Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, January 29, 2018

With the government's budget deficit rising, the Treasury Department announced Monday that it expects to borrow $441 billion in the current January-March quarter, the largest amount in eight years. The Treasury said this figure compares to actual borrowing of $282 billion in the October-December quarter. It will be the largest borrowing need since the government borrowed $483 billion in the January-March quarter of 2010, a period when the government was using stimulus spending to try to lift the country out of the Great Recession and provide support to the banking system after the worst financial crisis in seven decades.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone who says that the Tax Cut will have no effect on our deficit should have this article wadded up and crammed up their ass.

#1 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2018-01-29 08:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

In the good times, countries are supposed to pay off debt and prepare their finances to handle the next downturn.

We are doing the opposite of that. Not good. Now GOP is helping people to not even have health insurance.

This is a poor conservative performance. Just like the last three? More?

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-29 09:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#1 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER

I have never said that, I just don't care .. I used to care, but ever since the outrage over cutting BigBird, the stoic says you just have to accept what you can't control, spending will continue unabated so why care?

The end will come it won't be pretty, but I will be fine...

How do you say, "I got mine" good luck Lefty ....

#2 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

No, thats Keynesian policy ideal, but no country has ever done that, spending increases as a percentage of GDP, as Danforth says, as far as the eyes can see ...

When spending goes over 20% and the collections averages 20% the end is just a matter of time ...

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-01-29 10:23 PM | Reply

We're borrowing on the backs of the next generation in order to give the oligarchs that hold the GOP's ball gags a massive tax cut. It's no wonder millennials are so f'n pissed off, the Gross Oligarchs and Pedophiles are driving this truck straight off the cliff! During good economic times taxes should go up, the economy needs less stimulation, not more! We need to pay down debt, not increase it. This is Bush Economic Policy redux on steroids, and we saw how that turned out last time! The GOP wet dream is coming true, they will destroy the government. The only way to pay our debt will be to sell government holdings and cut services.

#4 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2018-01-29 10:45 PM | Reply

"When spending goes over 20% and the collections averages 20% the end is just a matter of time ..."

I'm curious:

Did you support the recent vote to borrow an additional $1.5 Trillion for tax cuts?

What was your reaction when Dubya and Cheney purposefully reset our fiscal sights from surpluses to deficits?

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-29 10:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The only way to pay our debt will be to sell government holdings and cut services."

That's not a bug, that's a feature!
~The Right

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-29 10:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Ok so things we know the GOP is full of shit on:

Morals
Family values
Patriotism
Fiscal responsibility and/or policy
Law and order
The Constitution

Did I miss anything?

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-29 11:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 9

Did I miss anything?

#7 | POSTED BY JPW

Plenty.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-29 11:55 PM | Reply

The GOP wet dream is coming true, they will destroy the government.

We must destroy the government in order to save it.

- GOP

#9 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2018-01-30 05:05 AM | Reply

Well, a record high is a type of winning.

#10 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-01-30 05:08 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

No, thats Keynesian policy ideal, but no country has ever done that, spending increases as a percentage of GDP, as Danforth says, as far as the eyes can see ...
When spending goes over 20% and the collections averages 20% the end is just a matter of time ...
#3 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Here is a suggestion: Elect only democrats.

They are the only ones in the last 30 years to reduce the deficit. 2 in a row actually.

#11 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-30 10:57 AM | Reply

Given how many times the WH, the House and the Senate have changed party hands, this is clearly a bipartisan problem.

The GOP is a bit worse because Dems are always willing to raise taxes. But revenue is not the problem, spending and unfunded liabilities are the problem and neither party is willing to do anything about it.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 12:28 PM | Reply

"The GOP is a bit worse because Dems"

And there you have our problem in a nutshell.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 12:30 PM | Reply

"spending and unfunded liabilities are the problem and neither party is willing to do anything about it."

One party left behind surplus budgets as far as the eye could see. What did the other party choose to do at that point?

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 12:32 PM | Reply

When spending goes over 20% and the collections averages 20% the end is just a matter of time ...
#3 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2018-01-29 10:23 PM

Collections were at 21% during Reagan's Term. Conservatives like to talk about the laffer curve as a sort of abstract thing they envision with the peak far to the left such that 20% tax rates start reducing revenue.

The Swiss did a detailed real examination and found that the peak is actually in the 67-70% range of taxation.

Anything to the right of the peak is what is know as the prohibitive range. Tax cuts only lead to growth if the tax rate is within the prohibitive range.

Cutting taxes on the left side of the peak lowers revenue without boosting growth

#15 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-30 12:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"But revenue is not the problem, spending and unfunded liabilities are the problem and neither party "

Keep in mind this is the same tool who was singing up the great prosperity Kansas was going to enjoy, (mark my words)
Because it wasn't about revenue then, either

#16 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-01-30 12:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#14

One party? Which party controlled the House when that happened?

Also, adding SS to the general treasury is what caused the surplus. You know, an accounting gimmick. Lastly, how were the deficits from ‘09 - ‘16?

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 12:59 PM | Reply

Military spending and War making is the problem against real and imaginary enemies. The cost of our various wars since WWII equals our deficit. The military budget itself fails all accounting inquiries and is the primary obstacle against promotion of the general Welfare, clearly a very important constitutional mandate. Its what Eisenhower warned us about, a man with first hand knowledge of the problem.

#18 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-30 01:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"One party? Which party controlled the House when that happened? "

When our sights were reset from Surplusville to Debtsylvania? Republicans.
images.search.yahoo.com

"adding SS to the general treasury is what caused the surplus."

And a surplus is a surplus is a surplus. Adding SS was used as the basis for YOUR income tax cuts.

"Lastly, how were the deficits from ‘09 - ‘16?"

Let's settle on parameters first. Shall we charge the damage Dubya caused and Obama had to address with borrowing to Dubya, or to Obama? How about the service on Dubya's additional debt? Obama's bill?

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 01:19 PM | Reply

Shall we charge the damage Dubya caused and Obama had to address with borrowing to Dubya, or to Obama?

Bush.

How about the service on Dubya's additional debt?

Now that we've settled that, do Obama and Democrats bear any responsibility for the trillions in added debt over the past 8 years? Or is that ALL on the GOP?

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:26 PM | Reply

Its what Eisenhower warned us about, a man with first hand knowledge of the problem.

#18 | POSTED BY BAYVIKING

Military spending comprised a much bigger percentage of the federal budget than it does today.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:27 PM | Reply

How about the service on Dubya's additional debt?

Bush

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"...do Obama and Democrats bear any responsibility for the trillions in added debt over the past 8 years? "

Sure.

Remind me who either filibustered every suggestion of a tax increase, or refused to let it out of committee?

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 01:35 PM | Reply

Remind me who either filibustered every suggestion of a tax increase, or refused to let it out of committee?

#23 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Obama got a tax increase when the Bush-era tax rates expired.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:36 PM | Reply

"...do Obama and Democrats bear any responsibility for the trillions in added debt over the past 8 years? "

Sure...but not really

FTFY

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:38 PM | Reply

"Bush."
"Bush"

Well, Bush reset the sights to deficit-land, against all Democratic opposition, and left behind an economy on fire and record deficits as far as the eye could see.

Obama's fault, right?

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 01:38 PM | Reply

Obama's fault, right?

#26 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I already said no. How many times are you going to ask the same question?

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:41 PM | Reply

"Sure...but not really"

Closer to the truth than blaming both sides equally.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 01:41 PM | Reply

Well, Bush reset the sights to deficit-land, against all Democratic opposition,

I don't recall Democrats pushing for spending cuts during the Bush years. Maybe my memory is failing me.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:42 PM | Reply

Closer to the truth than blaming both sides equally.

#28 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I didn't blame both sides equally. I said it's a bipartisan problem, which it is. I even went so far to say the GOP is worse.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:43 PM | Reply

"I already said no."

Well, if you're blaming Bush properly, what's the point of your question about the last 8 years?

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 01:44 PM | Reply

For the last 8 years we had a $trillion stimulus and zero percent interest rates. GOP's fault, right?

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:45 PM | Reply

Well, if you're blaming Bush properly, what's the point of your question about the last 8 years?

#31 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

That you appear to give Dems a complete pass when they were in power.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:45 PM | Reply

"I don't recall Democrats pushing for spending cuts during the Bush years"

Who calls for spending cuts when you're running a surplus?

Better to cut taxes for the wealthiest and start an extra war, right?

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 01:46 PM | Reply

I don't recall Democrats pushing for spending cuts during the Bush years. Maybe my memory is failing me.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Trying your level best to try and put the blame on Democrats ehhhhhhhhh??? Instead of blaming Dubya.

#35 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-30 01:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"you appear to give Dems a complete pass when they were in power."

No, but I know if you're given nothing but deficits, and the opposition party breaks the filibuster record in less than half the time, it's Obama's fault.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 01:47 PM | Reply

I don't recall Democrats pushing for spending cuts during the Bush years. Maybe my memory is failing me.

#29 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-30 01:42 PM | REPLY |

Because spending was never the problem. tax cuts were. Civilization costs money. taxes are how we pay those costs.

Stupid republicans don't understand that a $5 tax on everybody is better than a $10 cost everybody has to pay for the same service from the private sector

#37 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-30 01:47 PM | Reply

"a $5 tax on everybody is better than a $10 cost everybody has to pay for the same service"

That depends. Are my donors getting that $10?
~Today's Rs

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No, but

You can't help yourself.

and the opposition party breaks the filibuster record in less than half the time, it's Obama's fault.

#36 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

The Senate majority leader filled the tree more than all prior majority leaders combined. Filled trees and filibusters go hand in hand. But, surely it's the GOP's fault that Reid wouldn't allow any amendments to bills he provided to the floor.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:50 PM | Reply

Trying your level best to try and put the blame on Democrats ehhhhhhhhh??? Instead of blaming Dubya.

#35 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Not at all. The GOP spent like drunken sailors during the Bush years. That's on them. "Compassionate conservatism".

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:52 PM | Reply

I think tax rates should be high enough to fully fund the government.

It's impossible to raise even remotely enough revenue by taxing only the rich. Make people pay for government and this big-government love affair would end real quick.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:54 PM | Reply

"You can't help yourself. "

Your claim was I was proffering no blame at all. All politicians deserve blame, BUT those who alter the fundamentals (surpluses to deficits) deserve a MUCH HIGHER portion of said blame.

Including blame long after they're gone, if their alterations have long-term effects.

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 01:55 PM | Reply

"I think tax rates should be high enough to fully fund the government."

The folks you're voting for, don't.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 01:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The folks you're voting for, don't.

#43 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I know. The folks you're voting for don't either.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#14 DANFORTH

How does the stock bubble during Clinton's last years factor into your equation? Housing crisis? Who's responsible for that? Do Senators and Represtantives hold any responsibility or just the President? Is there a law on the books stating we must spend every dollar we are projected to make and then some? I see Jeff's point in the difference between Dems and Reps as the same car being driven off a cliff. It's just the Dems feel like 50 mph is a good speed and Reps are more around 70 mph.

#45 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-30 01:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It's impossible to raise even remotely enough revenue by taxing only the rich."

So how is borrowing an additional $2 Trillion and cutting their taxes is the answer?

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 01:57 PM | Reply

I see Jeff's point in the difference between Dems and Reps as the same car being driven off a cliff. It's just the Dems feel like 50 mph is a good speed and Reps are more around 70 mph.

#45 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

That's pretty well stated.

Fact is unfunded liabilities are going to bankrupt this country anyway and neither party is willing to do anything about it.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:58 PM | Reply

So how is borrowing an additional $2 Trillion and cutting their taxes is the answer?

#46 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

It isn't.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 01:59 PM | Reply

"It isn't."

To the folks you're voting for, it is.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 02:02 PM | Reply

"The folks you're voting for don't either."

My folks were fine with surplus budgets. Yours weren't.

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 02:03 PM | Reply

"Housing crisis? Who's responsible for that? "

You tell me: In '04, Dubya and his administration invoked an arcane law forbidding states to craft tougher lending standards.

Dems' fault, right?

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 02:04 PM | Reply

My folks were fine with surplus budgets. Yours weren't.

#50 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Again, which party controlled the House at that time? The House controls the purse strings.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 02:21 PM | Reply

"Again, which party controlled the House at that time?"

Check my earlier link as many times as it takes.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 02:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Check my earlier link as many times as it takes.

#53 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I just did. Your link shows the GOP having a majority in the House during the period of surpluses. Yet, you seem to attribute said surpluses solely to the Democratic Party. Some clarification from you is needed.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 02:25 PM | Reply

Heck, the GOP had the Senate during that period of time as well.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 02:27 PM | Reply

"Your link shows the GOP having a majority in the House during the period of surpluses."

And control when the fiscal sights were reset from permanent surpluses to permanent deficits was all Republican.

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 02:29 PM | Reply

. Yet, you seem to attribute said surpluses solely to the Democratic Party. Some clarification from you is needed.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 02:25 PM | Reply

Because the President sets the budget. The house just approves it or not.

#57 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-30 02:38 PM | Reply

lest we forget what Jeffyj was all gung ho for before he wasnt

Outgoing Republican Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, whose massive tax cuts starved the state of sufficient revenue throughout much of his term, is decrying the condition of several key facilities in the state this week.

The Kansas City Star reports that Brownback late last week bemoaned the condition of some state-run hospitals and prisons, despite the fact that he has been in charge of the state for the past seven years.

"We've got a series of state assets that have been underfunded for years," Brownback told reporters. "I've been asking some of you guys to go around and look at some of them whether it's Lansing or Osawatomie State Hospital."

Brownback also described the aforementioned Osawatomie State Hospital as a "pit," although he said that Parsons State Hospital was in even worse condition.

"You've got these state assets that we haven't put any money into for years," he said.

Kansas's state budget was in disarray for years after Brownback and the Kansas legislature slashed taxes starting in 2012, as revenue for the state routinely fell well short of projections. This has led the government to make several unpopular budget cuts, including cuts to higher education, that led even Republicans in the state willing to roll back some of the Brownback tax cuts.

Brownback is stepping down as Kansas's governor on Wednesday to take a job with the Trump administration

#58 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-01-30 02:40 PM | Reply

"Brownback and the Kansas legislature slashed taxes starting in 2012, as revenue for the state routinely fell well short of projections."

AS should be AND. Tax cuts were NOT in response to shortfalls; tax cuts CAUSED the shortfalls.

Brownback promised a shot of adrenalin in the arm. Unfortunately, the shot wasn't adrenalin, and it was in the foot.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 02:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Yet, you seem to attribute said surpluses solely to the Democratic Party."

Well, when the Dem was removed from the equation, Rs reset the sights, without a single Dem vote.

What part about what changed don't you understand?

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 02:57 PM | Reply

We don't care! Black prez bad, white prez beh-eh-eh-ter!

--Trumpvoter© sheep--

#61 | Posted by e1g1 at 2018-01-30 03:08 PM | Reply

And control when the fiscal sights were reset from surpluses to deficits was all Republican.

#56 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I slightly altered your statement so that I can agree with it.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 03:22 PM | Reply

#21 JJ,

Not if you count the DOE nuclear weapons program, CIA, NSA and Homeland Security.

Populations size and productivity determines how much money, which are just IOUs should be in circulation. Every time a Bank makes a loan, it creates money from nothing. There is no reason for any Government agency to borrow from the private sector. The Constitution gives that power to the Treasury ans JP Morgan and his co-conspirators took it away. The Fed and Banks know this but speak in a deliberate obscure manner.

But the deficit "problem" is greatly exaggerated. What happened to the dollar when the Fed provided $17 trillion in liquidity to failing banks? Government deficits equal windfalls for those receiving those expenditures. The continuing problem is that giveaway has only been used to fuel a stock market rally, a rally unconnected with increased sales or market share for most of those companies whose stocks have spiked.

A willingness to pull out all the stops to win a war or bailout the rich explains conservative deficit spending. The bailout was payback for earlier campaign contributions. Our Government and dollar did not collapse. The determination not to do the same for poor people and depressed areas has no logical basis. It is just class warfare inside our form of Government, consistent with all human history. What is true is that a giveaway to the poor would cost the rich and super-rich some money, not enough to effect their lifestyle, but it would reduce their savings rate. So it would be a massive boost to the economy, unlike the trillion dollar giveaway, which only helped its targeted class. The war on wages continues under every administration. Americans have responded by taking two jobs and going into debt.

A debt jubilee would fix the economic quagmire we're in.

#63 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-30 03:41 PM | Reply

You tell me: In '04, Dubya and his administration invoked an arcane law forbidding states to craft tougher lending standards.
Dems' fault, right?

#51 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

And if he hadn't he would have been called a racist for denying home ownership to the poor and minorities. It took a bit more than 2 years to cook up the housing crisis that coincided with a global recession. It's funny how none of the 30 million households who held subprime loans are responsible. We all need someone to save us from ourselves I suppose, or maybe it's someone to blame. I can never figure out which argument to use. All I know is "it's not my fault".

#64 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-30 04:14 PM | Reply

"And if he hadn't he would have been called a racist for denying home ownership to the poor and minorities."

What a silly strawman.

"It's funny how none of the 30 million households who held subprime loans are responsible."

It's called the loan approval process, Einstein. The lenders who thought of nothing but greed were responsible. No one forced the lenders to issue NINJA loans.

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We all need someone to save us from ourselves I suppose"

The experts said you could afford it. The experts knew better. The experts were the ones profiting off lying to you.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 04:22 PM | Reply

"A debt jubilee would fix the economic quagmire we're in."

Jon Stewart, at the start of the bailout, suggested the money go to the homeowners, who'd then pay the banks.

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 04:24 PM | Reply

#65-#66 - DANFORTH

In full abdication of responsibility mode I see. Is there any area of life you feel people should take responsibility? Child rearing, finances, education, career? Can we all blame educators, our parents, the financial industry, and colleges for the seemingly insurmountable college debt, wasteful consumer spending, lack of a employment opportunity due to college major choices, selfish kids, or underwater over-priced mortgages Americans can't afford? Are we all victims of the system with no obligation to change our own behaviours? Are all Americans stupid uneducated idiots primed and ready to be taken advantage of? Let me guess, that's not their fault either. The experts said it was okay.

What a cynical life view. Down right depressing. How do you keep from despising everyone you see?

#68 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-30 06:22 PM | Reply

A willingness to pull out all the stops to win a war or bailout the rich explains conservative deficit spending.

#63 | POSTED BY BAYVIKING AT 2018-01-30 03:41 PM | FLAG:

The term for American military spending is "military keynesianism". Socialism to the soundtrack of jet engines.

#69 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-30 06:42 PM | Reply

What a cynical life view. Down right depressing. How do you keep from despising everyone you see?

#68 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

What? Your argument is that corporations can abuse humans and Danforth is cynical for believing the opposite? You lean libertarian, right? To blame the victims and praise the perpetrators is the same logic that claims raped women deserve it because of their clothes. It is a ludicrous stance.

#70 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-30 06:58 PM | Reply

#70 - INDIANAJONES

Hey Indy! Welcome to the conversation. I see your deductive reasoning skills are still on par with a caveman attempting to translate quantum physics into common language. Cheers!

#71 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-30 07:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#71

Classic...even people technically on Indy's side of the argument regularly call out his relentless inanity, yet he still spews it with abandon.

#72 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-30 07:23 PM | Reply

"Is there any area of life you feel people should take responsibility?"

Too rich. To this point, you're suggesting the folks who approve the loan and make money from the loan have no responsibility whatsoever.

Let's start there, shall we? How much responsibility do you assign to the folks whose business it is to loan money? Any at all?

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 10:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"How do you keep from despising everyone you see?"

I despise no one but the willfully stupid.

#74 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 10:46 PM | Reply

#73-74 DANFORTH

I take issue with putting all the blame on the greed of those making money off the borrowers. What about the greed of the home buyer who wanted more house than they could afford and gambled on the future. What about their greed? You think these 30 million people were surprised when all of a sudden their ARM payment exploded? They knew the day they signed the papers they were sitting on a ticking time bomb. It's called gambling. Greed. Americans are good at it, at all levels of society. So yes the sub-prime lending and loan repackaging greed of Wall Street found a way to appease the greed of the every day American consumer. Pretending one specific group was responsible is short sighted imo. We need to re-examine the way our society functions because this isn't the first bubble or crash we have created. Look at bitcoin. It may have some function in society and there may actually be value behind the crypto-currency system. But human greed took over, created a bubble, and now poof...billions in "value" disappeared. All without Congress, Dems, Reps, Wall Street, etc. We, the every day humans, we did that.

Also, I have a hangup about the victim mentality. At some point I had to become responsible for my actions and the outcomes of my decisions. No one else. There is an age of accountability when you should understand it is your job to seek out counsel and advice, but ultimately the decision is still yours. Did you use bad information to make a decision? Do you not know how to discern good information from bad information? Who's to blame for that? You are. Did you take a gamble on the future of your finances and attempt to predict housing prices and your own income 5 years from now? Um...that's stupid. Why would you? Ah, you couldn't afford the 2600 sq. ft. new construction house with the pool in the back unless you leveraged your future. You greedy bastard. But there's a loan program for that. There's also a gambling boat on the river you could just go make the cash real quickly.

#75 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-31 12:23 PM | Reply

I despise no one but willful excess greed. The stupid have an excuse and suffer for it.

Its not that gavaster doesn't have a point. But, education, health care, industrial, tax and trade policy are not things which a single individual can impact, no matter how hard they try. They depend on the political environment, in which Corporations enjoy a stranglehold on our Government.

The other problem of course is where do you draw the line on "excess". I would say there's no need to so long as certain minimum standards of living are preserved for EVERY CITIZEN, especially children, ALL whom are entitled to a good education. There is plenty of money, much of it hidden. As long as we are not providing adequate education and health care for EVERY CITIZEN, the tax rate is too low. But that is not enough, in order to promote the general Welfare, a constitutional mandate, industrial and trade policy must protect domestic jobs from international labor arbitrage.

#76 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-31 12:37 PM | Reply

"What about the greed of the home buyer who wanted more house than they could afford and gambled on the future. What about their greed?"

You tell us.
What about their greed?

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-31 01:39 PM | Reply

#77 SNOOFY

If you have no answer to the question there's no need to broadcast your ignorance. Better to be thought ignorant than to type proof of it.

#78 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-31 01:52 PM | Reply

Housing crisis? Who's responsible for that?

#45 | POSTED BY GAVASTER AT 2018-01-30 01:57 PM | REPLY |

Republican Deregulation caused the housing crisis. By tearing down the wall between securities and Banking.

Before deregulation if a bank made a risky loan they had to service it from inception to payoff. The additional risk was mitigated by allowing them to charge higher fees and closing costs. After deregulation a bank could originate a risky loan, charge the higher fees and closing costs, then sell the loan to be chopped up and sold as dervatives. Suddenly rather than getting higher fees for higher risk they were able to charge higher fees for NO RISK.

Just as a preemptive strike, no fannie and freddie did not cause the crisis

www.theatlantic.com

#79 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-31 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just as a preemptive strike, no fannie and freddie did not cause the crisis
www.theatlantic.com

#79 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

Fannie and Freddie contributed to the crisis. A number of factors and events, happening in tandem, are what caused the crisis. Fannie and Freddie were part of it.

I've read 3 books on the meltdown, this was by far the best:

www.amazon.com

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 03:07 PM | Reply

"If you have no answer to the question."

I'm asking why you brought it up, since people buying houses is a normal thing that people have always done and it doesn't crash the economy.

People losing their houses in foreclosure is also a thing that people have always done and it doesn't crash the economy.

But here you are attributing the crash to home buyers.

It doesn't make any sense.

The reason it doesn't make any sense is because the crash was a result of a liquidity crisis in the banking system.

Home buyers merely provided an asset which was used irresponsibly by bankers.

Do you blame the gun store when they provide as asset that gets used irresponsibly by someone?

Your dishonesty is what I question.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-31 03:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#71 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

You must be day drunk again like during the first conversations we had on this site.

#82 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-31 03:29 PM | Reply

"Is there any area of life you feel people should take responsibility?"

It's not clear to me, or economists how greedy home buyers caused a liquidity crisis in the banking system.

You... can't explain how individual home purchases caused a liquidity crisis for the banking system.

Since you can't do that, the blame has to lie elsewhere.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-31 03:58 PM | Reply

Once again, the Congress has a spending problem when you consider we have been taking in record tax revenues, yet still continue to out spend those revenues. The left always wants more taxes where the conservatives wants less spending. BUDGET!

#84 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-01-31 04:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

"...where the conservatives wants less spending." - #84 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-01-31 04:18 PM

Where is that?

#85 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-31 04:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The left always wants more taxes where the conservatives wants less spending. BUDGET!"

The Right wants to increase military spending and they hope that they will be able to pay for their big tax cuts with social safety net cuts.

#86 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-31 04:26 PM | Reply

Once again, the Congress has a spending problem when you consider we have been taking in record tax revenues, yet still continue to out spend those revenues. The left always wants more taxes where the conservatives wants less spending. BUDGET!

Posted by MSgt at 2018-01-31 04:18 PM | Reply

Yet nary a word about war spending. I'll believe you are sincere when you call for the elimination of that. Until then see my hand.

#87 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-31 04:28 PM | Reply

The left always wants fair and efficient taxes where the conservatives wants more reckless spending. BUDGET!

#84 | POSTED BY MSGT

FTFY, Alley Oop.

#88 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-31 04:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#81 & #83

What came first the derivitives crash or the foreclosures?

If the repackaged loans had been built on solid affordable loans would there have been a financial crisis? Housing bubbles are cyclical. The happen like every 17 years. My uncle warned me the bust was coming and it was going to be very very bad because the ARM and traditional housing bubble were going to happen at the same time. But then he'd been a bank VP for 20+ years and owned a financial lending company so these were no surprise.

The reason I asked if the mortgagors deserved any blame is because without people spending more than they could afford we would have seen a stock market blip and a small housing pop but the underlying foundations of the housing market would have been pretty stable. Credit cards, car loans, student loans, housing, etc. There isn't a single consumer debt program out there that average Americans aren't leveraging themselves to the hilt in. America has a consumption problem. And if you don't give it to them in the housing industry they are going to find it in crypto-currency. We seem to always want someone to blame without asking how we contributed to the situation. As long as it is always someone else will we will never.

#89 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-31 09:52 PM | Reply

#82 Indy

Speaking of which...did you see one of the latest conversations on impeachment and Bill Clinton? You owe me a dollar noob. Ha!

#90 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-31 09:56 PM | Reply

#85 - HANS

Over here! Conservative wanting to reduce spending, slash the military budget, make Medicare taxes cover their expenditures and a whole host of other crazy ideas unthinkable by today's Republican Party.

#91 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-31 10:03 PM | Reply

"What came first the derivitives crash or the foreclosures?"

Why would it matter, since the "greedy" home buyers neither created the derivatives, nor foreclosed on themselves.
Those were both the actions of banks.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-31 10:27 PM | Reply

"The reason I asked if the mortgagors deserved any blame is because without people spending more than they could afford we would have seen a stock market blip and a small housing pop but the underlying foundations of the housing market would have been pretty stable."

That is a ridiculous lie.
The people who took out mortgages don't deserve blame.
The people who bundled those mortgages into investment vehicles and then traded them with 30x leverage are the reason foreclosures weren't "a blip."

Sort of like, if you kill one person, it's a blip in your ZIP code's murder rate. Kill thirty, and you're national news.

You're smart enough to understand what I'm saying it right. But you still deny it. Why?

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-31 10:30 PM | Reply

#92-93 SNOOFY

It doesn't matter to you because it deflates your argument that home buyers are innocent and it's only the greedy corporations to blame. For your argument to hold up you'd have to say that the banks would have foreclosed on loans that were in good standing and not delinquent. Is that what your saying? Good financially solid upstanding citizens who were paying their mortgages were foreclosed on?

Your murder narrative is both troublesome and irrelevant.

I reject the notion that the masses of America are somehow all victims of the system who share no blame because "experts". It's victim mentality. Let me guess, you sided with the woman who sued McDonald's for giving her hot coffee?

#94 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-31 11:03 PM | Reply

"It doesn't matter to you because it deflates your argument that home buyers are innocent and it's only the greedy corporations to blame."

The fact is: Leverage is the only reason there was a liquidity crisis.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-31 11:18 PM | Reply

That the underlying assets in the financial instruments the banks were trading with were owned by someone is irrelevant.

I mean, even in fractional reeve lending, you don't blame the people who put the money in the bank for the bad loans the bank made with that money.

Like I said, you know what I'm saying is right. Why are you pushing a fundamentally invalid argument?

It's like you were playing with someone else's money, and you lost it, and you blame them for giving it to you.

That's as invalid argument for a responsible adult to make.

Stand down.

Grow up.

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-31 11:23 PM | Reply

" the conservatives wants less spending. "

For God's sake, man, you were alive during the Dubya administration. Is your memory shot already?
www.usgovernmentspending.com

#97 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-31 11:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Democrats tax and spend

Republicans cut taxes and spend more then use the deficit THEY created to justify cutting democratic programs while expanding their own at the same time so there is still a deficit.

Case in point current tax cuts plus military expansion and building a useless wall

#98 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-01 01:18 AM | Reply

It is pretty amazing that there is still someone out there that thinks the Pubs want to cut overall spending. They only want to cut the spending that helps people, while increasing the spending that kills people.

#99 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-02-01 08:32 AM | Reply

so when a person has been flushing money down the rent hole for 10 years and not just one banker but MOST of the bankers start saying we'll let you buy it for less than your rent payment! There is no risk housing prices always go up! You can own a bigger home than you can rent and it will cost you less! you can refinance in a few years no problem!

Somehow it is the fault of the renter when the house prices fall and they can't refinance and they get stuck with the balloon payment the banker promised they would never see

But it was ok for the bankers to make all kinds of promises and misrepresentations.

#100 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-01 01:22 PM | Reply

#100 - HATTER

And everything you read on the internet is true. No one ever lies. Every sales person you meet only has your best interest at heart. Everyone deserves a trophy. Unicorns, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny are real. I mean. Give me a break. I knew ARM loans were a bad idea before I had my DL. I mean, it's only the largest financial purchase you likely ever make in your entire life. And you want to say it's not the borrower's responsibility to educate themselves? Please. It was a gamble and millions of people made the gamble and lost. Yes, the bankers did bad stuff and they should be prosecuted for it. But attempting to absolve Americans of the underlying greed that drives our every day habits is idiotic and does nothing to address the fact with everything we touch we create a bubble.

#96 - SNOOFY

You decry the banks who were leveraging themselves into a liquidity crisis while overlooking the fact that home buyers were doing the EXACT same thing! Except home buyers were leveraging their capital investments by 100-200x their capital...having no assets, no budget margin, and no plan for what should have been an obvious eventuality. The boom/bust cycle of real estate has been happening for just short of 200 years in America. This is nothing new. Four times in the 1800's, the Great Depression in 1929, break for WWII, and 3 times since...it actually has an average life cycle of about 18 years. Everyone who bought a house using subprime lending had either already lived through a housing bust, or two, or had parents/grandparents who been through the exact same cycle multiple times but they all most definitely knew that interest rates would not always stay low or that housing prices only go up. Other than for those who were illiterate, had no internet access, and were without parents there is no reason anyone who bought a house in the early 2000's should have believed housing prices only go up.

Answer this one question. If those who were buying homes hadn't leveraged themselves by 100-200x their capital, would the banks have had liquidity issues that could not have been resolved by the SEC changing the capital reserve requirements to strengthen the banks?

#101 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-02-01 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The boom/bust cycle of real estate has been happening for just short of 200 years in America. "

They why did the banks deserve bailing out but not the homeowners? Bankers probably knew more about that cycle of boom and bust than did the average homeowner.

#102 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-01 04:24 PM | Reply

The people who took out mortgages don't deserve blame. - #93 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-31 10:30 PM
If the people who took out the mortgages paid what they agreed to pay, what would the great recession have looked like?
Even with the mortgage bundling?

#103 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-01 04:36 PM | Reply

#102 | DANNI

Never said they did. Actually would have preferred the bailout go through the actual consumers to alleviate their debts and flush out the banks books. Would have been a better solution and we would have seen a much swifter recovery, hypothetically. But idk how you'd ensure individuals actually used the cash to catch up their loans and pay back the banks. Tricky.

#104 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-02-01 05:01 PM | Reply

The people who took out mortgages don't deserve blame.
#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-31 10:30 PM

If the people who took out the mortgages paid what they agreed to pay, what would the great recession have looked like?
Even with the mortgage bundling?
#103 | Posted by Avigdore

If the people who took out mortgages didn't lose their jobs because of the recession then they could have continued to pay their mortgages. Then what would the recession have looked like?

Also, did you know?

If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump his ass all the time.

#105 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-01 05:19 PM | Reply

"If the people who took out the mortgages paid what they agreed to pay, what would the great recession have looked like?"

Are you suggesting there wouldn't have been a recession if the bankers hadn't run out of other people's money?
Funny, that's exactly what I'm saying!

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-01 05:42 PM | Reply

"If those who were buying homes hadn't leveraged themselves by 100-200x their capital"

The only leverage they got was what the lenders provided.
Seeing as the banks are the ones did that, that means the banks are the ones who did that.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-01 05:45 PM | Reply

Are you suggesting there wouldn't have been a recession if the bankers hadn't run out of other people's money? - #106 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-01 05:42 PM
No.
Are you going to answer the question I posed, or are you going to continue to dodge it?

#108 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-01 05:47 PM | Reply

"If the people who took out the mortgages paid what they agreed to pay, what would the great recession have looked like?"

If the people who defaulted on their mortgages still defaulted on their mortgages, but those mortgages hadn't been bundled into 30x leveraged investments by the banks, what would the great recession have looked like? Like nothing.

Likewise, if the people who didn't default on their mortgages didn't default on them, and those mortgages hadn't been bundled into 30x leveraged investments by the banks, what would the real estate bubble have looked like? Like nothing.

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-01 05:52 PM | Reply

Are you suggesting there wouldn't have been a recession if the bankers hadn't run out of other people's money?
Funny, that's exactly what I'm saying!

#106 | Posted by snoofy

Yep!

It irked me to see Avighole support people with all the money (banksters) that caused it and try to shift the blame to the people that basically have none.

#110 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-01 05:59 PM | Reply

#107 - SNOOFY

And since the banks could only leverage themselves because the government said they could that means it's the government's fault. I love this pass the buck game. Then government blames Congress critters who were just doing the will of the people who elected them, but the people did not know any better because of a lack of education, which is the fault of the government, who was elected by the people, who don't want to pay higher taxes, because the government is over spending already, but the lobbyist in DC are bribing them to spend more, so it's not Congress' fault it's big business bribery, businesses who are trying to meet the demands of the public, because the public doesn't care about business ethics as long as it's cheap, so the public is okay with anything, but it's not the public's fault, they are just victims of the capitalist system which promises them more...and on and on and on and on... Just stop already. You took out a loan you couldn't afford and you gambled on your future. End of story. You did not save up enough money to put down a significant down payment in order to safeguard your investment. You borrowed too much house and gave yourself no margin in your budget for anything bad to happen and you lost. You, home buyer, you are at fault for YOUR sub-prime purchase. Period. Own it. Any action you take after about the age of majority you have the capability, the reasoning, and the resources to know better. If you don't, jokes on you. I'm not talking about the disenfranchised. There's a caveat for everything. But by and large the people who took out these sub-prime loans knew what they were doing, gambled on their future, and it bit them in the a$$. And guess what? It'll happen again in about, oh 7-9 years.

#111 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-02-01 06:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And since the banks could only leverage themselves because the government said they could that means it's the government's fault."

Government says we can own guns, so when you shoot someone, it's the government's fault.

Got it.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-01 06:15 PM | Reply

"You, home buyer, you are at fault for YOUR sub-prime purchase. Period. Own it."

Sure.
Banks turned those mortgages into assets, and leveraged them, which created the liquidity crisis.
When are you calling on the banks to own that?

#113 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-01 06:17 PM | Reply

" But by and large the people who took out these sub-prime loans knew what they were doing, gambled on their future, and it bit them in the a$$."

The story doesn't end there.
In fact, that's just the beginning.
It would end there, if it weren't for that the banks next.
But, since the bankers rolled those sub-prime and other mortgages into investments, and leveraged them, when those mortgages underperformed, the leverage multiplied the under-performance, to the point of a global liquidity crisis.
No leverage, no crisis.
End of story.

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-01 06:21 PM | Reply

#114 - SNOOFY

Finally. You admit they were partially at fault. Sheesh. Everyone knows the banks to blame for the repackaging fiasco. I'm highlighting the fact that every player in the game shares the blame. The mortgagor, the mortgagee, the SEC, new home builders, all of them.

And yes there would have still been a crisis. We over built new houses saturating the housing market with new construction to the point practically anybody who was breathing and could put a thumb print to paper had a house...and we were still building. Housing starts fell through the floor. I was working for an inspections company and saw DR Horton just shutter their new construction, full stop. 2006. We went from processing some 300 new building permits a month for DR Horton to 15. Some 90%+ of their business in my market was pure speculation that housing was still going to keep increasing. I knew 23 year olds still wet behind the ears with Harley Davidson edition jacked up trucks making $10k bonuses for every home they finished that sold. Residential home builders drastically over shot the market which contributed to the steep decline in home prices that followed. It's harder to find someone who's not partially to blame for the crash than it is to identify the one business that brought the world markets to a halt.

#115 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-02-01 06:48 PM | Reply

It irked me to see Avighole support people with all the money (banksters) that caused it and try to shift the blame to the people that basically have none.

#110 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-01 05:59 PM
Why don't you go ahead and quote where I did that. Your imagination doesn't count.

#116 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-01 06:50 PM | Reply

"I'm highlighting the fact that every player in the game shares the blame. "

But you're wrong.
The homeowners had zero to do with the banks and their CDO leverage circle-jerk.
The homeowners simply did what homeowners always do, which is buy houses.
They had no role in crashing the economy.
They are a patsy.

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-01 06:53 PM | Reply

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-01 05:52 PM
I didn't ask you to avoid answering my question by answering questions of your own. If you're unwilling or incapable, just say so. There's no need to continue to try to dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

#118 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-01 06:57 PM | Reply

I'm highlighting the fact that every player in the game shares the blame.
#115 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

Except you didn't... You chose to only highlight the mortgagers. Which btw, is evidence that libertarian beliefs are flawed or cruel.

#119 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-02-01 07:02 PM | Reply

#117 - Snoofy

haha! Without the over leveraging by home owners they wouldn't have lost their homes leading to lower housing prices. Without the over building of the new construction industry home values wouldn't have seen a 40% dip and more people with sub-prime loans could have refinanced out of their ARM. Without the new construction speculation bubble of residential and commercial builders there wouldn't have been massive construction worker layoffs contributing to foreclosures. The CDO leverage crash would have been a hit on the economy, but not near the spiral of recession that took place. The impact of the CDO crash would have come and gone. Banks and mortgage brokerages securities would have been bought/sold/restructured. Americans would have seen a dip in their portfolios as it was sorted out and monopolized by the big banks and then continued onward. You're delusional.

#120 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-02-01 07:03 PM | Reply

#119 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

When joining a conversation it's best to start at the beginning and work your way through the actual conversation. It's short, only a bit over 100 posts. They are numbered starting at the lowest number, 1, and start at the top of your screen. Happy reading!

P.S.
I'm not sure, but based on your reading comprehension skills English seems to be a second language for you. Here's a resource to make sure you're fully understanding what you read today.
www.supersummary.com

Cheers. Go get 'em Tiger!

#121 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-02-01 07:09 PM | Reply

"Without the over leveraging by home owners they wouldn't have lost their homes leading to lower housing prices. "

Doesn't matter.
Without bundling mortgages into investment vehicles, it wouldn't have mattered if they defaulted.
How is this even debatable?
You issued someone's mortgage -- a bet in itself -- and then you bundle it with other mortgages, and you bet on how the bundle will perform.
Tou bet wrong.
Whose fault is that?
Nobody made you bet.
That means it's your fault, and yours alone.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-01 07:12 PM | Reply

#120

And what about the lenders that talked people into bigger homes? When I bought in 2006 I said I want to buy a home in the x-y price range because that was the mortgage I could afford.

The lender tells me well you are approved for 1.5*y and we can put you in an ARM with this low of an interest rate so you can easily make the payments and in 2 years you can refi with the equity you will have built up you can easily qualify for an low interest rate.

I didn't take them up on it but I did make the mistake of taking the ARM I used the lower payments to pay extra on the mortgage so when I tried to refi in 2008 I actually had positive equity but I still couldn't find a lender to refi.

Probably smart of the lender as the house continued to drop till by 2010 I was at negative equity. Too bad lenders weren't as smart in 2006 as they were in 2008.

#123 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-02-01 07:15 PM | Reply

"I'm highlighting the fact that every player in the game shares the blame.
#115 | POSTED BY GAVASTER"

Home buyers weren't in any way involved in the CDO/MBS game.
They had no skin in that game.
They didn't stand to profit if those investments did well, or lose out of they did poorly.

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-01 07:17 PM | Reply

#121 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

I read this shit yesterday as you tried to pin the issue on the buyer. You do that because you are a hack.

Stop day drinking; rational gavaster is a much better conversationalist.

#125 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-02-01 07:25 PM | Reply

Your imagination doesn't count.

#116 | Posted by Avigdore

I don't know about you but MY imagination accounts for everything I do.

And it is about what you were are implying by going after the sub prime mortgage defaults as the problem by suggesting that if no one defaulted there would have been no recession.

Anyone (with an imagination) can see what's coming a mile away.

You were trying to zero in on one set of villains: subprime lenders and the supposedly irresponsible borrowers who were their customers.

Even every borrower to put 20% down in all circumstances that wouldn't have prevented the worst of the foreclosure crisis.

The real estate bubble was a phenomenon fueled mostly by creditworthy borrowers buying and selling homes they simply thought wouldn't ever decrease in value.

Not to mention the derivatives speculation which played a pivotal role in the system that collapsed.

#126 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-01 07:30 PM | Reply

#124 - SNOOFY

We are talking about the housing crisis correct? I must have missed where you switched to ONLY talking about the derivitives market (although defaulting loans also had an impact on the values and strength of those as well, so yes home buyers played a role in the derivitives crash. My assertion stands)

#127 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-02-01 07:42 PM | Reply

You were trying to zero in on one set of villains: subprime lenders and the supposedly irresponsible borrowers who were their customers.- #126 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-01 07:30 PM
You are wrong, as usual.
If you are capable of following the thread back, you will come to #103 where I quote Snoofy stating that the borrowers don't deserve any blame.
You can tell that this is what I'm talking about because I directly quote it and ask a direct question in regards to it.
My intention, that you are continuously wrong about, had nothing to do with the lenders. My claim is that, contrary to Snoofy's opinion that the borrowers had zero blame for the crisis, they in fact had some share of the blame. As proven by the fact that there would have been no crisis had any number of things not happened, one of which being the borrowers not failing to pay back the loans they agreed to pay.

You really need to learn to read a thread before you get involved. Your ignorant comments are so completely off base that I can't help but wonder if you are merely a poor troll or as clueless as you make out.

#128 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-01 07:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"We are talking about the housing crisis correct? "

We are talking about the global recession of 2009.
It was not a housing crisis.
It was a financial crisis.
Seriously, give it a rest.

" so yes home buyers played a role in the derivitives crash."

The same role Budweiser plays in drunk driving. They provide the product which then gets used irresponsibily.
Home buyers provided mortgages which the bankers used irresponsibly.
Budweiser does not cause drunk driving.
Mortgages do not cause financial crisis.
Seriously, give it a rest.

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-01 09:08 PM | Reply

"My claim is that, contrary to Snoofy's opinion that the borrowers had zero blame for the crisis, they in fact had some share of the blame. "

^
This is fundamentally wrong, but let's make believe it's not!
If there were blame to be shared, who gets how much?

I'd say the bankers have 30x the blame, since they leveraged the borrower's "bet" at 30x.
What do you say?

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-01 09:13 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort