics will be like Bush’s. And if they are, you want to know why people believe it would somehow work again comparing it to the definition of insanity. What I find amusing is we know for a fact Obama’s will be the same, which would be a more concrete example of insanity. Jay’s a left wing, paper version of a conservative talk show host. He makes some outlandish partisan statements backed by some numbers and charts and sits back and watches his minions defend any and every statement while the other side does just the opposite. Every day, same result.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
June 11th, 2012
12:45 pm
…did you realize that Ronald Reagan was the only US President who majored in Economics in college?
Phlogiston chemists were once held in high regard also.
That doesn’t mean that they knew what the hell they were talking about either.
Brosephus™
June 11th, 2012
12:46 pm
Keep on spewing… Wow the lack of intellect..
If I were suffering from some lack of intellect, you would be able to easily disprove what I’ve posted. When I posted Romney’s quote, you deflected to calling the link as a liberal source and asked for a video. I posted a video, and you deflected to the context of the quote. When I asked for an explanation of the context, you deflected to state/local vs fed. When I posted the fed info, you claim I lack intellect.
Well, if you consider the ability to deflect as a supreme sign of intellect, you sure have me there dude.
John Birch
June 11th, 2012
12:47 pm
Jay – Yeah but there’s the embarrassing fact of O sending those 50,000 additional troops into Afghanistan with some weird justification about sending more in now so we can pull them all out sooner?
larry
June 11th, 2012
12:47 pm
The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”
oy
Joseph
June 11th, 2012
12:47 pm
Brosephus™:
I think that even in your own mind you don’t make sense…. Do you honestly think we need more federal workers? Last I checked I haven’t heard of an alarming shortage of federal workers…
Joe Hussein Mama
June 11th, 2012
12:48 pm
R. Danneskjold — “12:40, you continue to deny the plain truth”
I continue to point out that you are mistaken.
“that institutions that funded mortgage originators get CRA attaboys.”
That has nothing to do with the mortgage meltdown. Banks subject to the CRA were *required* to document income, and were *penalized* for not doing so, and also for making risky loans. There was *no* upside for a bank subject to the CRA to make a liar or NINJA loan.
Again, 80% of subprime RE loans were made by outfits not subject to the CRA. You are quite simply mistaken.
“Institutions that buy CRA loans get CRA attaboys.”
Irrelevant. You’re blaming CRA for fostering risky subprime loans, when the facts are quite the contrary.
“And nothing that you have said makes CRA even remotely within the realm of intelligent legislation”
Irrelevant, since I have not *defended* the CRA. I’ve simply pointed out that fact that you are mistaken about its involvement in the RE meltdown. And I stand by that statement.
Joseph
June 11th, 2012
12:49 pm
Brosephus™:
You simply don’t understand the context. Its simple logic really. Should we piss away millions more to hire more federal workers. Hell no!!! And obviously the anyone with common sense would agree with me….
josef
June 11th, 2012
12:50 pm
I just got the memo…we’re supposed to be talking Holder today, y’all.
SwamiDave
June 11th, 2012
12:51 pm
Joe Hussein
“Again, bunk.80% of sub-prime RE loans were made by outfits that weren’t subject to the CRA.”
Actually, there would have been no “sub-prime” markets (bundling & derivatives) FOR ANY LOANS were it not for the government legislation forcing lenders to underwrite loans to borrowers who could not quality under traditional guidelines. The very market and allowances for government insuring of the risk was created to get the lenders to do it. Without it, there would have been too much risk for not enough profit so this was government’s mechanism to get the lenders to go along.
Once started & participants were profiting within it, it spread.
Claims by liberals that these lending / underwriting regulations were not at the core main cause of the implosion is simple economic dishonesty.
-SD
larry
June 11th, 2012
12:51 pm
Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).
Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oooops!
Paul
June 11th, 2012
12:51 pm
Joseph
“Should we piss away millions more to hire more federal workers.”
So you’re on record as opposing Romney’s call for another $130 billion or so for Defense and at least 100,000 more federal workers (soldiers)?
Lord Help Us
June 11th, 2012
12:52 pm
‘I just got the memo…we’re supposed to be talking Holder today, y’all.’
We already have…Joseph says we need to let the investigations play out, but, in the meantime, Holder is guilty and Obama should be impeached…