Bush 2008?

>>131445241
Partially cause of his shit tax reform, mostly cause of predatory (((Banks)))

File: central-bank-balance-sheet.jpg (31KB, 500x531px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x531px

>>131445241
No, he was hardly responsible at all. It was mostly the fault of the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan which slashed rates to 1% and left them around there for far too long (a couple of years) in the aftermath of the tech bubble bursting and 9/11 attacks. This caused the housing bubble to inflate in the first place, the bubble would not have come about had rates been higher. Incidentally, the current "Everything Bubble" across the entire world is also primarily the fault of central banks - the Fed, ECB, BoJ, BOE and SNB this time.

Wasn't just Bush. His dad and Clinton were in on the gag, along with the Fed. Total NWO hitjob.

No, but his plans did not help. Medicare part D, the wars and his dumb tax cuts were bad and dumb.

the jews are responsible, and he is a puppet of the jews. Thats all you need to know.

>>131445241
Not at all, although regulation should have stopped it from happening.

Generally, recessions come every 10-15 years as shit becomes worth more.

Actually we're due one before Trump's first term is up.

>>131445644

You're leaving out the Community Reinvestment Act mandating reduced mortgage lending standards for particular communities, and the role of mismanagement at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Hell, I was contracted in 2008 to write software to track how much Fannie Mae was losing (as well as the status of all their non-performing loans) in real time, because they were still doing all that shit manually.

Here's one for you guys.

Was Obama right to rampantly borrow money to help the US recover? I mean the national debt was WW2 levels high.

>>131446645
This.

He basically passed a grenade to the banks and blamed them for its explosion.

>>131446645
Indeed government policies also played a key role along with the GSEs of Fannie and Freddie. But it was still the Federal Reserve which was the driver, they ignited the spark for the crisis to occur and provided the fuel to keep it going - FF and government policies/acts simply added yet more fuel to the fire.

>>131446884
No. It might be useful now, but the extra national debt just means that it just delayed the recession by many years instead of fixed it.

File: IMG_2181.jpg (58KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 736x552px

>>131446274
The tax cuts were one of the only things he did right. You need to lurk more as you're still suffering from some residual libshit indoctrination.

Tax revenue went up during the Bush years as a result of his cuts. When you cut taxes in an effective way, and the economy is stimulated, revenue increases despite that the rates are lower. Reagan did the same thing. It's called supply side economic theory.

Conservatism doesn't just mean fighting political correctness and Cultural Marxism, but it's a package deal. Conservatives are correct on economics as well. Too many "redpilled" former lib shitposters on here don't get that.

It started with Clinton who pressured the banks to make mortgage loans to inner city folks, who always have bad credit scores.

Another implosion caused by diversity.

>>131445241
Barny Franks the banking queen, numero uno.

>>131445241
Nope, he simply did nothing to discourage the sub prime morgages that were pushed in the 1990's-2008 by mostly democrats, but also some republicans under the guise of "home ownership is a RIGHT" (like how healthcare and college education are pushed as RIGHTS now)
TL:DR the government guaranteed the banks of a bailout of the risky loans they gave out went bad, so the banks gave out incredibly risky loans to poor people (disproportionately minorities) and then packaged those loans together and sold them as a dividend paying investment asset like stocks.
Eventually the interest rate was raised slightly and these poor people couldn't pay the loans, and they lost their homes, the investors lost their investment, and the banks lost some money, but got lots of houses and a nice taxpayer funded pay check (which they then gave some back to the politicians that cut the check originally)
So basically a socialist housing program masked as the free market

>>131445241
No, not at all, don't be an idiot.
It takes many years for a bubble to develop.
Pres Clinton set it up, making it so anyone that could fog a mirror could buy a house, especially minorities.

>>131445241
No. But Clinton 1.0 was.

>>131446645
this

>>131447243
this
>You need to lurk more as you're still suffering from some residual libshit indoctrination.
and especially this

>>131446274
This pretty much. He didnt cause the crash but he sure as fuck made it worse. I think a lot of people overestimate the power the government, especially the POTUS, has on the economy. The Fed and Treasury have arguably a bigger part.

>>131445241
By liberal logic he inherited the economy from the last president.. so it was all clintons fault.

>>131448828
>The Fed and Treasury have arguably a bigger part.
It's not even arguable, they DO have a FAR bigger impact
How you think tax cuts caused a bubble is beyond me

>>131449087
What's funny is that's actually correct in this case

>>131445397
explain to me how tax reform let bankers pass out loans like candy and then bundle them to bet on.

>>131445241
The crash of 2008 was caused by years of bad policy making. These mistakes were made worldwide.

>>131448828
>The Fed and Treasury have arguably a bigger part.
>arguably
>the private bank known as the Federal Reserve, can change a percentage point and destroy the economy, or print more money and make your savings worthless
>arguably

>>131449087
Bill clinton Jan 1993- Jan 2001
George Bush Jana 2001- Jan 2009
>Major 2008 Recession
>2008 Recession
>2008

Hmmmmmmmm

>>131445241
The crash is completely Bill Clinton's fault for getting rid of Glass-Steagall as well as the Federal Reserve's. I'm sure George Bush knew it was coming though and agreed to take the fall, they're all in on it

>>131448828
The fed doesn't take direct orders from the president retard

>>131445241
Of course not solely. He was still a piece of shit

>>131445241
No. His administration was. DoJ primarily. And he didn't hold DoJ accountable at all, so he gets the blame.

Fed creates environment. Administration does not enforce laws. DoJ does not keep punish fraud. Shit collapses. Administration and DoJ still don't do anything. Greenspan admits to bad policies. Administration and DoJ doesn't do shit. Blame Bush for not running his administration properly for whatever reason. Should have been impeached a looong time ago. He gave us Obama.

>>131447243
This. If anons want to talk shit about bushes economic policies then talk about his big spending and libshit programs to ensure banks have to give out loans to minorities and the poor or face federal discrimination investigations. Shit like that had a far greater impact on the housing crash than some anon having to pay slightly less of his shekels to the government every payday.

>>131447003

I wasn't disputing the primacy of the Fed's policies in causing the meltdown; I was only saying that there were non-Fed causes as well. If I work in a coal mine and smoke three packs per day, then my eventual lung cancer will have multiple causes, each of which was likely sufficient on its own.

>>131445241
Yep. He personally signed every single mortgage. He then didn't make any of the payments. Trust Americans to try and blame someone else for their own fuckups

>>131445241
No these things take years to accumulate. It was set in motion by Clinton deregulating the financial sector.

File: who_me.png (425KB, 1198x995px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1198x995px

>>131445241
not hardly
not that W did much to change things, but the banks had to loan to everyone equally, despite risk factors
>don't want to be mean to those poor folks
>they just want a better place to live (than they can afford)
>much better to end up foreclosing on them anyway and fuck up the whole credit system

>>131449728
It goes beyond Bush Jr., although he was a pimp for the REI. It really started back with Reagan, and every President since supported it and did things to support it. The deregulation under Reagan led to mortgages being bound together as investments, which is the root cause of all of it. Google the "Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act", passed by Congress and signed by Reagan in 1984 - it's considered the impetus for the sub-prime crash.

>>131445397
His tax polices had nothing to do with the sub-prime crash and housing bubble, you fucking ignorant ass.

File: Greek Game over 3.jpg (105KB, 744x651px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 744x651px

>>131445241
Congress passed a law insuring loans up to 700K for fair housing. If you are buying a 700K home you should not need USA to insure it. The congress =man Frank did this before the 2008 banking law. It also foced banks to make the loans. They did their best to sell them to Wall Street as quickly as possible. Then lenders found out they had to take the loans and put Wal-Mart check out people into 400-700K homes they could never pay for. After all that the securities on these homes cloapsed when they started foreclosing on the homes.

Derivatives, specifically CDOs caused it. The demand for AAA paper was insane, so the banks started to create fake AAA paper. They would package mortgages loans and support tranches of other MBS into CDOs , slice off 3% as support and sell the rest as AAA paper. Whatever was unsold, went into another CDO. Complete fraud, really.

Then they started shorting CDOs and bad MBS tranches with CDS. Since the banks didn't want to hold the wrong end of a CDS they created "synthetic" CDOs. basically cash invested at LIBOR + short CDS on bad shit that somebody smart shorted.

At some point all the synthetic paper rapidly went to zero and a lot of AAA bonds went to zero. The panic ensued. Everything with mortgages and house in it got dumped. All the spec house buyers strategically defaulted on their loans, and all the shit hit the fat at the same time.

Bush was a fuck up. Instead of addressing the real issue of fraud and the fact that Private label MBS are SR/SUB structures that wiped out all SUB supports at the same time, he blamed political enemies, like Fannie and Freddie (which were also fuck ups, but had no idea about CDOs game being played). The criminal aspect which created significant wealth destruction was never prosecuted. Actually it wasn't just MBS that defaulted in AAA CDOs. Pretty much all the collateral in a CDO is shit to begin with, so they all wiped out. Mortgages were still blamed. In 2008 instead of putting out fires, Paulson started personal revenge against institutions he didn't like which made everything worse.

Pretty much was a crime spree that resulted in another crime spree called Obama presidency.

>>131446884
No. He did the same damned thing Bush did, and kicked the can down the road, so the painful effects of dealing with the problem rationally wouldn't be his fault. Obama did everything with "muh legacy" in mind, and just passed the problem on to Trump. (Or Hillary. that's how fucking evil Obama is, he was gonna hand the whole bag to her, and she would have had the whole thing on her when it implodes. Trump might slow the implode rate - the markets love him - and my investment accounts love Trump, but I'm getting ready for bad weather)

>>131451339
THis, regan is the one who coined the phrase "to big to fail" for the big multinational banks
He also handed California over to democrats forever more with his amnesty
Regan was a neoconservative who helped destroy this country
This is coming from a hardcore republican

>>131447003
The Feds inflated the bubble for their 1%er masters, but the actual formation of the bubble, the laws that made the bubble possible, was Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act. It recognized collateral mortgages as investments. If they hadn't passed that, the bubble wouldn't have happened. Housing wouldn't be propped up to keep the 1%er's investments sound.
Seriously, if you can't see that - I hope to god you have no money invested.

File: 1493237254493.jpg (31KB, 480x436px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x436px

>>131449710
>>2008
The CDO bubble took a good, long while to burst. It wasn't until the market had massive piles of mezzanine debt (artificial bonds made by the slicing and dicing of the cash flows of other bonds) that it became a deck of cards. Suddenly, a couple of souring loans had massive reach across the system. Repealing Glass-Steagall was a mistake.

>>131451900
Don't lump the entire 1% into this, you are actually talking about the 0.1%

>>131452110
Enough of the 1%ers had their fingers in this pie, they deserve as much blame.

I also blame the man on the street for falling for the big con, and "no money down, no income needed" loans for overpriced Mcmansions and granite countertops, and smugly running around thinking they had real wealth, and were economic experts.
We're headed for another big correction in the housing market, especially in the Bay Area, and I'm gonna laugh my ass off AGAIN at the assholes who think shitshacks in Oakland are worth $500k. I'm fully devested from ANY housing investments, I went through my portfolio and made sure of it. You have to do your homework, a lot of funds try to hide it with fancy language. My broker gave me some tips for what to look for.

>>131451652
This is a surprisingly good explanation. Do you work in finance?

>>131445241
Actually Clinton started the everyone get's a house meme

>>131452998
Yes, I do. 2008 is a disgrace. It's the end of the US capital markets, really. Now we need CB liquidity to hold the shit up.

>>131445644
>the current "Everything Bubble"
quick rundown?

>>131445241
"""housing crash"""

back to huffingtonpost please

Nope. Bush is too dumb. Blame Greenspan.

If you want to be honest, it was H.W. Bush and Clinton that allowed people like Greenspan to rule

>>131445241
Barney Frank and his protruding, disgusting nipples played a large role

>>131445241
No ... unless you mean he was just following Rothschild's orders. Like his Daddy, the Bush's are NWO.

>>131445241
Not single handedly, but rollbacks to regulation and the under his watch by republicans played a fair role in it.

>>131458281
they are directly responsible for shit today. HW and Clinton both worked on NAFTA, Clinton allowed China in the WTO, and Clinton repealed Glass Steagall, allowing the banks to fuck with real estate

File: alfred.png (29KB, 174x332px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 174x332px

>>131458537
when it was going to be about 'african america america" directly after 'bad bush's/greenspan's/frank's/non degenerate racial swaying" term, why is this looked at "as being a problem"?

>>131449450
>Lower taxes
>Rich people have more money to invest
>More money gets put in banks to invest
>Banks desperate to find more to invest in
>Prop up shitty sub-prime shit houses.

>>131451652

Excellent explanation. However, I think that you're omitting the part played by Barney Frank and his legislation related to securing loans for people who had no chance to pay back loans. The criteria for receiving government backed loans changed (read as: eased) constantly, and eventually reached the point where buyers were trading interest rates points for disclosure. Can't (read as: won't) prove your income? That's okay, we'll add another 0.5%.

So then there were mortgage derivatives that sported average risk assessments that often featured high risk investments (e.g., to blacks with 500 credit ratings) to balance out the normal and low risk investments. When the blacks stopped paying their mortgage, there was a housing glut from all the short sales and foreclosures.

Various government agencies were extorting banks to make these bad loans because they would sue them for 'racism' if they were not paying enough high risk loans to blacks. The government demanded high risk loans! This is a complete failure of socialism.

(Stupid legislators learned nothing. There's already another push to subsidize high-risk loans again.)

>>131445241
The world is over $2,500 trillion in derivatives debt
/thread

>>131459068
I have no idea what you just said

>>131457523
Obama's "quantitative easing" was basically money printing and giving free cash to banks, who now are lending it out, causing prices of all assets to artificially inflate, which means once people realize the stocks, real estate, education, they've invested in aren't worth even close to what they are currently valued at they will all come crashing down.
It's why the stock market appeared to get better under obama, money printing causing inflation of assets, but cheap goods from China prevented inflation of everyday goods for the most part, so as to cover up the very real inflation occurring in the financial sector

>>131459119
Lower taxes would allow for more money for the poor people to pay their loans. Problem is the interest rates on those loans weren't fixed so once they rose those people's payments did as well and they defaulted.
Had nothing to do with lower taxes Bernie bro

>>131459267
oh. so its basically just a problem of massive economic inflation, in a fiat currency making the whole economy a bubble.

that is kind of bad.

how do you even begin to fix that without having to pop the bubble and cause a crash?

does it all have to burn before it can rise from the ashes again?

>>131459267
Dude thats complete nonsense. QE is buying off government bonds. So the banks already had that money, just in the form of assets.

>>131459521
Bro, lower taxes means the government has less money. Government spending is what spurs demand and raises wages. Your arguing with a Marxist intellectual here bud.

>>131459267

Actually, the banks *weren't* lending it out, that was part of the problem. The dirty secret (I did litigation for the banks) was that banks had to hold a certain amount of income in reserve linearly related to the value of the real property assets that the bank holds. So every time that banks assumed title to realty, they were required to demonstrate that they were withholding from borrowing large amounts of liquid assets.

(I forgot the percentage. I was only peripherally involved because my specialty was another field.)

>>131459620
At this point a complete collapse followed by allowing prices to reset (aka no bailouts, or quantitative easing) is probably the only way to find the real value of these assets.
Problem is neither party wants that to happen on their watch so they'll just keep printing more money for bailouts to keep the bubble going.
It's the problem with fiat currency only backed up by "the faith and trust in the US government"

>>131445241
Fuck no. Why are people this stupid to even consider this shit?

File: CowellDoesntBelieveYou.jpg (22KB, 600x332px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 600x332px

>>131459740
>Marxist intellectual...

Lower tax rates have always produced increased revenue since the Kennedy tax cuts.

No, Alan Greenspan is responsible. He even admitted it to The Economist magazine in an interview.

>>131449450
he said partly numbnuts

>>131445241

Clinton's HOUSING BILL that empowered Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. They wanted everyone with a min wage job to get a mortgage because everyone should be entitled to "The American Dream". So they had government take the risks away from the banks who would have denied or put high interest rates for risky individuals. Guess what happens when you take away the risks? You get predatory lending. It becomes a numbers game to get as many people to take out mortgages as possible rather than worry about the risks.

Then people were surprised people making min wage can't pay their mortgages and eventually default?

In summation, this was only barely Bush's fault. There are lots of assholes responsible for this, and it crossed party lines.

(Although, this was mostly a Democrat problem because of the special corruption practices on which they thrive. Give to blacks or we'll harass you with government authority.)

>>131459847
>Actually, the banks *weren't* lending it out, that was part of the problem
True but if they gave it all out in a sort period of time I would assume that would create to much inflation
Correct me if I'm wrong though

File: giphy.gif (709KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 500x375px

>>131459904
we'd need some kind of absolute madman willing to sink his entire party for something like that, or just keep at it till it eventually collapses anyway.

what a time to be a live.

>>131459740
>marxists
>intellectual

Kys

>>131460056
Ok how did it partly cause it? I see no reason it would.
In this case correlation does not mean causation

>>131445241
No, in the 90's Clinton pushed for banks to lend to people who couldnt afford the house they wanted a loan for. Thats what collapsed it

>>131460082
this

bill being the "first cool president" really had people thinking like degenerates

>>131459956
Ummm no sweetie, cutting taxes don't increase taxes. That only makes since in the wonderful doublethink world of oz.

>>131460306
Please tell me you have cancer

>>131460378
Whenever a Republinut fucks up you guys blame it on based bill.

File: IMG_2055.jpg (138KB, 815x1024px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 815x1024px

>>131451733
Reagan got jewed with the amnesty and the bank bailouts. He was overall a positive president, who had an absolutely solid record, and made every one of his successors look like complete cucks, up until Trump.

Reagan referred to amnesty as the biggest mistake of his presidency, and it was sold to him and the American public as fixing the problem for good. The amnesty was granted, while the border enforcement provisions were defunded and not enforced by subsequent congresses. Then you had H.W. Bush who increased legal immigration by 40% with the 1991 immigration bill, which also dropped English language requirements, and left those borders nice and wide open.

As for the bank bailout, even Trump supported the bank bailouts from a decade ago. When the economy is collapsing, it's easier to be jewed into things.

It doesn't change the fact that Reagan had a solid economic and foreign policy record, and that it was a time of peace, stability, and prosperity for America, even if he made huge mistakes.

(((They))) tried killing him, or sent him a warning, with the assassination attempt with Hinckley early on in his presidency, I'm not sure which. If you need any more of a testament that he was for real than that, I can't imagine what it would be.

>>131460602
>amnesty was a mistake
Right-wing failures blaming everything on immigrants again.

A lot of what happened under Bush wrt the economy, ie retarded ruinous deregulation, started under clinton (spoiler: in a gop senate)

>>131447243
Bullshit, the whole Bush economy was based on over supply of credit.

-No doc home loans

-Financial companies pressing people to take money against the new value of their houses (it's free money)

The banks made loans they never intended on keeping since they could package them off as CDO's.

Compare this to what Obama inherited - credit was basically not available, and only to people that could prove they didn't need it.

A better question is how fucking awful will the next recession be?

The housing bubble is back to 2006 level and the auto loan and tech bubbles have drastically inflated .On top of that interest rates have been below 1% for almost 8 years and the debt is growing WW2 level
Also entitlement spending has gone through the roof and is now making up the majority of the US budget which is running at a deficit

Shit is all fucked

>>131460602
He wasn't all bad, but he definitely helps set us on our current course.
He helped set the precedent that deficits don't matter and spending like a drunken sailor is A-Ok
But he was certainly superior to the democrats of the time don't get me wrong

File: merchant_radar.jpg (14KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x300px

>>131460129
>this was only barely Bush's fault
>control the Executive Branch


>control the Legislative Branches (both)
>control the Judiciary
>for 8 years
it's the Democrats fault? What kind of goys do you take us for, Hymie?

>>131445241
It was largely the congress who mandated that loans be given to literally anybody with a pulse.

>>131445644

so does that mean we are due for a crash again since interest rates have been so low?

also what does setting interest rates so low mean...

where does that manifest and how?

Does it have to be adhered to?

>>131460304
Ya it's similar to what happened in the 1920 leading up to the stock market crash of 1929 (massive increase in the money supply over a short period of time)
It creates a short term boom followed by a massive market correction. (The new deal helped keep the depression going until FDR finally died and his idiotic, possibly Soviet influenced, new deal polices were scraped for the most part)

>>131461189
>so does that mean we are due for a crash again since interest rates have been so low?
Yes that's exactly what it means

>>131461189
Low interest rates means investing in shit is easy because loans are basically given at no additional cost, but saving (at least the traditional way) is pointless.

It's a desperate measure to artificially stimulate consumption that isn't fucking there because people are broke.

>>131445241

Maybe not 100%, but surely complicit.

>>131461359
>>131461359
I'm a legit Marxist intellectual and have actually been judged by a famous Maoist/Marxist. The crash was not caused due to a massive money supply increase, that is Austrian nonsense. It is actually due to the failure of capitalism itself. Over-investment as the rich look for new places to put their money (since they keep making more under capitalism) causes a natural increase in the available money able to be invested.

>>131461470
No no no. Capitalism itself causes the crash. Low interest rates, regulations, and keynesianism are all bandaids that prevent capitalism from bleeding itselt dry.

File: BAED746C-8F2A-43C0-B4BA-C49A1E45A668-373-0000006178E8FFF9.jpg (77KB, 736x760px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 736x760px

>>131445241

Not even in the top 20 people to blame.

#1 by a country mile is Bill Clinton. #2 dem party #3. neoCON war pigs

Then about 20000 (((jews))). And then Wen Jiabao.

>>131461852
>I'm a legit Marxist intellectual and have actually been judged by a famous Maoist/Marxist
> Namefags as "Proletariat Worker"

Kek

>>131462427
Nice ad hom attack, your petty attacks don't match my intellect.

>>131460490
It's not a linear relationship, it's a curve with minima and maxima. Sometimes increasing the tax rate increases revenue, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on the current rate and the size of increase. A 100% tax rate will quickly destroy the economy or drive it underground, leading to revenue loss. Any 10 year old who's played SimCity could tell you as much.

File: IMG_0085.jpg (163KB, 953x796px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 953x796px

>>131461852

I will spit on your graves, chink chinaman. Those of you I don't feed to the birds.

>>131462755
No sweetie. If 100% taxes were matched with 100% spending the economy would be just fine. Since all tax dollars are flushed back into the economy as quickly as they are taxed it makes no difference.

>>131462676
> Muh towering intellect
> Poses as a worker while humble bragging about how bourgeois he is.

I'm so glad you got the adjunct position for sociology at the community college.

>>131462900
Why? Why do you post that family as if it represents you?

>>131462961
I never said i was bourgeois

>>131463029

Get ready to die, faggot.

File: IMG_2056.jpg (38KB, 244x209px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 244x209px

>>131460803
You're misinterpreting me. The only thing I said in defense of Bush was that after cutting taxes, revenue increased, and to go further into this, when leftists accuse tax cuts of "costing us money," and cook up phoney numbers to support it, they assume economic growth would have been the same with or without the tax cuts.

Bush was a complete disaster. I'm a Goldwater/Reagan/Coolidge Republican who despises the entire Bush clan. I understand the problems the federal government's intervention into the housing market, encouraging bad lending practices, subsidizing them, I'm well aware of all of that, and while it didn't start under Dubya, it continued and was expanded under him.

>>131460918
Barely two trillion was added to the debt under Reagan. Compare that with six trillion under Dubya, and nearly ten trillion under Obama. So Bush Jr. and Obama together added about EIGHT TIMES what Reagan "added" to the debt, and I put that in quotation marks, seeing as he had to work with a Democrat Congress, and would never get the government/spending cuts he would have wanted.

Reagan could have either gotten the tax and regulatory cuts to unleash the economy, or nothing at all. He got as much as he could. If we had a conservative Republican Congress, we could have gotten the cuts to government and spending as well.

Again, Reagan's legacy was overwhelmingly positive, but his mistakes were massive ones. Hindsight is twenty-twenty though, and I believe with every cell in my body that Reagan did the best he absolutely could given the circumstances, meant well, loved America, and wasn't a globalist vampire who couldn't want to sell out his country like the Bushes, Obama, and Clinton were.

>>131445241
boomers are the real disease in this case, everything else is just a symptom

>>131463214
>not realizing it was the spending keeping the economy afloat during reagans time.

>>131462950
It depends on how intelligently the spending is distributed and allocated.

File: 1498450976509.jpg (26KB, 413x412px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 413x412px

>>131445644

Correct

>>131463214
Yes but that was two trillion in 1980's dollars, inflation skews the modern day numbers.
Once again I'm not saying Regan was he devil, but his spending like crazy allowed the next few presidents to say "Regan did it so we can too!"
It was a very bad president to set.
But you're right he was much needed considering how bad carter was.
I just don't like the deification Regan gets among Neocons
Regan became the neoconservatives Lenin. (The original Neo-conservatives were heavily influenced by the thoughts of Leon Trotsky)

File: IMG_3573.jpg (63KB, 785x491px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 785x491px

>>131463933
Forgot pic

>>131445241
>Hasn't seen The Big Short

No, dumb ass, this mess started under Clinton.

>>131445241
they sued banks who refused to lend to undesirables

>>131463933

what exactly did Carter do that was so bad?

I was born in 88 so it was way before my time... i have read up on a lot of politics from the decades... but Carter is almost always bashed, but i rarely have seen what he did?

Can you tell me so I can know?

>>131463534
If economies centered around government spending and the public sector were these utopias, Venezuela and North Korea ought to be these platinum-tier, supra-first world countries.

All you Marxists need is one more shot, right? All of these other countries you've ruined over the course of the twentieth century, just "practice runs." We'll give you the reins of power, and you'll hit a home run this time. For sure.

>>131463933
Reagan did increase defense spending greatly, but he wasn't an interventionist either, which is why the "neo-con" label isn't fair. It was to wear out and intimidate the Soviet Union. And it worked. If you would claim to anyone in 1979 with Carter as president that the Soviet Union only had a decade left to live, they would think you were absolutely insane.

Reagan wore them out with the military buildup, and our economic comeback and new confidence also sent global shockwaves, and helped break down the commies' resolve and morale. He literally got in front of the Berlin Wall and told the Stalinists to tear the wall down, and two years later, they tore it down.

He left America in a far stronger position than he inherited it in every respect, economic strength, international influence and respect, pride, he was the entire package. The good far outweighs the bad.

>>131464437
The economy was terrible under him. Interest rates shot up to a high of 21.5% and nearly collapsed the entire economy
I'm not sure exactly how much he was at fault but he didn't help the situation
http://humanevents.com/2007/05/23/jimmy-carters-inferior-years/

>>131445241
lol, he wasn't in power in the 90s, so no

>>131445241
if you amerifats hadn't borrowed too much money when you had no idea how to pay it off just to own your own homes, the whole shit wouldn't have happened at all

>>131463214
I'll never forgive Reagan for turning American brown and California red

>>131449728
>The crash is completely Bill Clinton's fault for getting rid of Glass-Steagall

None of the banks which failed had anything to do with GS. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, etc.

This is just a liberal talking point that has no basis in reality.

>>131464936
He wasn't a direct interventionist, but he certainly was an indirect one (Saddam and Osama Bin Laden both started to be funded under him)
It's debatable whether the Soviet Union would have collapsed on its own, but it probably would have taken longer.
Regan was ok, but he had some massive fuck ups and the deification of him is completely retarded

>>131465755
I never asked for anyone to be deified, senpai. I'm simply making the claim that he was the last real president we had. Trump is doing good, but he needs to pass the RAISE Act and get the immigration system under control, or pretty much everything else is moot at this point, travel ban, tax cuts, whatever.

I couldn't really imagine anyone doing a better job, given the circumstances Reagan inherited at the time. That's the reason he gets the admiration from Republicans he does. My father told me of the late-70s, Carter era, how he was stocking up on gold, and how everyone thought America had run its course, and its best days were behind it. My father was a lifelong Democrat, until voting for Reagan against Carter. Objectively speaking, he was a terrific president, which is why the libshit ivory tower academicians are forced to rank him near the top of greatest presidents of all time, against their instincts, with an impartial regard of the facts. He was a terrific president, and getting conned by the amnesty bill shouldn't overshadow all the good he did.

Regarding Bin Laden, it was all to lure the Soviets into war with Afghanistan which was to be their Vietnam, and it worked exactly as planned. That helped exacerbate the Soviets' decline and disintegration. As for Hussein, we played both sides in that war, and it was a mess. But it was still the era of the Cold War, and completely staying out of things would have meant the international (((communists))) just running rampant and completely having their way.

>>131464936
Venezuela is a free market system and failed try again bro but suure

>>131445241
no. it started under clinton, but there are tons of parties responsible

>>131445241
?
OP are you fucking retarded?
The housing crash was because Bill Clinton forced banks to give loans to niggers who couldn't and wouldn't repay them.

>>131445241
No it was the late 90's democrats that forced lenders to lend to unqualified buyers.

File: im confus.jpg (7KB, 251x218px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 251x218px

>>131445241
>was the son of an oil baron and former president 100% responsible for an economic crash created by bankers

>>131445241
Sorry I am late but it was Barney Frank that actually caused the housing market crash. You can hear him say so himself.

https://youtu.be/Do6wp9Vydys

File: 1468903713316.jpg (43KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x640px

>>131447243
This anon knows whats up. Good to see someone on /pol/ whose head isn't completely up their ass.

>>131467128
Its not free market if the state control the price of everything.

>>131459162
That's irrelevant. All garbage was suddenly sold as CDOs. As I said before, not all CDOs that went to zero were mortgage paper. Any crap could be sold 97% of as a AAA CDO tranche at par. It was a giant collection of all the WS garbage. They would give loans to cats for MBS they would short. Even if Frank didn't push for bad paper it would still be sold. At most it removed any possibility of going after the banks for fraud, but they committed unrelated fraud too and nothing happened.

>>131467938
>>131468034
So much this.
Thank god for /pol/ being this enlightened.

>>131445241
No, it was the American people, lenders, ratings agencies, investment banks, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's fault.

File: what eyebrow.jpg (28KB, 361x362px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 361x362px

>>131467128
>confiscated land from the people who owned it and handed it out to people
>built factories in areas that do not produce the goods they process in some fucktarded attempt to "spread the wealth around"
>fixed the prices of oil regularly to appease people, entire economy focused on oil exports

>Free Market

>>131447243
this is such a woefully simple cause and effect argument that it should be mocked.

>>131445241
It was the Clinton policies to spread home ownership to uncreditworthy parties that necessitated those subprime mortgages to be packaged and securitized to spread the risk pools...much in the same way health insurance "groups" are formed to spread health risks across an employee base...which set the stage for what became the housing crisis

>>131468287
CIA runs the place and the CIA supports laziest faire

File: cover_meltdown_lg.jpg (60KB, 300x449px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 300x449px

>>131445241
No. Also it literally nothing to do with the free market.

>>131445397
This absolutely wrong, Clinton forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy parties to create a false sense of prosperity throughout the country

>>131445241
Combination of Clinton and Bush. Bit of Reagan as well.

>>131467105
You might not be asking for his defiacation, but it's what has happened in the Republican Party and it's very annoying because calling Regan out on his massive mistakes is shut down and ignored, if not embraced by the neoconservatives that followed him.
My dad was a regan fanatic and so I understand how much of a legend he is made out to be.
Neoconservatives are former democrats who pretend to be conservative until in power where they start spending like crazy and starting wars/funding wars
The Soviet Union was unsustainable, and would have collapsed without spending ourselves into oblivion.
Whether you realize it or not you are deifying him to a degree by claiming he's the only reason the Soviet Union collapsed and then ignoring the fact he helped spread Jihadism and allowed democrats to take over California and soon to be most of the southwest.
He was good for the economy but doomed our country

>>131445241

He wasn't solely responsible for the housing crash, but he was responsible for a fair amount of the pain it caused by the 2005 bankruptcy reform he passed. Even today this gives banks, hospitals, and student loans exceptional leverage over the average person.

Thus the reason for healthcare cost, crippling student loan debt, And to a lesser extent banks doing dumb shit (see auto loans written the same way as house loans pre 2008, this time on a depreciating asset)

File: [gun sounds].gif (249KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 500x375px

>>131468888
Kek has spoken.

>>131468641
it wasn't required of the lenders though. shareholders of major institutions are to blame as well as they chased the profits delivered by their high-risk peers

>>131459162
And here is the thing that I'm no longer sure about. I know the banks were pushed to expand the box for lending. But they've been pushed since the 90s. They wouldn't willingly lose money in the 90s or in the 2000's. For all you know all this asshole Frank did was created a plausible deniability.

You have to understand that without the CDOs, the banks had bad paper pile up on their books. CDOs solved the problem of how to sell all the garbage they couldn't sell outright. Say you are a bank and bought AA rated bond at discount, and can't sell it, because the paper is not even AA anymore. CDOs is no problem, you sell it at its ratings into the CDO's collateral, and it comes out the other end priced with its rating, not the market price. Chances are CDOs buyers will never even know they bought some shit as AAA tranche as long as it pays.

So I'm not sure Frank didn't create a plausible deniability, and it was the other way around. The politicians gave the banks the cover. Because before all the bad paper caused problems with credit cycles. CDOs removed all the crap from the banks books.

Of course some people in the banks started to believe their own shit, but that's another story.

Republicans in Congress and Bill Clinton are responsible for the housing bubble and crash.

That's what happens when you let financial firms police their own investment safety rankings.

>>131469303
>That's what happens when you let financial firms police their own investment safety rankings.
You forgot the part where banks were forced/encouraged to give out risky loans to poor minorities because "a house is a human RIGHT!"

>>131445241
It was the democrat congress that forced banks to make loans to low income people that did not have the means to pay their payments. Congress believed that everyone should have the opportunity to own their own home. They then blamed everyone but themselves.

>>131445241
No, he was a major player though.

Causes of housing crash in no particular order:

1. Repeal of Glass-Steagall act by Clinton and corrupt Congress Critters Gramm, Bliley, Leach. Tore down the firewall between commercial banks and the investment houses, so that funds could be commingled.

2. Greenspan and the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low as a panic move (or part of (((their))) plan depending on how much foil you have on your head) in response to 9/11 attacks.

3. Wall Street's Franken-Investments of CDOs and toxic tranches of sub-prime mortgages. Ratings agencies gave their blessing to these investments as well.

4. People who couldn't afford their 700K McMansions on 25K year salaries. Liar's loans. Banks who gave them the moolah because the good times were a-rollin'.

5. Everyone who benefited from encouraging bubble-mania like the pumpmonkeys on CNBC.

6. Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson flat out lying that there "was no bubble" and keeping Greenspan's insane policies going.

t: former Wall St. guy who got out after dot-com bubble because bosses were genuinely rotten people.

>>131469489
please define "forced"

>>131459162
And the other thing. The banks wanted to securitize health care since the 90s. At some point that shitshow will be unleashed onto everyone, and it will a repeat of 2008 only this time with insurance bond AAA tranches. If the USD is not completely worthless, I expect to see it in my lifetime. For all you know that will be Trump's healthcare. It wouldn't surprise me. Mnuchin must have been participating in those discussions when he was at Goldman, and he is the securitizations guy. That would be an interesting Healthare plan a-la housing CDOs. It will be called differently of course, but it's essentially a cheap insurance for everyone plan until it implodes.

>>131461852
You're a pompous ass, that's for sure.

>>131470122
Banks would be sued by the federal government for "racial discrimination" if they didn't give a ridiculously risky loan to minorties

>>131470122
>>131470122
>"In a 1998 paper, Alex Schwartz of the Fannie Mae Foundation found that CRA agreements were "consistently successful in meeting their goals for mortgages, investments in low-income housing tax credits, grant giving to community-based organizations, and in opening (and keeping open) inner-city bank branches."[45] In a 2000 report for the US Treasury, several economists concluded that the CRA had the intended impact of improving access to credit for minority and low-to-moderate-income consumers"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

File: 1493164365012.jpg (250KB, 982x1200px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 982x1200px

>>131468958
>Neoconservatives are former democrats who pretend to be conservative until in power where they start spending like crazy and starting wars/funding wars

Yes, (((neoconservatives))), they're simply (((former Democrats))). It would be a thought crime to even entertain the notion that they're a highly self-conscious ethnic group who may have been steering the GOP towards pursuing the interests of their ethnic home country, at the expense of the party's own country.

It's not like all of these (((neo-conservatives))) are members of this ethnic group, to a tee, down to the very last one. We don't want to be conspiracy theorists, right?
>The Soviet Union was unsustainable, and would have collapsed without spending ourselves into oblivion.
Once again, hindsight is twenty-twenty, and the policies Reagan pursued objectively led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Both Russian and American sources can attest to this. He had an incredibly effective Cold War policy, borne out by the fact that the Soviet Union didn't even make it a couple of years following his term before disintegrating. You're being overly critical of him, methinks. And there's nothing wrong with being able to handle criticism and debate. The issue is when you start magnifying the negatives at the expense of the positives, and what happens then is naturally, everyone looks like complete shit. Think about it.
>he helped spread Jihadism and allowed democrats to take over California and soon to be most of the southwest.
He was good for the economy but doomed our country
The (((neo-cons))) fomented the explosion of jihadism, and we've already touch on how he got jewed by the amnesty bill. He openly admitted it was his greatest mistake. What more could you want from him? He was a good man, and he meant well, but he was too trusting. Do you really think he would have carried things out the same if he had a crystal ball and could see America in the year 2017, post-Obama? Come on.

>>131464437
It's mostly what Carter didn't do - his domestic policy was barely there, he spent all of his time one the "peace process" in the Middle East, with the end result of his boy getting his head blown off in a parade. The word "malaise" was used to describe his term - things were just slowly moldering and rolling to a stop. The economy was in a slump, the high cost of living became a meme, his answer to the high cost of energy was "wear a sweater", and we went through an energy crisis. He had no real leadership qualities, and then showed real lack of leadership in the Iran hostage crisis.
He was just a weak President, who cared more about his foreign agenda, than his domestic. The Congress was out of control during his era - they would end up sending the Dem Speaker of the House from that era to jail, for check kiting.
That's why Reagan swept Carter in the election - Carter was seen as doom, gloom, stagnation. Reagan had energy, vitality, and made people feel good to be American.
I lived in the UK, when he was elected. They were scared of Reagan, when he first came in, as an unpredictable cowboy who was going to start throwing nukes around, but Carter was viciously ripped apart for being weak. I remember being harrassed several times, in pubs, shops, and on a double decker bus, for the shame of him letting our hostages sit there. That shit stopped once Reagan took over.

>>131470947
>You're being overly critical of him, methinks. And there's nothing wrong with being able to handle criticism and debate. The issue is when you start magnifying the negatives at the expense of the positives, and what happens then is naturally, everyone looks like complete shit. Think about it.
Im simply pointing out he he handed over the largest electoral state to the democrats, and that his policies were continued and expanded by the neoconservatives that followed.
He also helped push gun control, and because of him machine guns are retardedly expensive

>>131470048
Forgot to add that everyone should look up moral hazard. It's applicable to the housing crash and Great Recession, but it infects so much more of the modern world.

File: 6878570A-21DD-4C15-B8B2-51820BD4F259-399-000001414A2C6C50_tmp.jpg (13KB, 186x295px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 186x295px

>>131445241
No, he dindu nuffin. It's the fault of the housing bubble, caused by banks after the mandates of the Clinton admin.

File: 1318834612587.jpg (78KB, 800x1031px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x1031px

>>131445241

I'm surprised at the number of people on /pol/ who apparently do not read Steve Sailer. He has pointed out to anyone who will listen that Bush made it his mission to expand homeownership to minorities (i.e. hispanics and niggers) because it would presumably civilize them. But... because hispanics and niggers can't pay their bills, they defaulted on their subprime mortgages at elevated rates, essentially causing the crash.

>>131445241
No one man actually has all that power

>>131457523
Housing in various places and tech are 2 of the most obvious things in a bubble, but there is also the entire chinese economy with the huge debt their central banks have built up over the past decade or two.

>>131471521
He didnt hand the state over to Dems, you blithering idiot - the Republican Party of California fucked up by running a weak ass candidate two years after Reagan said he wouldn't run again, a candidate so weak Jerry Fucking Brown beat him. I know someone who was high up in CA republican circles, used to host Reagan at their house for fundraising back then, and she'll tell you point blank, the GOP leadership in CA was rotten and soft, because they were all riding Reagan's coattails - with him gone, they floundered, hard, and never regained any power since then. She could name names, even though I don't remember them.
This idea that Reagan purposely handed CA to the DNC is laughable, and more than a little childish, it's a fable invented by bitter GOP members covering their asses for their failure to make what Reagan built survive, let alone thrive.
And, you fail to understand his objectives and actions, in the context of the time. He pushed for getting rid of open carry, because Black Panthers had marched on Sacramento, armed to the teeth. His legislation was a direct response to that - and the GOP, if they hadn't fucked up and dropped the ball and gotten a better candidate in office, could have repealed it once the protests of that era ended.
Reagan didn't pick his successor in the Governor's Office, the voters did. And they chose Jerry Brown, because the Republican candidate was weak. Do you even know who Brown ran against? Have you even bothered to read about that election? No, I can tell you havent, because you're crying and sniveling the GOP excuses that have been floating around since then.
Educate yourself, child.

>>131473135
Oh look a Regan worshipper, how nice of you to join us!
That wasn't Regan's only gun control achievement, here's his grandest one
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
>This idea that Reagan purposely handed CA to the DNC is laughable, and more than a little childish, it's a fable invented by bitter GOP members covering their asses for their failure to make what Reagan built survive, let alone thrive.
Maybe he didn't do it on purpose but he was clearly soft and an idiot to think pandering to Latinos was a good idea.
The Bush's did build on his legacy, in fact they expanded on it by starting to openly invade countries instead of just funding insurgents to ruin them.

>>131473742
Oh, look, the child is lashing out because someone told him his little tantrum is based on bullshit.

Grow up, kid.

>>131473852
You're the one who's clearly pissed off here.
Are you mad I insulted Regan, the holy one, who must not be criticized.
You getting this emotional about him his just proving my point

>>131473135
Oh, by the way, kid - there's one thing I DESPISE Reagan for: he instituted the first form of no-fault divorce in the country. The state of marriage and divorce in the US can be directly blamed on him, for getting the ball rolling for easy divorce, which has destroyed millions of families.

So, know who the fuck you're screaming at when you throw your little tantrums, Timmy. Just because you're sniveling out of your ass, and I'm telling you that you are, doesn't mean I 'worship" Reagan. You child.

>>131473996
Let me fix that, I only had to criticize some of his policies to send you into a tail spin, I didn't have to insult the man himself

>>131473996
I'm not the one using loaded language and throwing a hissy fit, kid.

>>131474167
How am I throwing a hissy fit? You seem to be though

>>131473996
Emotional? What are you, a woman? I simply pointed out how childish his comments were, and weren't backed up by reality. I've made no statements that show I "worship" Reagan, you and that other spastic are making that up, because you can't refute the facts. Reagan didn't hand the state to the Dems, which is the favorite made up meme to throw at Reagan - and it's clearly and laughably easy to disprove.

I don't worship any politicians, but I support truth and facts. Clearly, neither of you do, and your childish retorts show that. You'd rather name call and act like spastics, instead educating yourself.

Hey, if you like being stupid, have at it. But don't call ME names, when I accurately describe you as stupid.

>>131474607
>Reagan didn't hand the state to the Dems, which is the favorite made up meme to throw at Reagan - and it's clearly and laughably easy to disprove.
Whoops!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
You're the one call others names here, because I dared question some of Reagan's policies

>>131459740
it was my understanding that money (liquidity) is basically created out of thin air when the fed buys back govt bonds

>>131475304
meant for satan
>>131459666

>>131445241
No, banks, federal reserve, and an influx of illegals working in housing trades are responsible for the build up of the bubble for many years while the bubble grew and then it popped. It is a recipe of ingredients that created the situation, and we the tax payer got a gun stuck to our heads. Thanks Clinton, Bush, Obama, Israel, and (((International Banking Dynasty Families)))...

>>131461470
Interest rates rose the last two quarters. That is good, it slows down bad investing.

Recently the House passed a bill that would 1)Repeal to big to fail 2)Remove the Orderly Liquidation Fund (which is where we keep bail out laws and funds) and repeals the Volker rule,

So, basically if this becomes law the banks can do whatever they want with investing and if they fuck up their shareholders have to eat dick and take the loss. But FDIC checking accounts are still insured up to $400.

This is a great thing so long as the next administration doesn't cuck and do an emergency bail out the next time a bank over-extends itself.

I would rather they keep the Volker Rule to prevent problems from happening, but I understand the total framework.

>>131463534
Reagan came to power during stagflation. The textbook answer to stagflation is to reduce entitlements and therefore taxes to stimulate the economy and raise interest rates to tame inflation.

So sometimes spending is the answer.

>>131476282
>This is a great thing so long as the next administration doesn't cuck and do an emergency bail out the next time a bank over-extends itself.
Sounds great but this right here will be its undoing. I guarantee unless something really profound changes in politics the administration will Vick for their (((donors)))
Also I personally doubt that bill can pass the senate, but hopefully I'm wrong

File: london-tower-fire.jpg (47KB, 685x449px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 685x449px

>>131446645
This.

In 2006 I was doing really well in my first business. I built full race cars. I had regular beta types coming in twice a week handing me checks averaging 30k to build them a car. I wondered wtf was going on. They say they refinanced the money out. Check book customers.
I had largely lived, and still do, most of my life off credit systems entirely. So with my at the time 500's credit score, I chatted up someone at a coffee shop who was a mortgage agent. I went to school for Econ, and I could tell this guy was a hispanic rube. I was approved for up to $800k in Southern California. ARM Interest only. I wasn't paying myself in paycheck but dividend distributions, so I didn't have much in the way of "provable income". Still approved.

I knew then and there shit was going to go tits up.

Out of the business by 2007. Got a house in NorCal. Traded FX all through the crash. Laugh every day.

>ps it's happening again, and Justine from Canida will be the cause.

>>131476787
I hope the Senate puts the Volker rule back in and they pass it. Best chance for long term sustainable investment and growth.

The bankers own the Dems though, so I don't know how this will shake out.

Watch: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UIjoW_IXos4

More https://www.c-span.org/video/?178357-1/regulation-fannie-mae-freddie-mac

The whole bunch. https://www.google.com/search?q=bush+committee+hearing+on+fannie+freddie&client=safari&hl=en-us&prmd=nvsi&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7qv69md3UAhVP6GMKHeC0AgIQ_AUICigC&biw=375&bih=559

>>131445397
>Partially cause of his shit tax reform

So does Trump have a possibility of falling under the same thing with his tax reform?