Bush in 2016??

[3rdnlng]

Epic amount of ignorance in that post.

 

Reading that post again I'm going to hope it was meant as sarcasm.

 

You need a new sarcasm meter if you couldn't tell. It also helps to get to know the different posters. If Gatorchild had posted that it definitely would not have been sarcasm. With KTF posting it, it was drenched in sarcasm.

[B-Large]

Again you've visited PPP with the intention of debating but forgot to bring any ammunition with you. Please explain how Bush caused the "worst economic downturn in recent history". If you aren't specific it will be apparent that you are just another Huffington Post educated sheeple.

 

Caused it single handed, no.

Aware of the issues, yes.

Promoted the acquistion and ownership of property by all Americans and encouraged it for minority or underrepresented demographics, yes.

Different than any other president who would have kinda looked the other way as the housing sector boomed and economy was bustling, no

 

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/achievement/chap7.html

 

I remember the ownership society push very clearly- in theory, I did not disgree, in fact as property owners many times over, I agree that having assets and building a next egg is a good move. But this was not a one way job, it was laws regarding seperation of investment versus traditional borrowing/ banking, changing requirements on holding a mortgage a bank initiated, Greenspan creating froth with too much cheap access to cash for too long, Frreddie and Fannie, investments first sellign tranches of risks that were hard to rate, and on and on and on and on.... not too mention practices among realtors, appraisers, processors, etc.

 

In the end, Americans need to be reponsible to determine if buying a 300K home on a 3/1 ARM with 40K annual income is a good idea. They also need to read and UNDERSTAND a contract they are about to sign that ties them to a highly illiquid asset. As much as the banks and politicos were dishonest, not too many Americans were reisiting urge to buy a house and sell it for a qucik profit- it was intoxicating for so many.

[Jauronimo]

Caused it single handed, no.

Aware of the issues, yes.

Promoted the acquistion and ownership of property by all Americans and encouraged it for minority or underrepresented demographics, yes.

Different than any other president who would have kinda looked the other way as the housing sector boomed and economy was bustling, no

 

http://georgewbush-w...ment/chap7.html

 

I remember the ownership society push very clearly- in theory, I did not disgree, in fact as property owners many times over, I agree that having assets and building a next egg is a good move. But this was not a one way job, it was laws regarding seperation of investment versus traditional borrowing/ banking, changing requirements on holding a mortgage a bank initiated, Greenspan creating froth with too much cheap access to cash for too long, Frreddie and Fannie, investments first sellign tranches of risks that were hard to rate, and on and on and on and on.... not too mention practices among realtors, appraisers, processors, etc.

 

In the end, Americans need to be reponsible to determine if buying a 300K home on a 3/1 ARM with 40K annual income is a good idea. They also need to read and UNDERSTAND a contract they are about to sign that ties them to a highly illiquid asset. As much as the banks and politicos were dishonest, not too many Americans were reisiting urge to buy a house and sell it for a qucik profit- it was intoxicating for so many.

When did that begin? Who was running the GSE's and banking millions in bonuses based on the number of mortgages issued? Who defended these practices until the music stopped?

 

This whole ****-storm was hardly the Bush admin's brainchild and pet project.

[B-Large]

When did that begin? Who was running the GSE's and banking millions in bonuses based on the number of mortgages issued? Who defended these practices until the music stopped?

 

This whole ****-storm was hardly the Bush admin's brainchild and pet project.

• The US homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.
  
• The President set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.
  
• President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.
  
• The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.
  
• President Bush proposed a new Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit to increase the supply of affordable homes.
  
• The President has proposed to more than double funding for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), where government and non-profit organizations work closely together to increase homeownership opportunities.
  
• The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender. These loans are expected to provide 42,800 homeownership opportunities to rural families across America.
  
• 
  

Did you read my post? I didn't say it was Bush's pet project, but fuel to the fire.... ya know... the items above are tactical embellishments to fury. Well intentioned, but again, we all know what happens when Government gets good intentions. I see effort by the sitting president to bail out people who made bad decision just an extension of the bad policy-

Edited April 16, 2014 by B-Large

[Jauronimo]

• The US homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.
  
• The President set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.
  
• President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.
  
• The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.
  
• President Bush proposed a new Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit to increase the supply of affordable homes.
  
• The President has proposed to more than double funding for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), where government and non-profit organizations work closely together to increase homeownership opportunities.
  
• The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender. These loans are expected to provide 42,800 homeownership opportunities to rural families across America.
  
• 
  

Did you read my post? I didn't say it was Bush's pet project, but fuel to the fire.... ya know... the items above are tactical embellishments to fury. Well intentioned, but again, we all know what happens when Government gets good intentions. I see effort by the sitting president to bail out people who made bad decision just an extension of the bad policy-

Clearly, I !@#$ing did. You conveniently omitted the part where these practices began under the Clinton admin and the people who really should have been hip to the game, staunch republicans Raines and Waters, were all in until the **** hit the fan. This wasn't a case of the Bush admin just looking the other way but a real bipartisan !@#$ up of the highest order. When you factor in stupid homebuyers, predatory lending practices, rating agency incompetence, the revival of the CDS, AIG deciding to take the same side of the bet 900 times over, and Wall St.'s game of musical toxic assets, you have the perfect cluster !@#$. Posting factoids about what happens in the advanced stage of an asset bubble is meaningless in assigning blame. Causality.

[B-Large]

Clearly, I !@#$ing did. You conveniently omitted the part where these practices began under the Clinton admin and the people who really should have been hip to the game, staunch republicans Raines and Waters, were all in until the **** hit the fan. This wasn't a case of the Bush admin just looking the other way but a real bipartisan !@#$ up of the highest order. When you factor in stupid homebuyers, predatory lending practices, rating agency incompetence, the revival of the CDS, AIG deciding to take the same side of the bet 900 times over, and Wall St.'s game of musical toxic assets, you have the perfect cluster !@#$. Posting factoids about what happens in the advanced stage of an asset bubble is meaningless in assigning blame. Causality.

 

I mentioned the decoupling of banks and investment firms, that happened under the Clinton adminstration. I thought you would make that connection. I went back and read my post, I should have been clear about that the above did not happen under Bush, but in my post could be contrued as such- my bad.

 

In you look back, I was reponding to 3rd's post #134 about Bush single handidly causing the worst recession since the laste 20's. My point was it was not only Bush, but a variety of people and interests, but simple chose to illustrate how Bush added to the heap.

Edited April 16, 2014 by B-Large

[GG]

I mentioned the decoupling of banks and investment firms, that happened under the Clinton adminstration. I thought you would make that connection. I went back and read my post, I should have been clear about that the above did not happen under Bush, but in my post could be contrued as such- my bad.

 

In you look back, I was reponding to 3rd's post #134 about Bush single handidly causing the worst recession since the laste 20's. My point was it was not only Bush, but a variety of people and interests, but simple chose to illustrate how Bush added to the heap.

 

By advocating that more people own homes? This was not a Bush mess, or a Clinton mess. This is largely on the Hill.

[Azalin]

Sorry. The one you replied to. (keepthefaith's post)

no worries! it's just like 3rd said - with KTF it's parody drenched in sarcasm. if it had been Gator on the other hand, then he would have meant every word of it with the utmost sincerity.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Azalin

[boyst]

Let me see if I can better explain his position. In this country, the wealthiest on the planet, everyone that wants a job should have that opportunity. If the rich who control the private sector won't give everyone a job and a job that pays a decent wage, then it's government's job to provide those opportunities. For those that don't want to work, the government should provide housing, health care, food, education and some money for other living expenses.

 

Now don't punch back with the argument about how to pay for all this. The rich (who are lucky) can certainly pay more in taxes (especially since they don't want to share with others) and we've proven in recent years that our country can borrow and print whatever money is necessary to cover these expenses without risk of runaway inflation or economic collapse.

I'll bite.

 

How does the government make jobs?

 

I really. Really. REALLY hope we get some residual flack here from someone. I know someone will try to answer that.

Edited April 16, 2014 by jboyst62

[Azalin]

I'll bite.

 

How does the government make jobs?

 

I really. Really. REALLY hope we get some residual flack here from someone. I know someone will try to answer that.

 

my honest answer would be that they ease regulations on industry and lower the corporate tax rate to a more competitive level with the rest of the world, lowering the cost of doing business here. it would be a good start, anyway.

[Chef Jim]

You need a new sarcasm meter if you couldn't tell. It also helps to get to know the different posters. If Gatorchild had posted that it definitely would not have been sarcasm. With KTF posting it, it was drenched in sarcasm.

 

Gumby doesn't post here enough to realize he was mocking gator.

[Koko78]

I'll bite.

 

How does the government make jobs?

 

I really. Really. REALLY hope we get some residual flack here from someone. I know someone will try to answer that.

 

Simple. By taxing the evil wealthy and handing out public assistance benefits to good, honest employmentally-challenged Americans, those intentionally disadvantaged citizens are given the opportunity to spend that redistributed money on things like cigarettes, booze, lottery tickets and fast food, thereby allowing private enterprise run by those greedy soulless 1% buttholes to exploit the poor working man by giving them meager jobs and forcing them to work for slave wages in order to meet the demand for consumer products.

 

The wealthy are punished, the oppressed are rewarded and jobs are created! All because your government loves you.

[birdog1960]

the answer is yes. versus clinton. and clinton wins.

 

Simple. By taxing the evil wealthy and handing out public assistance benefits to good, honest employmentally-challenged Americans, those intentionally disadvantaged citizens are given the opportunity to spend that redistributed money on things like cigarettes, booze, lottery tickets and fast food, thereby allowing private enterprise run by those greedy soulless 1% buttholes to exploit the poor working man by giving them meager jobs and forcing them to work for slave wages in order to meet the demand for consumer products.

 

The wealthy are punished, the oppressed are rewarded and jobs are created! All because your government loves you.

can we stop this redistribution bs. the only recent redistribution is more at the top, less at the bottom and middle. show me something that says different.

[Chef Jim]

my honest answer would be that they ease regulations on industry and lower the corporate tax rate to a more competitive level with the rest of the world, lowering the cost of doing business here. it would be a good start, anyway.

 

The local governments have a better ability to create jobs locally. See SF with regard to the sweet deal they gave Twitter and what it has done for the Mid-Market area.

[Koko78]

can we stop this redistribution bs. the only recent redistribution is more at the top, less at the bottom and middle. show me something that says different.

 

Of all the crap I put in that post, you pick the word "redistributed" to be offended by?

[Chef Jim]

Of all the crap I put in that post, you pick the word "redistributed" to be offended by?

 

Because other than that word everything else made 100% sense to him.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Chef Jim

[DC Tom]

By advocating that more people own homes? This was not a Bush mess, or a Clinton mess. This is largely on the Hill.

 

Has been for decades. Late 80's, at least.

[birdog1960]

Of all the crap I put in that post, you pick the word "redistributed" to be offended by?

because redistribution is the faulty premise on which all the other crappy (and generally false) conclusions are based..except the crap about exploitation. that's generally true. Edited April 17, 2014 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

because redistribution is the faulty premise on which all the other crappy (and generally false) conclusions are based..except the crap about exploitation. that's generally true.

I see you've changed the economic definition of redistribution to better suit your argument.

 

/golfclap

[IDBillzFan]

because redistribution is the faulty premise on which all the other crappy (and generally false) conclusions are based..except the crap about exploitation. that's generally true.

 

ACA -- the most expansive, costly and ill-designed law in generations -- is 100% build on redistribution.

 

But hey...you keep thinking it's some kind of half-assed idea that would be better if only it were single payer.