Lol. 🤡
Are you lost??.... this is the GD freeboard.
Perhaps go to the Purdue Free 🏀🏈 boards?
Last edited:
Is Biden the problem.....or is Dem policy the problem?
- Thread starter Boiler Buck
- Start date
Lol. 🤡
Are you lost??.... this is the GD freeboard.
Perhaps go to the Purdue Free 🏀🏈 boards?
Deficit this. Deficit that. That is all you right wingers talk about when it comes to democatic presidents. When a republican president jacks the up the deficit you guys are so quiet that you can hear a mouse piss on cotton. For Obama to do what he had to do, the money ain't going to come from the ether. What Obama did in those years was absolutely remarkable with little help from a republican controlled congress part of that time.
Here is a graph that shows the increase in the Dow Index during the Obama years. What are you talking that this was disputed?
Log In - knoema.com
knoema.com
As far as divisiveness, boo hoo I'm so sorry y'all got your feelings hurt when Obama showed empathy for a black family who's son was killed by a racist cop wanna be. And Chump is not divisive? Give me a break.
Proof that this is what either does?
Bi-partizan or not, it was concocted by the Democrats. It didn't create the bubble overnight. It will happen again.
What did this do? I have never heard of it. Have never seen it mentioned as a contributor in any way.
What caused the crisis wasn't Wall Street trying to be greedy. They were forced to give loans that they otherwise wouldn't. It turned out that it was making them money when they would bundle these risky loans and sell them off, but that was a byproduct of the dumb bill in the first place.
We talk a LOT more than just deficits when we talk about Dem presidents. Perhaps you're just not paying attention, or your bias won't let you acknowledge the other points.Deficit this. Deficit that. That is all you right wingers talk about when it comes to democatic presidents. When a republican president jacks the up the deficit you guys are so quiet that you can hear a mouse piss on cotton. For Obama to do what he had to do, the money ain't going to come from the ether. What Obama did in those years was absolutely remarkable with little help from a republican controlled congress part of that time.
Here is a graph that shows the increase in the Dow Index during the Obama years. What are you talking that this was disputed?
Log In - knoema.com
As far as divisiveness, boo hoo I'm so sorry y'all got your feelings hurt when Obama showed empathy for a black family who's son was killed by a racist cop wanna be. And Chump is not divisive? Give me a break.
Deficit this. Deficit that. That is all you right wingers talk about when it comes to democatic presidents. When a republican president jacks the up the deficit you guys are so quiet that you can hear a mouse piss on cotton. For Obama to do what he had to do, the money ain't going to come from the ether. What Obama did in those years was absolutely remarkable with little help from a republican controlled congress part of that time.
Here is a graph that shows the increase in the Dow Index during the Obama years. What are you talking that this was disputed?
Log In - knoema.com
As far as divisiveness, boo hoo I'm so sorry y'all got your feelings hurt when Obama showed empathy for a black family who's son was killed by a racist cop wanna be. And Chump is not divisive? Give me a break.
Clearly when it comes to the extremely divisive President O, you have a skewed prejudicial look.
His term ended as the worst President in history in terms of spending.....spending more than just about all Presidents before him together. His spending is a known a fact..... exacerbated by his Obamacare program, that is still costing the country Billion$ today....making him the worst President in history.
As far as the DOW.....you are just showing your prejudice here as this has been refuted numerous times on here with liberal sources.
Last edited:
Yeah, you foolishly judge the performance of a president solely on the the deficit. That's one of the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. There are tough decision presidents have to make in order to run the country and get the country back on track. The deficit sometimes is collateral damage. I rather have an elevated deficit than low unemployment/no hiring, tanked auto industry, tanked hosuing industry, tanked Wall Street etc. How was that spending under Chump? The 2 Bush's and even Reagan for that matter? According to your logic, President Clinton was the best President ever since he had a surplus after he left office, correct?
Back to the Dow. Ok since I'm wrong, even though I posted a graph of the Dow Index during those years. You tell me since I'm wrong.
What was the Dow Index on January 2009?
What was the Dow Index on January 2017?
Your own MSNBC says you are wrong.....
From the article....
"Obama has been in office, the beneficiary of long-standing monetary policy"......"You can make a strong case that a lot of (the market gains are) because of Federal Reserve policy,”
Post in thread .... https://purdue.forums.rivals.com/th...arbaric-palestinian-hamas.244175/post-3723885
This is a discussion forum. It's not about Purdue sports, though on occaision it may be.
And the FR is non political, operating separate of the White House or Congress.
Supposedly, yes. Sometimes you wouldn't know it from the moves they make or don't make.
So, the Dow Index went climbed approached 28k when Chump left office. Is that jump due to Chump or the Federal Reserve Board?
Geez...Everytime you are proven wrong you bring up Trump. Trump has nothing to do with Obama, you were wrong, be man and admit it.
You are a walking hypocrite. That is why you are avoiding my questions. I asked a simple question on whether the Federal Reserve Board was responsible for the Dow Index gains during the Chump administration like you say that they did during the Obama administration. Again, was Chump responsible or the 2027 to 2020 Dow gains or the FRB?
Gave you a chance to be a man, and admit you were wrong, instead you resort to little boy name calling. Have a good day.
Gramm-Leach-Billey repealed part of Glass-Steagall, removing the separation between commercial and investment banking. CFMA ensured OTC derivatives (such as credit default swaps) remained unregulated.
And if you haven't seen them mentioned in relation to the crisis, then you just weren't paying attention.
I am not wrong. Why don't you admit you are a hypocrite? Was Chump responsible for the Dow gains during his administration? Yes, or no.
I got cha.
Glass-Steagall being repealed by GLBA had little to nothing to do with the 2008 crash.
The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999
predatorylending.duke.edu
"To better understand the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, one must first examine the Glass-Steagall Act (1933) and the Bank Holding Company Act (1956). Glass-Steagall was signed into law during the Great Depression and required commercial banks and investment banks to be separate corporate entities. The Act prevented commercial banks from dealing in securities and banned investment banks’ taking of deposits.[5] The Bank Holding Company Act complemented the Glass-Steagall Act, separating banking from “commerce,” and prohibited multi-bank holding companies from extending their networks of separately chartered banks across state lines and from engaging in non-financial services activities. [6]
GLBA redesigned the regulatory structure by repealing aspects of Glass-Steagall and the Bank Holding Company Act. Legal scholar and former regulator Jolina Cuaresma explained that because “the regulatory structure developed through Glass-Steagall in such an ad hoc manner, . . . GLBA’s reforms answer a long-felt need of coherence.”[7] In fact, GLBA did not fundamentally change the nature of the “mixing” within the financial services sector; it simply extended what was already being practiced as a result of the gradual liberalization of the Glass-Steagall restrictions.[8] “Glass-Steagall barriers,” another legal scholar has observed, “remained intact until the 1970s when expansion initiatives by commercial banks and investment banks eroded those barriers.”[9] At that point, commercial banks began to offer various kinds of securities services to household and businesses, while investment banks undertook activities that “attracted business from both the assets side and the liabilities side of commercial banks’ balance sheets.”[10] Mortgage securitization, which began in the 1970s, meant that financial institutions could finance residential mortgages through the securities markets rather than through commercial banks.[11] Moreover, in the 1970s banks saw the deregulation of stock brokerage commission rates as an opportunity for entering the securities brokerage business.[12] In the 1980s and early 1990s, Congress loosened regulations regarding the amount of corporate securities that commercial banks could underwrite. During that period, increased opportunities for other routes of financing residential mortgages also emerged, due to the expansive mortgage activities of commercial banks and the securitization of residential mortgages by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.[13]
Therefore, Glass-Steagall’s legal barriers eventually began to give way; by 1990, the largest banks were able to participate in almost all of the securities activities that they had engaged in before Glass-Steagall, much like banks in Canada and Europe, which continued as integrated financial concerns.[14] GLBA was the final piece of legislation to mark the end of Glass-Steagall regulation."
In other words, Glass-Steagall was being eroded long before GLBA. GLBA just modernized regulation to fit the way banking was already being done.
The recession was caused more so by the loosening of lending practices by CRA and would have happened with or without GLBA.
From the same article linked above.
"The main argument against GLBA is that it allowed certain banks to grow too big. Joseph Grant argues this point by depicting how large Citigroup and Bank of America grew following passage of GLBA.[29] Citigroup emerged in 1999 from the merger of Citicorp with Travelers Insurance, while Bank of America had become the largest mortgage lending and payment collection operation in the country by 2008, when it merged with Countrywide Financial. Neither mergers would not have been possible without GLBA.[30] Both banks were squeezed by the housing collapse and its impact on mortgage-backed securities, with Citigroup’s market capitalization dropping from $274 billion before the crisis to less than $16 billion afterwards.[31] Through these examples, Grant argues that GLBA allowed for the formation of such “superbanks,” that were “too big to fail.” Another argument against GLBA highlights its authorization of commercial banks’ engagement with securitization, which “transmitted the risk-taking culture of investment banking to commercial banks”.[32]
Recent analyses have challenged these arguments. Lawrence White argues that GLBA marginally impacted the financial crisis, if at all.[33] And Oonagh McDonald contends that the crisis “was caused primarily by bad lending policies, which in turn led to the growth of the subprime market to an extent that neither the lawmakers nor regulatory authorities recognized at the time.”[34] On this view, the commercial banks and their holding companies that failed—or that other viable financial institutions had to acquire into order to avoid liquidation—did so because they functionally abandoned underwriting standards. These banks acquired and held large amounts of mortgage‐backed securities, which pooled subprime and other risky loans. However, even under Glass‐Steagall, banks were allowed to buy and sell mortgage-backed securities because regulators viewed these financial instruments as loans in a securitized form. Even with Glass-Steagall in place, the five large investment banks (Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs) could have performed the same activities that got them in trouble during the 2008 financial crisis.[35]
I like how you present an article that summarizes debate about the impact of GLBA as if it is somehow supporting your position on it, and how you conveniently left out the end of the bolded paragraph concludes with:
"The debate over Gramm-Leach-Bliley’s role in the crisis is ongoing..."
The article basically says "some people say this, other people say this" and then doesn't take a position on it.
I'm sure we could both go find some articles that say it contributed and some articles that say it didn't. The difference is you're setting out with the goal to blame democrats, so those articles that support you are the only ones you'd consider to be correct. I'm saying that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by a complex set of interconnected policies enacted over decades and supported by legislators of both parties. I'd argue that the blame ultimately lies in the political system's acceptance of private money, which makes said legislators beholden to monied interests and lobbyists and whatnot more so than they are accountable to the people they supposedly represent. That's not a democrat vs. republican problem, it's a fundamental problem with the structure of our government.
It saying the debate is ongoing is nothing more than political partisans not wanting to fess up to their misdeeds. The article plainly states that GLBA did nothing that changed what financial institutions were already doing, and in fact the 2008 crash would/could have happened without GLBA. It was subprime lending and places like Fanny and Freddy making up over 25% of their finances of these subprime loans that was the main cause of the crash. CRA was the vehicle and the policies of Clinton and continued by Bush to pressure institutions to give out more of these loans was the primary cause.
Lived in Chgo for 20 years while Daley was in charge. He was a very moderate, pro-law n order Mayor. He kept the $hitheads in line and let the cops do their jobs. The violence was pretty well contained on the S and W sides and mostly drug/gang related. He would have never let these packs of animals run down Michigan Ave terrorizing the people and stores on the Mag Mile.
Johnson on the other hand, makes excuses for this behavior and emboldens it.
It ALSO plainly states that there were things that happened after GLBA was passed that contributed to the crisis that could not have happened before it.
Also, how can you dismiss the sentence you don't like as being written by "political partisans" when the rest of the article, including the part you present as supporting you, was written by the same author?
Where? Quote it.
No, you misunderstood what I'm saying. I know the whole thing was written by the same person. That person pointing out OTHER people still discussing the causes doesn't change the fact that he points out many ways in which GLBA did not cause it.
Bullsht. That’s simply not true. And the CRA literally had nothing to do with non bank mortgage companies. Didn’t cover them. And those companies did more than 50% of the mortgages in 2005.
But it did force banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise have rejected as financially unsound, right Bob?
No, read your own citation.
But that person pointing out that other people are still discussing it DOES indicate that said argument is not as settled as you would have us believe.
Yes it is true. Bill Clinton started it and Bush continued it.
You're the one making the claim. I read the entire thing and it doesn't say what you're claiming.
Well, the argument you're pushing is an argument from a macro point of view. They don't describe exactly what about passing GLBA caused the crash. Only that it's that evil deregulation.
OTOH, on the micro side, they show how sub prime lending caused financial burden on these banks which caused the crash.
Last edited:
Read closer:
The main argument against GLBA is that it allowed certain banks to grow too big. Joseph Grant argues this point by depicting how large Citigroup and Bank of America grew following passage of GLBA.[29] Citigroup emerged in 1999 from the merger of Citicorp with Travelers Insurance, while Bank of America had become the largest mortgage lending and payment collection operation in the country by 2008, when it merged with Countrywide Financial. Neither mergers would not have been possible without GLBA.[30] Both banks were squeezed by the housing collapse and its impact on mortgage-backed securities, with Citigroup’s market capitalization dropping from $274 billion before the crisis to less than $16 billion afterwards.[31] Through these examples, Grant argues that GLBA allowed for the formation of such “superbanks,” that were “too big to fail.” Another argument against GLBA highlights its authorization of commercial banks’ engagement with securitization, which “transmitted the risk-taking culture of investment banking to commercial banks”.[32]
In this paragraph, the author summarizes (despite a clear typo) the argument that GLBA contributed, just as the paragraph you quoted summarizes the argument that it did not contribute.
Yes they do. It's literally in the article you cited (and presented in much greater detail within the citations provided by your article). That being that when the giant banks that GLBA allowed to form via mergers collapsed, it crippled the global financial system.
I don't believe anyone would argue that sub-prime lending wasn't part of the problem, so I agree here. Would it have had as drastic an effect on the overall economy if the financial institutions that were affected didn't control trillions of dollars of assets? Seems reasonable to me. Might it have been prevented if the SEC could've regulated credit default swaps? Perhaps. Stop trying to reduce complex things to a simple answer. The crisis had a number of causes, not just one.
But, I'm pretty much done here. You don't argue honestly, because your only goal is to figure out a way to blame democrats, so you've latched onto the piece of the puzzle that can, arguably, be attributed to democrats while ignoring everything else.
Last edited:
Clinton was a pile of festering dog poop. The only reason he looked good was because he was forced to the middle by Speaker Gingrich. Otherwise, Slick would have been far left all of the time.
You can say this about Clinton or that. According to the standards of Boiler Buck, Clinton was the best president ever since he judges president performances solely on how much the deficit was during their administration. Clinton had a surplus so therefore he was the best. According to the Buckster. He never responded when I called him out about it.
Last edited:
You need reading comprehension.
It says those two banks got big because of mergers that wouldn't be possible without GLBA. Says NOTHING about that being a cause of the collapse. Nothing. Those banks they mergered with would have been squeezed just as hard if not made them collapse without their merger. The article even says that because of GLBA it allowed banks to diversify their risk, which makes them less susceptible to being squeezed by a downturn.
Diversification is how large banks can handle loss well, but pushes for sub prime loans forced those banks to get a much higher % of their balance sheet in high risk loans that they couldn't survive.
The whole "too big to fail" part had more to do with bailouts vs them being a cause of the collapse in the first place.
I agree that having big banks like this fail causes issues with the financial system, but again, that doesn't say why the crisis happened in the first place. Probably made the crisis worse, but it wasn't the cause.
This I agree with. It didn't have any one cause, but the main cause was the sub prime lending. GLBA or not, we would have had a downturn.
You don't like the argument so you call it not arguing honestly, when you completely ignore what started the downturn in the first place. Without CRA and pushes to get out more subprime loans. Without institutions like Fannie and Freddy comprising 26% of their investments in subprime loans it wouldn't have happened. Without those things, GLBA could have happened and nobody would have been the wiser. Those are just facts.
Last edited:
Clinton was the best President since 2000 due to the way he cooperated with the Republican Congress and kept cost low. At one time even reduced the N. Debt because of the R Congress. Twin is 100% right about that.
If we look back farther the best overall President in History is Reagan due to policies and leadership. America thought so too, electing him in Record fashion ....what was that a 49 state victory?
Last edited:
Sure Dem policy is the real problem. But Biden's bad poling shows America tags this solely on Biden.
Problem is, the American independent voters, as a group, don't understand it doesn't matter which Dem is put forward, the Dem green energy platform, all Dems are wed to, guarantees inflation will continue, as it increases production & transportation costs of all products. The Republicans have been terrible messaging this fact.
Problem is, the American independent voters, as a group, don't understand it doesn't matter which Dem is put forward, the Dem green energy platform, all Dems are wed to, guarantees inflation will continue, as it increases production & transportation costs of all products. The Republicans have been terrible messaging this fact.
