Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

View Poll Results: How are you feeling?

Voters
8. This poll is closed
  • Very Optimistic! This is exactly what we need as a country

    1 12.50%
  • Happy about the result, but have some reservations.

    2 25.00%
  • Indifferent. Both options are terrible and I dont care.

    2 25.00%
  • Not what I preferred, but wiling to give President-elect Trump a chance

    2 25.00%
  • Utterly crushed. This is the worst thing to happen to America since slavery

    1 12.50%
Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Vote on how you are feeling about President-elect Trump's impending term

  2. Thanks Sigfried thanked for this post
  3. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Me: A bit shocked and surprised, embarassed for the country, concerned about what is to come.

    While there is potential for disaster, I trust in in our system of government which has withstood far greater challenges thatn this. Compared to the civil war, most modern political challenges are penny poker.

    I think the man is a narcissist and a conman. He will always do what is in his own interest in glorifying himself and fattening up his friends. That said, part of it is just how politics is done anyway, there is always some favors done and lying, I just think we will see it unvarnished this time and on a greater scale. The policy result I am most confident of is he will blow open the deficit worse than we've seen since the last Bush budget which we have beeninching down from ever since. The spend big and cut taxes plan has always done that and he shows every intention of doing exactly that and congress will likely go along with it.

    But.. I am willing to give him a chance and wait and see what he does. I can make some predictions but I won't pre judge. If he has proposals I like, I'll support them. If I don't like them I won't. Simple as that.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    I doubt he could do any worse fiscal damage of this country than Obama has. Considering from a financial prospective, he is the most qualified president in American history to deal with the financial aspect of things, I'm optimistic. However, considering the terrible damage Obama has done, it may be a rough road.

  5. Likes theophilus liked this post
  6. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    I doubt he could do any worse fiscal damage of this country than Obama has. Considering from a financial prospective, he is the most qualified president in American history to deal with the financial aspect of things, I'm optimistic. However, considering the terrible damage Obama has done, it may be a rough road.
    Here is the thing though. Every year of the Obama presidency has reduced the deficit compared to the previous year. Do that consistently (which he has) and eventually you don't have a deficit any more. He started with the largest on record from the final Bush budget due to the financial crash and then knocked it down a little each and every year. It's not miracle, but its better than any "fiscal conservative" we've elected has managed. They all grew the deficit during their administrations leaving it worse than when they found it.

    Trump wants to expand the areas of the biggest federal spending and slash taxes. That will explode the deficit, there is no way around it. You can't slash your income, expand your spending and hope that the magic budget faries will fix everything. Anyway, time will tell that answer over the next four years.

    As to damage, I just don't get it. The stock market is huge, unemployment is down, gdp has grown, corporate profits are up, wages are at least stable, inflation is incredibly low. I have no idea what "damage" has been inflicted exactly. Some point to the workforce participation rate, but they always ignore the fact that we have this huge bulge of retirees happening entirely due to age demographics that drives the bulk of that.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  7. Likes futureboy liked this post
  8. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,863
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    I doubt he could do any worse fiscal damage of this country than Obama has. Considering from a financial prospective, he is the most qualified president in American history to deal with the financial aspect of things, I'm optimistic. However, considering the terrible damage Obama has done, it may be a rough road.
    What's that based on? We know nothing of his finances...other than his bankruptcies.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    It's not going to be good, but it probably won't be as bad as people are afraid of.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  10. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,176
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Here is the thing though. Every year of the Obama presidency has reduced the deficit compared to the previous year. Do that consistently (which he has) and eventually you don't have a deficit any more. He started with the largest on record from the final Bush budget due to the financial crash and then knocked it down a little each and every year. It's not miracle, but its better than any "fiscal conservative" we've elected has managed. They all grew the deficit during their administrations leaving it worse than when they found it.
    The problem with looking at that as a positive, is that it was done historically slowly. Bush managed a war, that was reason for his big spending, and then that horrible bailout at the end. But Obama did that 2 or 3 more times. So while the point of receiving a slow economy through no fault of his own is valid, the fact that the economy and the deficit has been inching along is not a positive for Obama fiscally. How long did it take Clinton to balance the budget (with the republican congress)?

    In general I don't see Bush as a fiscal conservative. I don't see Obama as fiscally successful. If the 19trillion national debt ends up biting us in the ass, then Obama will be very responsible for that, as he has added to that every year (so did bush). In the end that is what matters.

    https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-b...ercent-3306296
    https://www.thebalance.com/how-do-ob...licies-3305622
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  11. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The problem with looking at that as a positive, is that it was done historically slowly. Bush managed a war, that was reason for his big spending, and then that horrible bailout at the end. But Obama did that 2 or 3 more times. So while the point of receiving a slow economy through no fault of his own is valid, the fact that the economy and the deficit has been inching along is not a positive for Obama fiscally. How long did it take Clinton to balance the budget (with the republican congress)?
    Each and every year it got smaller, never larger. You keep that up and you get rid of it eventually. Then you try to run a surpluss for a while and get the debt under more control. Slow steady progress is a good thing compared to eratic swings up and down.

    Clinton has a better record on the deficit, no question, he's the only one. The GOP has this awful habbit of slashing taxes whenever they are feeling confident and the result is always a bug deficit spike and a lack of recsources when things go bad. They are always trying to supercharge the economy rather than get some nice stable growth going. Its all boom and bust with high risk strategies. That's fine when you run a bunch of businesses and your goal is to eventually hit the jackpot. But there is only one America and rolercoasters are not all that fun when you don't have deep pockets.

    Obama is not an economic wunderkin, he's just a steady responsible hand that has kept things going in more or less the right direction. AKA not a "disaster" as his most ardent opponents keep trying to claim.

    I agree the debt is stupid but the only way to get rid of it is steady and consistent progress. You can't just make it vanish over night. Work at it more and more each year and you will succede. What is not ever going to work is the constant "we must lower taxes!" cry. Its like paying off your debt by quitting your six figure income and going to work at burgerking.

    Yes, cutting our spending is a good idea as well! But so few are willing to do the cutting where the cutting has real impact, aka the military and entitlement programs. Why? Because we've become pretty dependent on both of those in the economy. If we want to cut them we have to do it rather slowly and carefully, and I think we should do exactly that.

    In general I don't see Bush as a fiscal conservative. I don't see Obama as fiscally successful. If the 19trillion national debt ends up biting us in the ass, then Obama will be very responsible for that, as he has added to that every year (so did bush). In the end that is what matters.
    Yes, but mind you the guy you voted for... if he does what he says he will do, he will make them both look like tight fisted misers as soon as those tax cuts come on line.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Yes, the deficit has went down by nearly a trillion dollars over 8 years. That fact, isolated and examined by itself would be considered a positive by Obama. However, over that same period, the national debt grew by 10 trillionish.

    I don't consider that situation a success
    Last edited by Someguy; November 11th, 2016 at 08:41 PM.

  13. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  14. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,176
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Clinton has a better record on the deficit, no question, he's the only one. The GOP has this awful habbit of slashing taxes whenever they are feeling confident and the result is always a bug deficit spike and a lack of recsources when things go bad
    I don't think that is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Yes, but mind you the guy you voted for... if he does what he says he will do, he will make them both look like tight fisted misers as soon as those tax cuts come on line.
    Not sure what that has to do with obama, or the point of his success or failure.
    Trump is not my Guy. That would be Dr Ben. .. O wait.. I voted for him.. Dag nabit. Now everything he does is my fault.
    O well, I will comfort myself with the knowledge that he is not Hillary. .. seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Yes, cutting our spending is a good idea as well! But so few are willing to do the cutting where the cutting has real impact, aka the military and entitlement programs. Why? Because we've become pretty dependent on both of those in the economy. If we want to cut them we have to do it rather slowly and carefully, and I think we should do exactly that.
    Technically you don't have to cut spending. You just need to freeze it, or grow it at a slower rate than the economy. Then you grow your way into a surplus. An option Obama choose not to do (you now grow the economy *J*)
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  15. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Technically you don't have to cut spending. You just need to freeze it, or grow it at a slower rate than the economy. Then you grow your way into a surplus. An option Obama choose not to do (you now grow the economy *J*)
    The economy did grow under Obama. In 2009 his baseline the GDP was 14.419 trillion (real adjusted dollars) It grew every year in his presidency and was 16.397 in 2015. But honestly, there is no "make the economy grow" button available to presidents. Mostly they can try to not screw it up and keep a steady hand on the tiller. The real boons tend to come from technology inovations and a confluence of the overall world economy. Obama has been president in a time when the overall world economy has been shakey.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,176
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The economy did grow under Obama. In 2009 his baseline the GDP was 14.419 trillion (real adjusted dollars) It grew every year in his presidency and was 16.397 in 2015. But honestly, there is no "make the economy grow" button available to presidents. Mostly they can try to not screw it up and keep a steady hand on the tiller. The real boons tend to come from technology inovations and a confluence of the overall world economy. Obama has been president in a time when the overall world economy has been shakey.
    Umm, there kinda is. Basically making it easier for business to do business. Or the so called "deregulation". If there is a button, it is small businesses. Putting drags on them is the opposite, hence the extended slow growth, and no growth under Obama. I also think that many of the Obama numbers are massaged by the admin to soften the negatives. Some of it is "we will see".
    I dig that it grew, just very, very slowly and generally accepted as under performing as far as I understand it.
    My point wasn't about obama really, it was about growing out of debt. He still didn't take the option because half of it is growing the gov slower than whatever the economy is doing.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  17. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,863
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Which regulations would you like to see removed? Which ones has Trump said he will deregulate?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Umm, there kinda is. Basically making it easier for business to do business. Or the so called "deregulation". If there is a button, it is small businesses. Putting drags on them is the opposite, hence the extended slow growth, and no growth under Obama. I also think that many of the Obama numbers are massaged by the admin to soften the negatives. Some of it is "we will see".
    Deregulation is partly how we got into the financial meltdown. It's also partly how we got into the great depression. So while it can cause some spikes in growth it can also cause some collapses, especially in the financial arena. Some are kind of a pure drag and are social policy only, disabilities is a good example. Making sure disabled people can buy groceries and use the toilet isn't a big economic win, but it is a pretty humane and kind thing to do.

    I do think there is room for deregulation, especially on the "small" end of the economy. I think the bigger businesses get, the more it makes sense to ensure they don't end up generating a lot of externalities (polution and the like for example). And I think most business regulation makes more sense at the state and local level than at a national level. I'm for some serious de-regulation in the medical industry for example, I think it may be the only way to tackle health care costs.

    I dig that it grew, just very, very slowly and generally accepted as under performing as far as I understand it.
    It isn't gangbusters for sure. Reagan and Clinton both saw some really strong growth. But considering how different the policies were at the time it seems to me that has a lot more to do with technology and world markets than presidents. With Obama, I really do think his initial reactions had a big impact on turning the economy from a finaincail spiral down, to one where it could grow, if tepidly. And while we have had slow growth, its been better than most of the "western" economies. The East has done better, but it's got the advantage of having a lot of basic imporvments to make as where we are kind of on the bleeding edge of prosperity.

    My point wasn't about obama really, it was about growing out of debt. He still didn't take the option because half of it is growing the gov slower than whatever the economy is doing.
    The fact is he is growing the government slower than the economy which is why the deficit is steadily going down. I too would like that to go faster than it has been. Where we may differ is tax policy. I think cutting taxes dramatically has proven over and over to be poison for the deficit and debt. We need to get a baseline and hold it mostly steady (in terms of total collections). We should also work to get spending down but we need to do it fairly slowly to avoid economic shocks.

    Sadly, we've seen that in US politics, while the deficit gets lip service, few candidates ever have a real plan to deal with it. Dems just bury their heads in the sand (or point out their presidents so far have the better record on deficits) and the GOP counts on the magic growth farries to fix it whenever they lower taxes, which to date has worked about as well as a car with square wheels.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #15
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,176
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Deregulation is partly how we got into the financial meltdown.
    No, it was because of regulation. The regulation that forced banks to lend to unqualified owners. Which the market reacted to by creating ... umm what's the name.. it escapes me.
    Though one could say it was lack of regulation that allowed the .. name that escapes me.. to perpetuate and be miss valued.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I do think there is room for deregulation, especially on the "small" end of the economy.
    That is all I'm really talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It isn't gangbusters for sure. Reagan and Clinton both saw some really strong growth. But considering how different the policies were at the time it seems to me that has a lot more to do with technology and world markets than presidents. With Obama, I really do think his initial reactions had a big impact on turning the economy from a finaincail spiral down, to one where it could grow, if tepidly. And while we have had slow growth, its been better than most of the "western" economies. The East has done better, but it's got the advantage of having a lot of basic imporvments to make as where we are kind of on the bleeding edge of prosperity.
    I think this is a debate that is going to be had going forward as Trump tries to put his economic ideas in motion. If they get passed and have success, then we may have stronger clearer grounds to criticize the current admin.
    I'll leave that discussion for then.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Sadly, we've seen that in US politics, while the deficit gets lip service, few candidates ever have a real plan to deal with it. Dems just bury their heads in the sand (or point out their presidents so far have the better record on deficits) and the GOP counts on the magic growth farries to fix it whenever they lower taxes, which to date has worked about as well as a car with square wheels.
    I am defiantly on the boat of criticizing both sides. But i am against the republicans for cutting taxes, then not seeing a spending bill that they didn't love. It was, cut tax and spend. Instead of the dems "tax and spend". I agree neither work.
    Most of all, I don't think tax cuts are going to really be effective, because the tax code is a disease for our economy. I think there is at least one tax cut that would boom our economy, or be a net plus. That is repatriate foreign money. cut taxes to zero on that.. and you will have some positive.

    I would rather focus on our shared point.. that both parties have done bad.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  20. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, it was because of regulation. The regulation that forced banks to lend to unqualified owners. Which the market reacted to by creating ... umm what's the name.. it escapes me.
    Though one could say it was lack of regulation that allowed the .. name that escapes me.. to perpetuate and be miss valued.
    That's the GOP slant so they can try to privatize Manny May and Feddy Mac. There is some truth to it in that the lower requirements for loans (deregulation) coupled with targets for lower income lending (regulation) kicked off the low down payment/low interest loan market. But... and this is a huge but...

    Once it got underway there was a HUGE demand for these loans. Banks were not forced to make them, they were desperate to get them. They were making money hand over fist on those loans and this massive demand created numerous fly by night lending companies that did nothing but find people wanting to get house loans with little or no proof of income or assets. They in fact started making fake loans or lending with even less than the low satandards they were supposed to follow. Not because the government forced them to but because they made fat cash on them... and here is why...

    The loans were getting picked up, divied into pieces and sold as package investments. These investments were a got ticket, sold as incredibly safe with good rates of return. Ideally all these crappy loans were mixed in with more solid ones, but again, the financial companies, eager to cash in, just packaged all the crap together and the rating companies stamped their approval on them as good investments. The market was crazy hungry for these kinds of investments.

    Meanwhile, banks and insurance companies were buying these things as a place to stick their money. See, that is how banks and insurance companies make most of theri money, but taking what people give them and making investments with it, not from interest or insurance premiums. (deregulation) of what kind of investments they held allowed them to invest more than they actually had in reseve by a good measure. Great for profits but very risky if the investments go bad. Prior to deregulation they couldn't invest that kind of money in these kinds of investments.

    Meainwhile more (deregulation) made it so that companies could do something called a credit default swap, which is a way you can hedge agaisnt an investment going bad. Normally its a way you can limit loss, but instead what companies were doing is putting default swaps many times over to pet on a failure of what was considered a safe asset. They would insure these investments thousands of times over.

    So what happens is this... The market starts to go down, people in these over leveraged loans default, the investments are worth nothing and those investing don't have the cash to cover the losses due to the low reserves and the credit defautls trigger such that the insurance companies issuing the swaps don't have enough money to pay out on them, this crushes the stock market and the financial markets and bankrupts a number of companies with these investments while the home owners are deep underwater and into foreclosure.

    Had we not deregulated the loan requrements we'd have not had the bubble. Had we not deregulated the investment requirements they could have handled the losses better. Had we not deregulated the extent to which swaps can be applied we'd not have had the insurance system fail. Of course the rating industry also failed very badly.


    I would rather focus on our shared point.. that both parties have done bad.
    But who is going to argue agaisnt us? :(
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  21. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,176
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    That's the GOP slant so they can try to privatize Manny May and Feddy Mac. There is some truth to it in that the lower requirements for loans (deregulation) coupled with targets for lower income lending (regulation) kicked off the low down payment/low interest loan market. But... and this is a huge but...
    Well, my argument is that regulations kicked it off, and that what followed was the markets reacting.
    Coupled with a government buyer guaranteeing a sucker.

    Honestly, I'm not educated enough on it. I'm not totally sold that deregulation is the source of the problem, or that more regulation would have helped (we don't have a crystal ball, only hind site).
    https://www.cato.org/policy-report/j...nancial-crisis

    I will say this. Wall street does need regulations. There are other industries that don't need nearly as much as they get. Speaking on faith, I'm pretty sure the admin that spoke about killing coal has put unnecessary regulations on it.

    I'm generally against bloated gov and rules that don't get voted on by representatives. Regulations are a big source of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    But who is going to argue agaisnt us? :(
    Someone evil i'm sure

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Had we not deregulated the loan requrements we'd have not had the bubble. Had we not deregulated the investment requirements they could have handled the losses better. Had we not deregulated the extent to which swaps can be applied we'd not have had the insurance system fail. Of course the rating industry also failed very badly.
    A fair summary from your side.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  22. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post

    Had we not deregulated the loan requrements we'd have not had the bubble.

    (
    No. loaning practices that resulted in the bubble were caused, in large part, by government. Call it regulations or whatever, the subprime loaning issue that arose from the government forcing banks to underwrite loans for people who couldnt afford them were the cause of the bubble and subsequent burst. You cant just blame that on "deregulation"....as if it was a bunch of fat cats in a cigar parlor who took advantage of the evil white Republicans bowing to their demands.

    I blame it squarely of liberal democrats trying to "Make things fair" AKA buy more votes by inventing this idea that banks didnt loan to blacks in proportion (proportionality..another ridiculous liberal concept) to whites BECAUSE they were black.

  23. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinion on President-elect Trump's impending Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    No. loaning practices that resulted in the bubble were caused, in large part, by government. Call it regulations or whatever, the subprime loaning issue that arose from the government forcing banks to underwrite loans for people who couldnt afford them were the cause of the bubble and subsequent burst. You cant just blame that on "deregulation"....as if it was a bunch of fat cats in a cigar parlor who took advantage of the evil white Republicans bowing to their demands.
    Too bad it's ********.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ousing-crisis/

    The subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, not the public market. Subprime is a creature of the private label securitization channel (PLS) market, instead of the Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie). The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.

    Here's some data to back that up: "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."

    As University of California, Irvine law professor David Min has argued, saying the government directly created either the housing bubble or subprime loans has a serious problem with the timing. "From 2002-2005, [GSEs] saw a fairly precipitous drop in market share, going from about 50 percent to just under 30 percent of all mortgage originations. Conversely, private label securitization [PLS] shot up from about 10 percent to about 40 percent over the same period. This is, to state the obvious, a very radical shift in mortgage originations that overlapped neatly with the origination of the most toxic home loans."
    Many conservatives argue that the "affordability goals" of the GSEs, as well as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which was created in the 1970s to make sure poor communities had access to credit, either directly or indirectly led to subprime loans.

    Research from the Federal Reserve by Neil Bhutta and Glenn B. Canner (helpfully summarized in this Randy Kroszner speech), argues that the CRA couldn't have been behind the subprime and housing bubbles. "The very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis." Only six percent of higher-priced loans (their proxy for subprime loans) were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or CRA neighborhoods.

    A recent paper found that while the CRA might have introduced slightly larger risks in lending portfolios, extra loans done to meet CRA compliance weren't more likely to have higher interest rates, lower loan-to-value, or be balloon/interest-only/jumbo/buy-down mortgages, or hold other subprime characteristics. So it is unlikely that the CRA was priming the pump for subprime, or subtly encouraging subprime mortgages to be made by private lenders.

    Jason Thomas and Robert Van Order's research argues that subprime loans were only 5 percent of the GSEs' losses. The GSEs' affordability mission led them to buy the highly rated tranches of mortgage bonds, for which there was already a ton of demand and were not essential to the completion of the deals.
    Did Fannie and Freddie buy high-risk mortgage-backed securities? Yes. But they did not buy enough of them to be blamed for the mortgage crisis. Highly respected analysts who have looked at these data..including the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission majority, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and virtually all academics, including the University of North Carolina, Glaeser et al at Harvard, and the St. Louis Federal Reserve [also here], have all rejected the Wallison/Pinto argument that federal affordable housing policies were responsible for the proliferation of actual high-risk mortgages over the past decade.
    In 2000, Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated the derivatives market, in a lame duck session as a rider to an 11,000 page omnibus appropriation bill. A banking capital "recourse rule" in 2001 allowed the ratings agencies and private bank risk modelers to decide what banks should hold against risk. In 2003 the OCC preempted and overruled Georgia’s new anti-predatory lending laws. Alan Greenspan refused to enforce regulations on, or even investigate the wrongdoing of, the new subprime market during the 2000s. The 2005 bankruptcy reforms in BAPCPA, widely viewed as friendly if not written by the financial industry, codified the market practice of letting derivatives go to the front of the line in bankruptcy, helping create the conditions for shadow banking runs.

    These government actions all fall under the rubric of deregulation, or "letting the market decide" how to manage the rules of the financial sector, and they are more relevant to the actual crisis. Though these are government policies, and they were reckless, I doubt they are what conservatives like Rubio mean.
    So... Was it a government lending program instituted in 1970 that caused the 2008/9 crash or the deregulations of the early 2000s that directly affected the financial products that exploded during the meltdown?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Trump would make a great president
    By SadElephant in forum Politics
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: June 30th, 2016, 11:31 AM
  2. Obama's Is A Failed Presidency
    By evensaul in forum General Debate
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: February 29th, 2016, 07:33 AM
  3. Donald Trump for President ?
    By Vandaler in forum Politics
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: April 18th, 2011, 06:39 PM
  4. Which one is better: An honest President, or a brilliant President?
    By jigokou tenshi in forum Community Advice Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 17th, 2010, 02:10 PM
  5. You just won the presidency and...
    By Lord Infamous in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 8th, 2009, 09:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •