New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Where's obama at?

middleview

President
Supporting Member
He didn't invest in GM, he bankrolled the UAW, a massive fundraising organization for the Democrat Party. And he didn't save a million jobs, he saved however many Union shit-heads are in the UAW.
Every grant he gave to renewable energy companies, was nothing more than free money, for his supporters and butt-buddies, to play like they were businessmen. They all went bankrupt.
Really? All went bankrupt? Vestas is here in Colorado and doing very well....we see their trucks hauling blades for their turbines from the factory all the time.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I give up...you're hopeless. You cannot begin to understand the simple concept of risk in business even when it's presented to you in black and white from the NYT Business Desk folks who make a helluva lot more money than you or I. And, once again, they were right, which also means nothing to you.

See ya..
The posts you've written had nothing at all to do with "risk in business" and everything to do with blaming democrats for the crash that happened because republicans were in control from 1996 to 2007. Could the repeal of Glass Steagall have had some impact? Yup. Who were Gramm Leach and Bliley....republicans in a republican controlled congress.

So you started off attempting to read something into the CRA that wasn't there and ignoring what was. Then you meandered into Freddie and Fannie and their increased risk in allowing subprime mortgages into the mortgage backed securities they bought...which, of course, had nothing at all to do with the CRA.

You ignore that the CRA only applied to banks, not to other mortgage providers like Countrywide. You cannot find evidence that loans for property in areas covered by the CRA were more likely to be foreclosed. You asked for information on how much time passed between financing a home and foreclosure....Which I provided (proving you wrong)....

You also ignored the impact of no-down loans starting in 2003 and the relationship to defaults which increased dramatically in 2005 and 2006. Add to that the change in liquidity rules for banks....to allow them to borrow $40 for every $1 in deposits....letting the banks go far enough out on a limb that the crash was a foregone conclusion by 2006.

I accept your surrender. Wise of you to quit now.
 

Days

Commentator
The posts you've written had nothing at all to do with "risk in business" and everything to do with blaming democrats for the crash that happened because republicans were in control from 1996 to 2007. Could the repeal of Glass Steagall have had some impact? Yup. Who were Gramm Leach and Bliley....republicans in a republican controlled congress.

So you started off attempting to read something into the CRA that wasn't there and ignoring what was. Then you meandered into Freddie and Fannie and their increased risk in allowing subprime mortgages into the mortgage backed securities they bought...which, of course, had nothing at all to do with the CRA.

You ignore that the CRA only applied to banks, not to other mortgage providers like Countrywide. You cannot find evidence that loans for property in areas covered by the CRA were more likely to be foreclosed. You asked for information on how much time passed between financing a home and foreclosure....Which I provided (proving you wrong)....

You also ignored the impact of no-down loans starting in 2003 and the relationship to defaults which increased dramatically in 2005 and 2006. Add to that the change in liquidity rules for banks....to allow them to borrow $40 for every $1 in deposits....letting the banks go far enough out on a limb that the crash was a foregone conclusion by 2006.

I accept your surrender. Wise of you to quit now.
Blaming either political party for yet another bubble in the financial sector is pretty clueless. The housing bubble and the popping of that bubble were both by design. It's the same ol' game from the FED system, and they will repeat it, looks like the stock exchange will be the next target. Build a bubble, pop it. Just look for the bubble.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Blaming either political party for yet another bubble in the financial sector is pretty clueless. The housing bubble and the popping of that bubble were both by design. It's the same ol' game from the FED system, and they will repeat it, looks like the stock exchange will be the next target. Build a bubble, pop it. Just look for the bubble.
Clueless? Yeah, it was all a coincidence. Byron Dorgan got up to speak against Gramm-Leach-Bliley. He said it would be ten years, but the bill would destroy the economy. It certainly made a huge contribution to the recession. The federal guarantee for no-down mortgages also helped, banks knew they wouldn't lose a dime, since even the shittiest mortgages was guaranteed. AIG was an insurance company. They wrote policies to protect companies that bought a ton of mortgage backed securities....but did not have cash reserves to pay claims. They were investing their reserves in the same crap they were insuring. Gee..why didn't federal regulators spot that? It was because the administration laid off 150 people from SEC enforcement and investigations and there was only one federal auditor assigned to AIG. After the layoffs at SEC there was exactly one person left in the office of national risk assessment. Lehman actually hid $50 Billion in debt just before they were audited through a perfectly legal accounting gimmick.
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
You said "all went bankrupt". I gave you one example of a company that is doing quite well. There are a bunch of them. I have solar on my roof from Solar City...they are doing pretty well. More than a few of my friends and neighbors are driving Chevy Volts.

Did some go under? Yes....as did two of George W. Bush's oil companies. So what? No Risk, no Reward.
The money Bush lost, wasn't stolen from me. To fund the sham companies that Obama promoted, he gave away money, stolen from taxpayers. Solar City is an independent company.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The money Bush lost, wasn't stolen from me. To fund the sham companies that Obama promoted, he gave away money, stolen from taxpayers. Solar City is an independent company.
So is Trump stealing $3 million per weekend from you to go to Florida to play golf?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Pocket change compared to what Obama, spent.
Yeah, because it costs a ton of money to go play golf at Andrews air force base....

The Secret Service just tried for an additional $60 million per year because covering Trump costs more.
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
Yeah, because it costs a ton of money to go play golf at Andrews air force base....

The Secret Service just tried for an additional $60 million per year because covering Trump costs more.
Trump's life is worth saving; Obama's was not.
 

Days

Commentator
Clueless? Yeah, it was all a coincidence. Byron Dorgan got up to speak against Gramm-Leach-Bliley. He said it would be ten years, but the bill would destroy the economy. It certainly made a huge contribution to the recession. The federal guarantee for no-down mortgages also helped, banks knew they wouldn't lose a dime, since even the shittiest mortgages was guaranteed. AIG was an insurance company. They wrote policies to protect companies that bought a ton of mortgage backed securities....but did not have cash reserves to pay claims. They were investing their reserves in the same crap they were insuring. Gee..why didn't federal regulators spot that? It was because the administration laid off 150 people from SEC enforcement and investigations and there was only one federal auditor assigned to AIG. After the layoffs at SEC there was exactly one person left in the office of national risk assessment. Lehman actually hid $50 Billion in debt just before they were audited through a perfectly legal accounting gimmick.
The housing bubble didn't destroy the economy. Shutting down old factories and laying off those workers destroyed the economy. The housing bubble sent all those laid off workers into bankruptcy and foreclosure. But they were already in trouble.

The collapse of the financial sector was due to massive fraud executed through exploiting flaws in the new MERS method of mortgage processing (security sucked when they first went to online processing in 2003). Like you say, a real mortgage is backed by a house, even if the bank loses money they don't lose much, as long as they end up with the property. But when fraud was executed, fake mortgages, identity theft or fake borrowers, and self-insured Title that... closed a quarter billion in a couple of months, then vanished... that's what was stinging the big banks for tens of billions in write-offs per quarter in 2005-2007. The big banks stopped the bleeding by shutting the entire industry down, which resulted in property values going under water nationwide. It also tanked the stock market.

Obama's recovery was fueled by all that capital the mafia stole from the banks, they turned around and invested it into new factories with automation... hence, the jobless recovery. Trump says he's going to bring back jobs to our fallen middle class... believe that when I see it.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The housing bubble didn't destroy the economy. Shutting down old factories and laying off those workers destroyed the economy. The housing bubble sent all those laid off workers into bankruptcy and foreclosure. But they were already in trouble.

The collapse of the financial sector was due to massive fraud executed through exploiting flaws in the new MERS method of mortgage processing (security sucked when they first went to online processing in 2003). Like you say, a real mortgage is backed by a house, even if the bank loses money they don't lose much, as long as they end up with the property. But when fraud was executed, fake mortgages, identity theft or fake borrowers, and self-insured Title that... closed a quarter billion in a couple of months, then vanished... that's what was stinging the big banks for tens of billions in write-offs per quarter in 2005-2007. The big banks stopped the bleeding by shutting the entire industry down, which resulted in property values going under water nationwide. It also tanked the stock market.

Obama's recovery was fueled by all that capital the mafia stole from the banks, they turned around and invested it into new factories with automation... hence, the jobless recovery. Trump says he's going to bring back jobs to our fallen middle class... believe that when I see it.
Watch the documentary "Inside Job".
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
showing, once again, just how unbalanced you are. As much as I disliked Bush and Trump...I'd never suggest that the life of the president should be threatened or in jeopardy.
Bush was a real President, Obama was not. And I'm not talking about threatening or putting the dirty SOB in jeopardy.
I'm hoping God will take him out of our lives, no man since Hitler ever deserved a dirt nap, as much as Barack Obama does.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Bush was a real President, Obama was not. And I'm not talking about threatening or putting the dirty SOB in jeopardy.
I'm hoping God will take him out of our lives, no man since Hitler ever deserved a dirt nap, as much as Barack Obama does.
Bush, the real president, doubled the national debt to pay his base for their support and he got 4,500 American soldiers killed in a war he had to lie about to justify. Between his tax cuts, wars off the books and catastrophic economic policies he created the worst economy since 1929. Bush united the population...by the time he left about 80% of voters hated him. When you see 750,000 people per month losing their jobs...you know those 750,000 workers would not agree that Bush was acceptable as a president.

You're such a dim bulb that you can't see past what party someone belongs to before you judge their performance.
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
Bush, the real president, doubled the national debt to pay his base for their support and he got 4,500 American soldiers killed in a war he had to lie about to justify. Between his tax cuts, wars off the books and catastrophic economic policies he created the worst economy since 1929. Bush united the population...by the time he left about 80% of voters hated him. When you see 750,000 people per month losing their jobs...you know those 750,000 workers would not agree that Bush was acceptable as a president.

You're such a dim bulb that you can't see past what party someone belongs to before you judge their performance.
No he didn't, That's what Obama did.
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
Bush, the real president, doubled the national debt to pay his base for their support and he got 4,500 American soldiers killed in a war he had to lie about to justify. Between his tax cuts, wars off the books and catastrophic economic policies he created the worst economy since 1929. Bush united the population...by the time he left about 80% of voters hated him. When you see 750,000 people per month losing their jobs...you know those 750,000 workers would not agree that Bush was acceptable as a president.

You're such a dim bulb that you can't see past what party someone belongs to before you judge their performance.
You, and your butt-buddy, Obama worshippers, make a good argument for having a Horseshit rating feature for the forum.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
You, and your butt-buddy, Obama worshippers, make a good argument for having a Horseshit rating feature for the forum.
Translation: Yeah, I know you can prove every single point you made...Bush did lie to justify the war in Iraq. We did lose 4,500 American servicemen in an idiotic and unnecessary war. We created the insurgency by disbanding the Iraqi army and putting 250,000 armed and trained soldiers out of work....and yes, I know that Bush cratered the economy, doubled the national debt and put a few million people out of work...but since I don't have a coherent response to those facts, in desperation I think I will call you names.
 
Top