[citation][nom]SteelCity1981[/nom]acadia, while i'll agree it wasn't one thing that caused it but ninja loans didn't help either. when you take a look at people buying houses before banks started handing out ninja loans people needed collateral, after the FDIC apporved of these ninja loans in the late 90's people didn't have to show collateral anymore, as along as they had a job and decent credit they were appoved. This is what you call the banks taking for granted a good economy. But when the tech bubble burst in early 2000 and people stopped making hand over fist in money and started to lose money instead which had a domino effect on everything else in the economy that's when it all started to go down hill and that's whe al of these banks that handed out ninja loans realized they got in over their head when people could no longer afford their mortgage because by the mid to late 2000's we were heading into a ressesion where jobs were being lost at a rapid pace and people didn't need collateral at the time of these ninja loans didn't have the money to afford these houses so the bank had to eat their debt which pretty much put the housing market into a downward spiral from there. No one is denying that Obama didn't inherit 1.1 tirllion dollars in debt from the bush admin. A lot of that debt came from 2 wars, but what Obama has done is add an editional 8 trillon dollars in debt. Since he has been in office unemployment is worse, the economy is worse, more people are on gov aid then ever before. So basicly he hasn't fixed the problem he has just added onto the problem itself. Even Clinton has disagreed with a nice sum of his choices inregards to his admin choices on the economy. I'm not a rep but we elect a prez to fix problems not makes excuses and make them worse and Obama has done just that. All this hope and change stuff was nothing but talk to get elected. I mean where is the hope for those 23 million americans out of work? The only change they saw since his admin was losing their job. And yes both parties are to blame for this mess in the past decade, but from this admin all there has been is nothing but excuses and blame instead of finding away to compermise set aside your diff and do what's best for the country. This is where Clinton was soo good and Obama isn't. Clinton could reach across both party platforms and work together Obama doesn't want to work across both parties lines in get things done.[/citation]
Come on now ... there is so much disinformation in your post it's absurd.
Number 1) Banks created sub prime market because it was financially lucrative. They did this in the 80's as well under SNL and thrift banking system, and the government bailed them out again once it became not so lucrative. Banks wanted to make those loans, however, the loans in of themselves are not domino, it's but a cog ... you needed repeal of lot's of regulations as mentioned, like Glass-Stegal, you needed the derivatives market, you needed looser lending practises, you needed burdening US debt (lowering confidence it doesn't actually do anything right now from an economic stand point), mix that all up and it was just the right mixture.
Number 2) There is a difference between debt and deficit, Obama inherited a $1.1 trillion deficit. You then claim he created $8 trillion added to the national debt, ok .. there are 2 things wrong with this statement, that simple examination makes it clear it's non-sense? WHat legislative and or other initiative cost $8 trillion dollars... I'll assume what you say is correct, but please let me know what that money was spent on. You can't because your number is fictitious , the president doesn't control the purse strings congress does, and you let me know what $8 trillion dollar program Obama has that wasn't paid for. There is none. Finally, your statment is false because if you just go to the CBO cite, you will see that when Obama took office the national debt was $11.9 trillion it's $16 trillion today, so even if you can some how say Obama has some program that is larger than any program that we have today, I mean something bigger than Military , SS and MM combined ... at most we would have spent $4 trillion in debt on it. But, to answer the question, there is none, and your number is made up period ... the only initiative that has added deficit and debt that is in fact spending endorsed by the White House that didn't exist prior to Obama, was the 2009 stimulus and it cost $800 billion.
Number 3) Obama is a clintonite, the failure in working with the GOP, is because the GOP does not compromise today. They said their objective was to fail his presidency, they didn't say create jobs, didn't say improve the economy, didn't say even to cut spending , it was to fail the president of the United States. Yes, that's real grown up. You elected a bunch of tea-party folks who some how see "compromise" as a dirty word, Obama laid out a plan for $4 in cuts, only $1 revenue increase, how much more can Obama compromise than that? The GOP is the party that has people sign documents I'll never raise taxes, even if it's the fiscally right thing to do ... The short of it your claim about not reaching across the isle is simply a joke. you can't compromise with people who don't actually believe in compromise, not my idea, but by their own words.
Finally, the economy is worse argument, is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, no sane economist has ever made such a claim ... yes an economy with a dow that was 5000 points lower, and job losses of 750.000 jobs per month, banks closing left and right, GM and the US autoindustry about to be bankrupt ... is worse than an economy that adds jobs, 5000 point higher dow, a rebounded autoindustry and GM #1 in the world again (a position it has n't held since the 90's) ... Come on your comments on the health of the economy today vs 2008-2009, is simply a f....ing joke. Is the economy perfect no, but to imply that it's worse today than then, is just insane.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram