Posted by toddcommish on 3/4/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):
The Community Reinvestment Act was part of the trigger.  It forced (and incented) banks to give loans to subprime borrowers that they couldn't pay off, because, well, they're ******* SUBPRIME BORROWERS, and don't have the brain cells necessary to manage their funds. 

So they default, lose their homes, and immediately start sucking at the govt teat.  Since they're poor money managers, they welcome the nanny state, and like sitting at home watching Oprah and Springer, eating CheezyPoofs, and basically using tax dollars to subsidize their inactivity.  Since they can only afford the essentials (cell phone, cable tv/DVR, fast food, and alcohol), they're not buying "luxury items" and aren't creating jobs with their purchases (like a new house would).

THAT'S WHAT STARTED THE ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN.  Making more government-dependent money wasters, and making the workers and wage-earners pay for them.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Quit avoiding the questions.  I'll repeat them:

And stupid, wasteful spending by the government will do create a demand and fix the economy, right?

In addition to renting all the vacant buildings in the US, do you think the govt should purchase all empty houses?


Please answer them.   I'm trying to learn something here.

Hello?

Why would I want to argue with someone who doesn't have a ******* clue what they are talking about? I wouldn't argue with my six year old about this and he knows more about macroeconomics than you do.

WHAT????

You've argued young earth with biz for months in multiple threads.   You've brought up some Bernie Williams point from November in multiple threads.  

The real question is "What the **** won't you argue about?" and "When the **** did you become picky about who you were arguing with?"

And I'm saddened that you have a son.  Little bastard doesn't stand a chance in this world with a raging ******* like you as an authority figure.  Please tell me you made that up.

And then answer the ******* questions.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/4/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):
The Community Reinvestment Act was part of the trigger.  It forced (and incented) banks to give loans to subprime borrowers that they couldn't pay off, because, well, they're ******* SUBPRIME BORROWERS, and don't have the brain cells necessary to manage their funds. 

So they default, lose their homes, and immediately start sucking at the govt teat.  Since they're poor money managers, they welcome the nanny state, and like sitting at home watching Oprah and Springer, eating CheezyPoofs, and basically using tax dollars to subsidize their inactivity.  Since they can only afford the essentials (cell phone, cable tv/DVR, fast food, and alcohol), they're not buying "luxury items" and aren't creating jobs with their purchases (like a new house would).

THAT'S WHAT STARTED THE ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN.  Making more government-dependent money wasters, and making the workers and wage-earners pay for them.

Not true at all.

The CRA was passed in 1977. 50% of subprime loans were made by banks not subject to federal supervision. Another 30% were made by affiliates not subject to supervision or examination. CRA loans carried lower rates than subprime loans and were less likely to end up in mortgage backed securities.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Quit avoiding the questions.  I'll repeat them:

And stupid, wasteful spending by the government will do create a demand and fix the economy, right?

In addition to renting all the vacant buildings in the US, do you think the govt should purchase all empty houses?


Please answer them.   I'm trying to learn something here.

Hello?

Why would I want to argue with someone who doesn't have a ******* clue what they are talking about? I wouldn't argue with my six year old about this and he knows more about macroeconomics than you do.

WHAT????

You've argued young earth with biz for months in multiple threads.   You've brought up some Bernie Williams point from November in multiple threads.  

The real question is "What the **** won't you argue about?" and "When the **** did you become picky about who you were arguing with?"

And I'm saddened that you have a son.  Little bastard doesn't stand a chance in this world with a raging ******* like you as an authority figure.  Please tell me you made that up.

And then answer the ******* questions.

At least biz has a clue. He knows he's wrong so he avoids the argument. You couldn't buy a clue if you were a billionaire. You're hopeless and I have no interest in answering your questions because you've already proven yourself to be a moron.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Holy ****, you are one ******* stupid person.

I'm dumb?

Let's look at your story, with a little added explanation:

People had mortgages they couldn't afford. When the mortgages reset past the intro rate, those people couldn't keep paying the mortgage. So they cut back on spending, or sold their house at a loss, or lost it to foreclosure. The short sales and foreclosures had ripple effects in real estate, construction, & finance. More people lost jobs so more people had to cut back on spending. Businesses that sell things to people who work in construction, real estate, and finance (ALL BUSINESSES) saw a reduction in demand and laid off workers, so those people had to cut back on spending.

So what caused the recession? Sure, people borrowing beyond what they could afford lit the fuse, but the real problem was the massive shrinking demand for all products and services.

Why don't you tell me where I'm wrong, tec?

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Holy ****, you are one ******* stupid person.

I'm dumb?

Let's look at your story, with a little added explanation:

People had mortgages they couldn't afford. When the mortgages reset past the intro rate, those people couldn't keep paying the mortgage. So they cut back on spending, or sold their house at a loss, or lost it to foreclosure. The short sales and foreclosures had ripple effects in real estate, construction, & finance. More people lost jobs so more people had to cut back on spending. Businesses that sell things to people who work in construction, real estate, and finance (ALL BUSINESSES) saw a reduction in demand and laid off workers, so those people had to cut back on spending.

So what caused the recession? Sure, people borrowing beyond what they could afford lit the fuse, but the real problem was the massive shrinking demand for all products and services.

Why don't you tell me where I'm wrong, tec?

You're wrong because you're insisting that the crash of the economy was caused by people not spending.

The crash of the economy was caused by the burst of the mortgage market bubble, which caused a domino effect of financial failures which ended with the crash of the economy.  True, people stopped spending along the way as the dominos started falling as they were personally affected.  But it is just plain stupid to assert that the crash of the economy was triggered by people not spending.

It's cause --> effect, not effect --> cause, dumbass.

Posted by toddcommish on 3/4/2013 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/4/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):
The Community Reinvestment Act was part of the trigger.  It forced (and incented) banks to give loans to subprime borrowers that they couldn't pay off, because, well, they're ******* SUBPRIME BORROWERS, and don't have the brain cells necessary to manage their funds. 

So they default, lose their homes, and immediately start sucking at the govt teat.  Since they're poor money managers, they welcome the nanny state, and like sitting at home watching Oprah and Springer, eating CheezyPoofs, and basically using tax dollars to subsidize their inactivity.  Since they can only afford the essentials (cell phone, cable tv/DVR, fast food, and alcohol), they're not buying "luxury items" and aren't creating jobs with their purchases (like a new house would).

THAT'S WHAT STARTED THE ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN.  Making more government-dependent money wasters, and making the workers and wage-earners pay for them.

Not true at all.

The CRA was passed in 1977. 50% of subprime loans were made by banks not subject to federal supervision. Another 30% were made by affiliates not subject to supervision or examination. CRA loans carried lower rates than subprime loans and were less likely to end up in mortgage backed securities.

Look at the revisions made during the Clinton administration.  Don't just read the top paragraph.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Quit avoiding the questions.  I'll repeat them:

And stupid, wasteful spending by the government will do create a demand and fix the economy, right?

In addition to renting all the vacant buildings in the US, do you think the govt should purchase all empty houses?


Please answer them.   I'm trying to learn something here.

Hello?

Why would I want to argue with someone who doesn't have a ******* clue what they are talking about? I wouldn't argue with my six year old about this and he knows more about macroeconomics than you do.

WHAT????

You've argued young earth with biz for months in multiple threads.   You've brought up some Bernie Williams point from November in multiple threads.  

The real question is "What the **** won't you argue about?" and "When the **** did you become picky about who you were arguing with?"

And I'm saddened that you have a son.  Little bastard doesn't stand a chance in this world with a raging ******* like you as an authority figure.  Please tell me you made that up.

And then answer the ******* questions.

At least biz has a clue. He knows he's wrong so he avoids the argument. You couldn't buy a clue if you were a billionaire. You're hopeless and I have no interest in answering your questions because you've already proven yourself to be a moron.

Answer the questions.

You made the stupid statement(s).   Own it.

And tell me you made up your son. 

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 3/4/2013 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Wasn't the massive shrinking demand for all products and services a symptom of the real problem, and not the real problem itself?

I think the shrinking demand was the problem. That's why the economy went to ****.

Sure, you can say the housing bubble caused demand to shrink, but the lack of demand is what needs to be fixed to get the economy moving again.

Sorry, took a break to get some work done.

Isn't that a lot like taking aspirin to fix a broken leg?  As in "I'm in pain.  Sure, my broken leg is causing the pain, but the pain is what needs to be addressed."

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Quit avoiding the questions.  I'll repeat them:

And stupid, wasteful spending by the government will do create a demand and fix the economy, right?

In addition to renting all the vacant buildings in the US, do you think the govt should purchase all empty houses?


Please answer them.   I'm trying to learn something here.

Hello?

Why would I want to argue with someone who doesn't have a ******* clue what they are talking about? I wouldn't argue with my six year old about this and he knows more about macroeconomics than you do.

WHAT????

You've argued young earth with biz for months in multiple threads.   You've brought up some Bernie Williams point from November in multiple threads.  

The real question is "What the **** won't you argue about?" and "When the **** did you become picky about who you were arguing with?"

And I'm saddened that you have a son.  Little bastard doesn't stand a chance in this world with a raging ******* like you as an authority figure.  Please tell me you made that up.

And then answer the ******* questions.

At least biz has a clue. He knows he's wrong so he avoids the argument. You couldn't buy a clue if you were a billionaire. You're hopeless and I have no interest in answering your questions because you've already proven yourself to be a moron.

Answer the questions.

You made the stupid statement(s).   Own it.

And tell me you made up your son. 

What statement was stupid?