AP: Old people "are stealing jobs from young people."

But even after being warned many times about the danger of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and refusing regulations on them, Nancy Pelosi lies and blames Republicans for no regulations on them and said this all snuck up on them without any warning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg&NR=1

 

Bush who blocked the only bill passed by the Republican controlled Congress to regulate F/F, was a Republican, not a Democrat.


Here is the vote on HR 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which was the *only* bill to regulate F/F to ever be passed (in 2005) by a chamber of the Republican controlled Congress.

Party - Ayes - Nays
Republican 209 15
Democratic 122 74

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll547.xml

And here is the the Bush administration's response to this, the only bill to regulate F/F ever pased by either chamber of the Republican controlled Congress:

"the Administration opposes the bill"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851

And here's a link to an article about Republican Mike Oxley, of Sarbannes-Oxley fame, then ranking Republican majority member and chair of the House Financial Committee on Financial Services and sponsor of that bill, saying how they "got a one-finger salute” from the Bush White House.


He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7e91-11dd-b1af-000077b07658.html
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/09/10/greenspan_bush_fannie_freddie/index.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/one-finger-salute/

 

.... Speaking of ad hominem attacks! That you would lecture me while you are reducing everything I post to insults about my "babble" is incredibly shameless.
And it speaks volumes about your responses.

Actually, you did! In post #66.

Other people, sensible credible people profoundly disagree with you. http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html
You can play "shoot the messenger" (which I know you will) but the Community Reinvestment Act is not a figment of anyone's imagination (except yours perhaps, in a partisan inspired exculpatory way). Revisionists depend on the ignorance of the masses but all the evidence is there for anyone to see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
I still remember the Senate hearings when bankers were marched before Congressional inquisitors who not so subtly threatened them in public in order to get them to lend money to anybody that wanted it...no matter what.

Nor you for the left. I speak the truth.

The stimulus was a massive failure, even by the administration's standards, which is almost completely why there hasn't been another one http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...t-failures-from-president-obamas-stimulus-law

People don't run away and disavow success.

Care to document that? Or do you just wish I'd take your word for it?

I don't think you even understand what my point was.

And businesses... and blue states received more aid than red states.
Basically any group or business that was friendly to Obama received more.

You've asserted numbers but not really cited them in any verifiable way.

And you can verify that how?

Which leaves me wondering why Obama didn't
just tell everyone that so much of the stimulus would be used to bail out his public sector union pals (speaking of dodging a question).

 

When Barney Frank was questioned on Democrats pushing home loans for the poor, he lied and said he wasn't for doing that, he ws more for pushing for rental housing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=636AQAvw0lU

 

There are nearly 91.5 million people unemployed and not being counted in the labor force by the BLS. Which means that since he took office in 2009 through October 2013, 11 million people have fallen off the UR radar because they have given up hope looking for a job. These are still people who want to work, but don't see any opportunities on the horizon.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/11/record-high-91-5-million-people-not-included-in-labor-force/

 

bab·ble
talk rapidly and continuously in a foolish, excited, or incomprehensible way.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/babble

Sounds about right for your post.

So what? If you think it is so off topic, why continue to discuss it?

Yaron Brook, executive director of the "Ayn Rand Institute". LOL. What makes him so "sensible" and "credible"?

I never claimed to.

That is certainly subject to disagreement.

According to "Reince Priebus is chairman of the Republican National Committee."?

Could you possible find more biased, un-objective sources for your opinions? I don't think so.

Total Govt employment
Jan 2009 22583
Nov 2013 21857

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

Net decrease 726,000. That includes the federal government. Federal Govt employment has decreased 83,000 since Jan 2009.

How in your view would the economy have been better had millions more cops, firemen and teachers lost their jobs in 2009-10?

You've asserted numbers but not really cited them in any verifiable way.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-public-sector-job-losses-increasing-sti/

Probably because at the time the put the Stimulus package together in late 2008 and early 2009, they didn't realize that so many states were going to fire so many people.

 

After hitting 6.3%. You didn't forget that rise do you? That is the NAFTA and Free Trade bubble. Something remedied by the Bush administration, such that it came back down to 4.4%

 

If I remember right in that time line video, that bill never made it out of committee. All the Dems were against it and the Republicans were a few votes short from passing it to send it to the floor for a full vote, as two or three Republicans wouldn't go along with the others.

 

The economy and unemployment numbers aren't the only thing labeling the current President the dumbest or most negligent of all times. He's the sum of all his idiocy and negligence.

 

Government stimulus and welfare creates at best temporary work. Only the economy can provide long term work. If you want more jobs in the private economy then you must figure out how to increase the demand of the products and services...both domestically and exported. Once you figure out how to increase the demand, next you must worry about American jobs...will the products and services be produced in the USA or off-shore? Logic dictates that to perform more work in the USA then we must allow businesses to operate in the USA while being competitive with off-shore. Government and people together must take steps to help industry thrive in the USA instead of off-shore...

 

Barney Frank was pushing for exactly that. And Barney Frank joined in with Republican Mike Oxley to pass the only bill ever passed in the Republican controlled Congress to regulate F/F, urging his Senate bretheren to support it, and it was blocked by the Bush administration.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7e91-11dd-b1af-000077b07658.html
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/09/10/greenspan_bush_fannie_freddie/index.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/one-finger-salute/

Here's the letter signed by Frank, Oxley and other House Finance committee members urging them to take action.

http://www.alta.org/govt/issues/06/GSE-Letter-to-Shelby-Sarbanes-0913.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

You don't remember right. The bill passed the House by a majority vote of both Republican and Democratic representatives.


Party - Ayes - Nays
Republican 209 15
Democratic 122 74

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll547.xml

 

I don't understand your point. To me it is irrelevant because the point is we had 4.5% unemployment as late as 2007, more than 10 years after Nafta was passed. 2 years later it had jumped to 10%. The point I'm making it is that it is not Nafta or free trade that caused that sudden jump in unemployment.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for sharing your baseless opinions and rant. I don't know what I'd do without them.

 

Funny they have him saying on one video that he was for rental housing and they have him on another video saying he was pushing for homes for the poor. It's his own words.He swore that F/M wasn't in any trouble. How about Pelosi saying they never had any warning. How it snuck up on them, when they were warned for years. Called regulators liars and said nothing was wrong with F/M? It's all on those videos I put up.

 

You're welcome. Your life is complete now and you have benefited from my presence.

 

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

(House)
(Rep. Baker (R) Louisiana and 19 cosponsors)

The Administration has long called for legislation to create a stronger, more effective regulatory regime to improve oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks ("housing government-sponsored enterprises" or "housing GSEs") and appreciates the considerable efforts of Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker in crafting H.R. 1461. However,

H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.

The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions. This regime is of particular concern given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently hold only about half of the capital of comparable financial institutions. In order for a financial regulator to be respected and credible, it must have the authority and ability to adjust capital requirements of the institutions it oversees as circumstances dictate to ensure prudential operations. An effective oversight regime must also provide for clear review of business activities to ensure the integrity of the housing finance system and consistency with the GSEs' housing mission. The Administration does not believe that the housing GSEs should be exempt from these important standards of world-class regulation.

The dramatic growth of the housing GSEs over the last decade, as well as recent accounting and operational problems, underscore the importance of protecting the broader financial markets from systemic risks caused by their actions. The housing GSEs' outstanding debt is approximately $2.5 trillion, and they provide credit guarantees on another $2.4 trillion of mortgages. By comparison, the privately held debt of the Federal government is $4.1 trillion. Housing GSE debt is issued largely to support sizable portfolio investments that are unnecessary to fulfill the GSEs' housing mission. Given the size and importance of the GSEs, Congress must ensure that their large mortgage portfolios do not place the U.S. financial system at risk. H.R. 1461 fails to provide critical policy guidance in this area.

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers. Likewise, provisions that divert profits will lead to increased risk-taking and decreased market discipline, while exacerbating systemic risk.

The Administration remains committed to bringing real reform to the housing GSEs and looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to ensure that the needed reforms are part of any final legislation.

Budget Estimates and Enforcement

This bill would affect direct spending and receipts. To sustain the economy's expansion, it is critical to exercise responsible restraint over Federal spending. The Budget Enforcement Act's pay-as-you-go requirements and discretionary-spending caps expired on September 30, 2002. The President's FY 2006 Budget includes a proposal to extend the discretionary caps through 2010; a pay-as-you-go requirement for direct spending; and a new mechanism to control the expansion of long-term unfunded obligations. OMB's cost estimate of this bill is currently under development.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=24851

 

There aren't even close to 91.5 million people unemployed. Sheesh were do you guys come up with his stuff. Brainwashed by RW propaganda like "The Daily Caller" is all I can figure.

 

Well sure the Bush administration came up with some reasons for killing the only bill ever passed by the Republican controlled Congress to regulate F/F. Just like they came up with reasons for invading and occupying Iraq.

But the bill was supported by over 91% of the House Republicans, it was supported by over 60% of the House Democrats, it was supported by Republican Mike Oxley of Sarbannes-Oxely fame, it was supported by the acting head of the administration's OFHEO which was responsible for oversight of F/F. All made statements in that regard.

No bill is perfect. But the Bush administration didn't want F/F regulated. It wanted them gutted and privatized. So it didn't even try to negotiate a better bill or a compromise or work with Congress. The Bush administration just opposed it, and its allies in the Senate buried it.

And so, instead of this regulation we got ... nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL
..........

 

In 2003 F/F weren't in any major trouble. It wasn't until the 2005 time frame it started getting heavy into subprimes.

The Bush administration told us F/F was adequately captialized right up to June 2008.

 

Incredibly childish and this all reflects on your posts overall.

So you were wrong....again.

Why do you?

That you seem to feel otherwise. Thanks for confirming my prediction.
Smart people argue issues. Hacks argue sides.

The Obama people argued that if they were given their economic stimulus money they would achieve certain employment milestones, which they did not.
Based on that alone, by their own standards the Obama administration has judged itself.

And what is the net impact of this? What does this have to do with California firing cops, or not?

Now it's millions of cops? You aren't even trying to be taken seriously anymore. So I don't.

A general reduction in state and local workers does not necessarily mean a loss of emergency service workers, or educators.
Your Politifact link says that there are well over 14 million local workers spread throughout the various states. I see a lot of dead wood to cut through before you even start to trim back the most vital strongest trees (police, fire, education).

That is unless you want to as a way to frighten people into stopping a demand for financial restraint.

 

Why do you think it made such a jump? I told you my reasons. NAFTA, Free Trade, The Housing and banking collapse. Now what do you think caused it?

 

I couldn't care less what you think.

I didn't say it was off topic. You did.

Hacks cite things like the Ayn Rand Institute and the RNC Chairman to support their opinions.

The did achieve them. Obama's economic team predicted the stimulus would save or create 2-4 million jobs and hold the UR rate down 1%. That prediction is confirmed by several independent analyses that found the stimulus did just that.

With passing grades.

Who said anything about California? The net impact is that over 600,000 state government jobs were eliminated, many of them police teachers and firefighters.

2-3 million jobs were saved, so whether they were all cops or teacher or firefighters isn't the point.

The point is the economy would have been in far worse shape if those jobs hadn't been saved.

It doesn't necessarily mean it won't. It does necessarily mean you have more people in the unemployment lines.

- - - Updated - - -

The only major thing that changed between 2007 and 2009 was the collapse of the housing bubble and the Great Recession.

But I think we agree that Nafta and/or free trade didn't cause it. At most it was a contributing factor, and even that supposition is going against the evidence.

 

Sure thing. The leftist BLS is lying when it says that there are 11 million unemployed, and you know they are lying because there are really 91 million people unemployed because you read it in the "Daily Caller"

Gald we straightened that out.

 

Not one thing did it. But when you put in all the jobs lost between NAFTA, Free Trade, the housing collapse and the banks crashing, they all played a part to bring this economy to it's knees and cause unemployment to soar There is no other explanation. Well I take that back, the war and tax cuts plaid a part, but not what caused the high unemployment. That had to be from those first four. All coming down together.

 

You've failed to prove that any of the job losses from 2007-09 were because of free trade.

2003 14869
2004 14291
2005 14258
2006 14211
2007 14008
2008 13725
2009 12556
2010 11460
2011 11624
2012 11841
2013 11965

When we look at manufacturing job data, we see in the year 2003-07 it is fairly stable, maybe dropping an average of a couple hundred thousand a year. That might explain roughly 1/2 million job losses out of the 8 million jobs lost in the recession.

 

So you dont think NAFTA has anything to do with GM building manufacturing plants in Mexico?

So you dont think China's favorite nation trade status has anything to do with GE moving over 30 manufacturing plants to China?

Sure, Americans are employed, but their employed in crappy jobs that do pay any money. Thats why McDonalds workers want UAW wages....