jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (46 posts)

Home Values Fall (again) 3% Thanks Obama!

  1. lady_love158 profile image62
    lady_love158posted 5 years ago

    Wall Street Journal reports another decline in home values, down 3%. That's 57 straight months of decline! So while Obama has spent trillions rewarding his union buddies the banks and car companies the people of America continue to suffer under his leadership and bear the burden of his corrupt socialist policies. Obama has to go his inept leadeship is destroying us!

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If you get rid of Obama will that stop the decline in house prices in the UK as well?

      Obama = socialist! Guffaw, snort.

    2. thebrucebeat profile image60
      thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What role do you think the outrageous appreciation in housing prices during the middle 2000's had to do with it, when we saw homes double in "value" in a years time?
      What do you know about Phil Gramm's influence on the housing crisis?  I know, of course, that Obama is responsible for everything from child obesity to halitosis in canines, but what do you know about Gramm?

      1. lady_love158 profile image62
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I know it was liberal government policies that led to the housing bubble and the unfunded liabilities of Fannie and Freddie that exacerbated the decline. Let's remember it was Clinton that signed into law the bill that repealed the glass stegal act.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So Obama is responsible for all the doings of his predecessors!

        2. thebrucebeat profile image60
          thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So your not answering the question tells me you are completely ignorant of Gramm's influence?  Is that correct?

          1. lady_love158 profile image62
            lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I answered the question unfortunately you didn't like the answer. Make your case.

            1. thebrucebeat profile image60
              thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, you haven't actually.  The question was about your knowledge of Phil Gramm's influence on the home crisis.  You didn't address the question at all.  You avoided it.  I know that one of the conservatives favorite techniques is to answer a question that was not asked and announce they have answered the one that was, but we are going to pretend we are adults and not accept that as a grown up way to behave.
              So, again, the question was whether or not you have any understanding of how Gramm influenced the collapse of our housing market and economy.  Do you?

              1. lady_love158 profile image62
                lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes I have an understanding in general but I have no idea what you are trying to claim as fact regarding Gramm.

                1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                  thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So tell us what you know about his influence on the housing and economic collapse.

                  1. lady_love158 profile image62
                    lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Im not going to do this dance with you. If you have a point make it otherwise you're expecting me to speculate on what you assume to be fact regarding Gramm which from what I can gather is solely responsible for the housing bubble according to you. Of course Dodd and Frank had NO "influence" on events or legislation leading up to the collapse, it was Gramm and Gramm alone acting in his own self interest and using his influence that he alone possessed... geesh

  2. iQwest profile image71
    iQwestposted 5 years ago

    Hi thebrucebeat,

    I missed the answer, too!  Perhaps I missed a forum post or maybe it didn't show up on my screen.

    If people aren't familiar with Phil Gramm, they're not going to be familiar with who said the following either.

    "Low interest rates, low inflation are very important foundations for economic growth. The idea of encouraging new homeownership and the money that will be circulated as a result of people purchasing homes will mean people are more likely to find a job in America. This project not only is good for the soul of the country, it’s good for the pocketbook of the country, as well.

    To open up the doors of homeownership there are some barriers, and I want to talk about four that need to be overcome. First, down payments. A lot of folks can’t make a down payment. They may be qualified. They may desire to buy a home, but they don’t have the money to make a down payment. I think if you were to talk to a lot of families that are desirous to have a home, they would tell you that the down payment is the hurdle that they can’t cross. And one way to address that is to have the federal government participate."

    1. thebrucebeat profile image60
      thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I know, I know!!!

      1. iQwest profile image71
        iQwestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm preaching to the choir, thebrucebeat, but nothing you say will EVER get through to those incapable or unwilling to critically think!  It's even harder when people are so uniformed on such basic issues and are blinded by their personal ideology.

        1. iQwest profile image71
          iQwestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "uniformed" --> should have been "uninformed".

  3. Daniel Carter profile image91
    Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago

    You're back, Lalo!

    Where'd ya go for so long?
    What brought you back?

    1. lady_love158 profile image62
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The left continues to control the dialogue and limit free speech to push their agenda. I will not be silenced!!!

      1. thebrucebeat profile image60
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We have no doubt that you won't be silenced, and we are glad, because you continue to be one of the left's best arguments.  Irrational responses and avoidance of issues are very valuable to us, and we appreciate all your help.

        1. lady_love158 profile image62
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Lol! Avoidance of issues??? You're the one changing the subject of this thread!

          1. thebrucebeat profile image60
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm sorry, darlin'.  I thought the topic was the decline of housing values and their causes.  Or was this just a troll thread to bash the president?
            Just kidding.  We know you only have one topic.  I for one am thankful for the trolls.  They are the entirety of the entertainment value on sites like Hubpages.  It is so much fun engaging these passionate, but not very bright, folks and turning their own rhetoric back upon them, like I did with the Gramm-Bliley act that you wanted to blame on Clinton.  It's so easy, and is very empowering to me.
            Don't get me wrong.  I'm pretty bright but I'm no genius, but engaging people like yourself make me feel like a towering intellect, and I take no credit for that.  The credit is all yours.
            Don't worry, though.  The people that support you will do so no matter what you do.  It's not about good argument or research, or even skillful rhetoric.  It's about agenda, and that's enough to forgoe any vetting of your info.  They don't really care, as long as you hate all the same people they do, for whatever reason is truly at the root of it.
            So I apologize for "changing the subject".  LOL! Who really cares about housing and its affordability and what can be done to bring relief to people?   Who cares who is really responsible and what legislation might be addressed to prevent it from reoccurring?  Who cares who dismantled laws that had protected us for nearly seventy years that led us into the abyss in less than ten when they were repealed?  Certainly not you.
            Noone imagines you will be silenced.  You are incapable of not continuously posting the same base issue repeatedly, dressed in a variety of gowns and tuxes, overalls and bermuda shorts, but underneath the same naked hatred that drives your agenda and your life.
            Rage on!
            It's good to know that your favorite program is always on.  Reality TV is the top rated genre on the tube.  There will always be an audience for crazy.
            I mean really.  Can you turn the channel when Charlie Sheen is in rare form?
            Rage on!

            1. hottopics profile image60
              hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So lady watches reality tv. You watch MSNBC and noone picks on you for that.

              1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Feel free! Pick away.  I do listen to MSNBC. Guilty.
                I also listen to Rush, Hannity, Boertz and Savage on a daily basis, and check in on Fox and WND.
                I told you, I'm a crazy junkie.  Can't get enough of it, or their sychophant followers.

                1. hottopics profile image60
                  hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL,  I am as bad as you. I watch Fox. CNN and read everthing printed. I need to get a life LOL. But since I am stuck in bed for now till my rehab is done, that about all I can do. Oh by the way I do watch Baseball, Football, Hockey and NASCAR. Just wanted to let you know I had other interests. LOL
                  I have a good time reading your posts and debating with you from time to time on issues.

      2. JOE BARNETT profile image60
        JOE BARNETTposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        limit free speech?????????????????????????????? give me an example!

      3. Daniel Carter profile image91
        Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I guess I really didn't need an answer from you.

  4. thebrucebeat profile image60
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    Most economists state that the 1999 legislation spearheaded by Gramm and signed into law by President Clinton — the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act — was significantly to blame for the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 global economic crisis.[9][10] The Act is most widely known for repealing portions of the Glass–Steagall Act, which had regulated the financial services industry.[11]

    Gramm responded to criticism of the act by stating that he saw "no evidence whatsoever" that the sub-prime mortgage crisis was caused in any way "by allowing banks and securities companies and insurance companies to compete against each other."[12] The Act passed the House by an overwhelming majority and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, though it was introduced on the last day before Christmas holiday and never debated by either congressional body.[13]

    Gramm's support was later critical in the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which kept derivatives transactions, including those involving credit default swaps, free of government regulation.[14]

    In its 2008 coverage of the financial crisis, The Washington Post named Gramm one of seven "Key Players In the Battle Over Regulating Derivatives", for having "[p]ushed through several major bills to deregulate the banking and investment industries, including the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley act that brought down the walls separating the commercial banking, investment and insurance industries".

    That's a brief highlight reel from Gramm's legacy to this country.  In fact, you mentioned one of these acts as the big sin that Clinton committed in the creation of this calamity, but Clinton didn't veto it because Gramm had the votes to override it.  I agree Clinton should have vetoed it, if only to make a dissenting opinion clear, but it would have had no legislative effect.  This was Gramm's baby, and you have already pointed it out as a grievous error.
    And you're right.

    1. hottopics profile image60
      hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Commodity Futures Modernization Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in December 2000. It was an attempt to solve a dispute between the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) that arose in the early 1980s. At that time, Congress had enacted legislation to expand the scope of what was defined as a commodity. This resulted in some overlap between the regulatory scope of the SEC and the CFTC.

      Originally, commodities were typically agricultural products and raw materials. Things like pork bellies, corn, wheat, and oil are common commodities. Markets developed for these products, and standard contracts were developed, and then bought and sold.

      For instance, on the Chicago Board of Trade, it is possible in May 2006 to purchase a contract for 5,000 bushels of wheat for delivery in December of 2006. There are two types of buyers in this market: the end user, such as a flour mill, and the investor. The end user is in this market, as they know that they will need 5,000 bushels of wheat in December. The investor is in this market with the expectation of making a profit. The investor hopes to purchase wheat now for a certain amount per bushel and sell it for an increased amount in December.

      So if this was so bad why did the Dems vote for it and Clinton sign it. Because they thought this would end a problem, but atually as time shows, it creadted a loophole. I agee it was a bad law, but we have the abilty of hindsight. I disagree with your claim about what economists says. True some do say as you claim, but many more put the blame at the feet of Barney Frank. Personally, there is no one person to blame in this. Both sides were wrong and the Banks were greedy.

      1. thebrucebeat profile image60
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The dems did support this, but they were the minority, and this was primarily a republican de-regulation bill.  That was always Gramm's mantra, and I believe he knew exactly what he was doing.  Why do I think so?  Because it undid what had been  enacted to fix a problem that had helped to lead us to disaster in the late twenties.
        Phil Gramm is on just about everybody's top ten list of responsible parties for our economic collapse.  Were there other?  Of course, but his influence should not be minimized, as addressing his mistakes will help to protect us in the future.  In an earlier post I stated that there are many hands in this mud pie.
        Gramm has particularly large thumb prints.

        1. hottopics profile image60
          hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree, he is definatly in  the top 10, maybe even in the top 5. I looked up the vote. Not mant Dems in the house voted against it but in the Senate it was along party lines 54 to 45

    2. hottopics profile image60
      hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and it repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass–Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.

      The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate. For example, Citicorp (a commercial bank holding company) merged with Travelers Group (an insurance company) in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. This combination, announced in 1998, would have violated the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 by combining securities, insurance, and banking, if not for a temporary waiver process.[1] The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. GLB also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank."[2]

  5. Greek One profile image77
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    blaming Obama for the decline in home values is like blaming Elvis' dog for the fact it is sunny in Nevada during the summer

    1. lady_love158 profile image62
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not quite! Why don't you google what Obama has done to help homeowners in foreclosure? What about what he's done to aliviate unemployment? How about what he's done to make credit more available?
      The fact is that everything he's done has made these problems worse unlike Evil's dog who died quite some time ago before he had a chance to effect the weather in AZ.

      1. Greek One profile image77
        Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Lady love.. are you recommending that the president actively interfere in the economy?

        Why, that is almost Marxist!

        PS.. I said Nevada, not Arizona...
        everyone know that Arizona's weather is the result of the hot air released by Goldwater during his lifetime

        1. lady_love158 profile image62
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No! I'm proposing government get out of the economy and out of the way!

          1. Greek One profile image77
            Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You mean like leaving the stock market folks and sub-prime mortgages fellows along to do whatever they want?

            That didn't work out to well, did it?

          2. thebrucebeat profile image60
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And Gramm completely agreed with you.

            He was tragically wrong.

            1. lady_love158 profile image62
              lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              First off your assumption is that repeal of glass stegal was the only regulation in existance and without it markets were free to do whatever they wanted but that would not be true. There were still plenty of regs and government oversight in place that should have prevented the problem. How us it that no one saw this coming until 30 days prior? Its all nonsense!  Government created the problem and then stepped in when it was too late to fix the problem with OUR money saving their friends!

              1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The vast majority of economists, with all kinds of agendas and none at all, find this legislation pivotal in the collapse of our economy.  You even mentioned it yourself when you thought you would get away with blaming it on Clinton.  You are fully aware of the disastrous effects this legislation has had. 
                You want to single it out, and then declare it is irrelevant.  Wonder if your followers will notice your obvious hypocrisy?
                Nah.

                1. lady_love158 profile image62
                  lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'd be lying if I said I was fully aware of the impact of repeal of glass stegal. Obviously Gramm didn't think creating competition in the banking industry would be responsible and I would agree with that. The problem as I see it was a combination of factors including greed, regulation, and a lack of knowlege and accountability in several companies and rating agencies... but ultimately this will happen again because government in conjunction with business will use their power to confiscate wealth from the people as a backdrop for whatever risks their friends take.

                  1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Silly rhetoric.  The whole point of Gramm-Bliley was DEregulation, not regulation.
                    Who loads your lips for you?  They are doing a very sloppy job.

  6. JOE BARNETT profile image60
    JOE BARNETTposted 5 years ago

    ha ha ha ! bingo!!!

  7. lady_love158 profile image62
    lady_love158posted 5 years ago

    I love how the left makes excuses for Clinton... he didn't veto the bill because congress had the votes to over ride? Lol! So? He should have vetoed it and forced the over ride!

    Yes there's many factors that went into the meltdown but what made it all worse was the bailouts! That sent the message that tax layers would assume the risks of bad investments and banks (and insuranxe companies like AIG) would not be held accountable. Of course Bush was first to make that mistake but Obama just continued it and made things worse with new regulations and more bailouts!

    1. hottopics profile image60
      hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, Clinton did not veto it because he got several attacment to the bill he was in favor of on issue like welfare and unemployment. None of the attachments were earth shattering but they were little things he wanted

    2. hottopics profile image60
      hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You cannot fault Clinton for that, He did like other Presidents before him and after him have done when it comes to siging bills

 
working