The market rose nearly 300% during the Obama administration. Let's see where we're at when Trump leaves office.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

The market rose nearly 300% during the Obama administration. Let's see where we're at when Trump leaves office.

Well yeah, after the Democrats destroyed it in 2006 there was nowhere to go but up. Even still the Obama recovery was one of the slowest on record ever.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The market rose nearly 300% during the Obama administration. Let's see where we're at when Trump leaves office.

You mean when Obama took over all the bubbles had popped so there was nowhere left to go but up?

Meanwhile GDP growth was super low his entire 8 years....

k

---

The market rose nearly 300% during the Obama administration. Let's see where we're at when Trump leaves office.

Well yeah, after the Democrats destroyed it in 2006 there was nowhere to go but up. Even still the Obama recovery was one of the slowest on record ever.

Truth

The market rose nearly 300% during the Obama administration. Let's see where we're at when Trump leaves office.

You mean when Obama took over all the bubbles had popped so there was nowhere left to go but up?

Meanwhile GDP growth was super low his entire 8 years....

k

Truth

The GDP has already hit 3%+ multiple times under DJT. It never saw the 3's Obamas entire presidency. These are simply facts.

---

The interesting thing about GDP is that the Obama administration would report numbers and then a month or two later they'd issue adjustments, always downward. It's been exactly the opposite under Trump.

They're predicting 25k possibly by the end of the week. The tax overhaul is getting the credit for the increase. You can't say Trumo had nothing to do with that if the attribution is valid.

I remember when the Dow was flirting with 1,000 decades ago. Even if there is a correction, the amount of wealth created in this market is incredible.

Oddly enough, Obama took credit for the increases under his watch. Nobody questioned it then. Quantitative easing had a significant impact on that as fiscal policy pumped money into the markets, making it almost like dumping jet fuel on a fire. The markets under Trump have continued to set records despite the fact that the fed has been quietly pulling money out of the system by raising interest rates.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

The market rose nearly 300% during the Obama administration. Let's see where we're at when Trump leaves office.

Well yeah, after the Democrats destroyed it in 2006 there was nowhere to go but up. Even still the Obama recovery was one of the slowest on record ever.

The causes were complex but if you had to point a finger, there is no question the GOP was primarily responsible for the 2007 economic crisis. You need to familiarize yourself with the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reports written by a non-partisan committee of Democrats and Republicans.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

Well yeah, after the Democrats destroyed it in 2006 there was nowhere to go but up. Even still the Obama recovery was one of the slowest on record ever.

The causes were complex but if you had to point a finger, there is no question the GOP was primarily responsible for the 2007 economic crisis. You need to familiarize yourself with the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reports written by a non-partisan committee of Democrats and Republicans.

Huh??

Republicans were warning Democrats about the pending demise of the housing market. Democrats ignored this warning, and there are videos online that prove it.

The Clinton-era push to lend more to poor people through subprime mortgages via the CRA caused the downfall. The CRA commitments from banks went from couple billion in 1992 to 6.1 trillion in 2008. After being stagnant for 15 years, it increased only after Clinton enforced the CRA rules.

---

The causes were complex but if you had to point a finger, there is no question the GOP was primarily responsible for the 2007 economic crisis. You need to familiarize yourself with the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reports written by a non-partisan committee of Democrats and Republicans.

Huh??

Republicans were warning Democrats about the pending demise of the housing market. Democrats ignored this warning, and there are videos online that prove it.

The Clinton-era push to lend more to poor people through subprime mortgages via the CRA caused the downfall. The CRA commitments from banks went from couple billion in 1992 to 6.1 trillion in 2008. After being stagnant for 15 years, it increased only after Clinton enforced the CRA rules.

That's an utter myth. The 2008 financial crisis was precipitated by the deregulation of the financial industry by Republican lawmakers when they passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 and allowed (among other things) banks to package subprime mortgages as investment instruments and collude with ratings agencies to rate those instruments as "AAA" investments. That lead directly to the downfall of Lehman Brothers which started the panic that ultimately led to the "Great Recession".

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

Huh??

Republicans were warning Democrats about the pending demise of the housing market. Democrats ignored this warning, and there are videos online that prove it.

The Clinton-era push to lend more to poor people through subprime mortgages via the CRA caused the downfall. The CRA commitments from banks went from couple billion in 1992 to 6.1 trillion in 2008. After being stagnant for 15 years, it increased only after Clinton enforced the CRA rules.

That's an utter myth. The 2008 financial crisis was precipitated by the deregulation of the financial industry by Republican lawmakers when they passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 and allowed (among other things) banks to package subprime mortgages as investment instruments and collude with ratings agencies to rate those instruments as "AAA" investments. That lead directly to the downfall of Lehman Brothers which started the panic that ultimately led to the "Great Recession".

You can hurt yourself reaching that hard.

Have you seen the CRA commitment chart? It's a flat line until 1992. The Democrat-led congress, and Clinton, began enforcing banks to adhere to the CRA. The banks almost never loaned to anyone (that was a risk) before 1992, and the amount they began loaning skyrockets starting from 1992 to 2008. 

What you're talking about contributed to the mess. It, however, is not to blame for the crash. The investments into the bad loans didn't cause the crash; it was the trillions upon trillions of dollars worth of bad loans.

You can find videos on YouTube showing reports from as early as 2000 that show Republicans warning Democrats and Democrats accusing Republicans of fear-mongering. So, how is is that we have a correlation of subprime loans to the CRA commitments starting at 1992, but the problem started in 1999 when Republicans were warning Democrats in 2000? It doesn't make sense.

---

The causes were complex but if you had to point a finger, there is no question the GOP was primarily responsible for the 2007 economic crisis. You need to familiarize yourself with the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reports written by a non-partisan committee of Democrats and Republicans.

Huh??

Republicans were warning Democrats about the pending demise of the housing market. Democrats ignored this warning, and there are videos online that prove it.

The Clinton-era push to lend more to poor people through subprime mortgages via the CRA caused the downfall. The CRA commitments from banks went from couple billion in 1992 to 6.1 trillion in 2008. After being stagnant for 15 years, it increased only after Clinton enforced the CRA rules.

This was actually a very large part of the problem.  The cause actually goes back to the 1990's when "relaxed" borrowing rules took affect.  Think about how all of the "payday loans", "check cashing" places and "buy here pay here" car lots exploded on the scene along with the "rent to own" types of places.  The predatory lending practices escalated to include sub-prime mortgages.

The "0% down" and easy qualifications for mortgages was staggering, and it didn't include just the lower income portion of the population.  I personally know a few people that made a pretty good income ($50k + per year at the time) that were buying homes that they couldn't really afford.  We're talking homes selling for $150k and more back in the early 2000's.  At the time interest rates were also on a steady decline.  However, the demand for real estate and homes was on fire and prices were soaring.  People were buying homes with an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) often times with a balloon payment without really paying attention to what would happen when the rate got adjusted and the balloon payment became due.  Many figured that they could either re-finance or worse, sell the home at a higher price.

Another big part of the problem is when investors and banks figured out that they could package up a bunch of sub-prime mortgages together and buy and sell them like a stock (kind of like an ETF or a REIT but not the same).

When people started defaulting on their loans, those packages of sub-prime mortgages quickly became worthless.  Real estate prices took a major hit and many people lost their homes.  Banks that were holding these worthless assets failed (think Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch).

The bottom line as it relates to this thread, the fall of the stock market in 2008 wasn't solely a political issue and the part of it that was wasn't on one party or the other.  The rise after 2008 wasn't because of government policy (though there was some government influence) and the rise that we are seeing now isn't really directly related to government policy (though some of it is influenced by government decisions).

The stock market is way more complex than many people realize.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Huh??

Republicans were warning Democrats about the pending demise of the housing market. Democrats ignored this warning, and there are videos online that prove it.

The Clinton-era push to lend more to poor people through subprime mortgages via the CRA caused the downfall. The CRA commitments from banks went from couple billion in 1992 to 6.1 trillion in 2008. After being stagnant for 15 years, it increased only after Clinton enforced the CRA rules.

This was actually a very large part of the problem.  The cause actually goes back to the 1990's when "relaxed" borrowing rules took affect.  Think about how all of the "payday loans", "check cashing" places and "buy here pay here" car lots exploded on the scene along with the "rent to own" types of places.  The predatory lending practices escalated to include sub-prime mortgages.

The "0% down" and easy qualifications for mortgages was staggering, and it didn't include just the lower income portion of the population.  I personally know a few people that made a pretty good income ($50k + per year at the time) that were buying homes that they couldn't really afford.  We're talking homes selling for $150k and more back in the early 2000's.  At the time interest rates were also on a steady decline.  However, the demand for real estate and homes was on fire and prices were soaring.  People were buying homes with an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) often times with a balloon payment without really paying attention to what would happen when the rate got adjusted and the balloon payment became due.  Many figured that they could either re-finance or worse, sell the home at a higher price.

Another big part of the problem is when investors and banks figured out that they could package up a bunch of sub-prime mortgages together and buy and sell them like a stock (kind of like an ETF or a REIT but not the same).

When people started defaulting on their loans, those packages of sub-prime mortgages quickly became worthless.  Real estate prices took a major hit and many people lost their homes.  Banks that were holding these worthless assets failed (think Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch).

The bottom line as it relates to this thread, the fall of the stock market in 2008 wasn't solely a political issue and the part of it that was wasn't on one party or the other.  The rise after 2008 wasn't because of government policy (though there was some government influence) and the rise that we are seeing now isn't really directly related to government policy (though some of it is influenced by government decisions).

The stock market is way more complex than many people realize.

I understand that and I know that the gambling on mortgages influenced it. I can't disagree there.

I just can't see how one can attribute the burst with something that happened in 1999 when the housing market burst was already a concern in 2000 - 2001. The correlation between the lending of subprime mortgages in 1992 and the enforcement of the CRA go hand-in-hand.

---

This was actually a very large part of the problem.  The cause actually goes back to the 1990's when "relaxed" borrowing rules took affect.  Think about how all of the "payday loans", "check cashing" places and "buy here pay here" car lots exploded on the scene along with the "rent to own" types of places.  The predatory lending practices escalated to include sub-prime mortgages.

The "0% down" and easy qualifications for mortgages was staggering, and it didn't include just the lower income portion of the population.  I personally know a few people that made a pretty good income ($50k + per year at the time) that were buying homes that they couldn't really afford.  We're talking homes selling for $150k and more back in the early 2000's.  At the time interest rates were also on a steady decline.  However, the demand for real estate and homes was on fire and prices were soaring.  People were buying homes with an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) often times with a balloon payment without really paying attention to what would happen when the rate got adjusted and the balloon payment became due.  Many figured that they could either re-finance or worse, sell the home at a higher price.

Another big part of the problem is when investors and banks figured out that they could package up a bunch of sub-prime mortgages together and buy and sell them like a stock (kind of like an ETF or a REIT but not the same).

When people started defaulting on their loans, those packages of sub-prime mortgages quickly became worthless.  Real estate prices took a major hit and many people lost their homes.  Banks that were holding these worthless assets failed (think Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch).

The bottom line as it relates to this thread, the fall of the stock market in 2008 wasn't solely a political issue and the part of it that was wasn't on one party or the other.  The rise after 2008 wasn't because of government policy (though there was some government influence) and the rise that we are seeing now isn't really directly related to government policy (though some of it is influenced by government decisions).

The stock market is way more complex than many people realize.

I understand that and I know that the gambling on mortgages influenced it. I can't disagree there.

I just can't see how one can attribute the burst with something that happened in 1999 when the housing market burst was already a concern in 2000 - 2001. The correlation between the lending of subprime mortgages in 1992 and the enforcement of the CRA go hand-in-hand.

The whole thing is pretty complex and convoluted.  I guess the point that I was trying to make is that it can't be pinned on one political party or another.  Both had their hands in it.  As it relates to this thread the same could be said about the recovery since then.  In all fairness, the banks were "bailed out" prior to Obama taking office and the initial policy was already in place.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

That's an utter myth. The 2008 financial crisis was precipitated by the deregulation of the financial industry by Republican lawmakers when they passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 and allowed (among other things) banks to package subprime mortgages as investment instruments and collude with ratings agencies to rate those instruments as "AAA" investments. That lead directly to the downfall of Lehman Brothers which started the panic that ultimately led to the "Great Recession".

You can hurt yourself reaching that hard.

Have you seen the CRA commitment chart? It's a flat line until 1992. The Democrat-led congress, and Clinton, began enforcing banks to adhere to the CRA. The banks almost never loaned to anyone (that was a risk) before 1992, and the amount they began loaning skyrockets starting from 1992 to 2008. 

What you're talking about contributed to the mess. It, however, is not to blame for the crash. The investments into the bad loans didn't cause the crash; it was the trillions upon trillions of dollars worth of bad loans.

You can find videos on YouTube showing reports from as early as 2000 that show Republicans warning Democrats and Democrats accusing Republicans of fear-mongering. So, how is is that we have a correlation of subprime loans to the CRA commitments starting at 1992, but the problem started in 1999 when Republicans were warning Democrats in 2000? It doesn't make sense.

Reaching? No. The bank and investment deregulation was the cause of the crash, there's really no longer any debate about that. Subprime lending should have never led to the problems it led to. If market forces had driven lending, the excesses and predatory lending would never have happened. But due to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, the ability of financial companies to package those loans as investments and sell them to unsuspecting buyers (thus giving them the ability to cash in while pushing risk off to mom and pop) led subsequently to excessive subprime lending which then led to an unsustainable bubble which then ultimately caused the panic of 2008. In spite of what Rush Limbaugh might have told you, the CRA didn't force banks to make subprime loans, quite the contrary it was simply a measure of a financial institutions performance based on their participation in local community development activities. Corporate greed led to the subprime lending crisis.

And believe me, I know, I was in the middle of it back then.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

You can hurt yourself reaching that hard.

Have you seen the CRA commitment chart? It's a flat line until 1992. The Democrat-led congress, and Clinton, began enforcing banks to adhere to the CRA. The banks almost never loaned to anyone (that was a risk) before 1992, and the amount they began loaning skyrockets starting from 1992 to 2008. 

What you're talking about contributed to the mess. It, however, is not to blame for the crash. The investments into the bad loans didn't cause the crash; it was the trillions upon trillions of dollars worth of bad loans.

You can find videos on YouTube showing reports from as early as 2000 that show Republicans warning Democrats and Democrats accusing Republicans of fear-mongering. So, how is is that we have a correlation of subprime loans to the CRA commitments starting at 1992, but the problem started in 1999 when Republicans were warning Democrats in 2000? It doesn't make sense.

Reaching? No. The bank and investment deregulation was the cause of the crash, there's really no longer any debate about that. Subprime lending should have never led to the problems it led to. If market forces had driven lending, the excesses and predatory lending would never have happened. But due to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, the ability of financial companies to package those loans as investments and sell them to unsuspecting buyers (thus giving them the ability to cash in while pushing risk off to mom and pop) which led subsequently to excessive subprime lending which then led to an unsustainable bubble ultimately resulting in the panic of 2008. In spite of what Rush Limbaugh might have told you, the CRA didn't force banks to make subprime loans, quite the contrary it was simply a measure of a financial institutions performance based on their participation in local community development activities. Corporate greed led to the subprime lending crisis.

I guess if you say so...

I understand what you're saying; I just disagree with the conclusion. The lending happened before the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and that's proven through the CRA lending numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTZIB6Sika4

They were pressured by Clinton to hand out more loans. Those loans faulted more often. Yes, the mortgages were gambled, but that isn't why the money was negligently distributed to people unable to pay the loan. If the money had never been force out, it wouldn't have become a problem in the first place. You think the problem started in 1999, but it was already a predicted problem by late-2000. The numbers how that subprime mortgage skyrocketed after 1992 and the Clinton-led enforcement of the CRA.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

---

Reaching? No. The bank and investment deregulation was the cause of the crash, there's really no longer any debate about that. Subprime lending should have never led to the problems it led to. If market forces had driven lending, the excesses and predatory lending would never have happened. But due to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, the ability of financial companies to package those loans as investments and sell them to unsuspecting buyers (thus giving them the ability to cash in while pushing risk off to mom and pop) which led subsequently to excessive subprime lending which then led to an unsustainable bubble ultimately resulting in the panic of 2008. In spite of what Rush Limbaugh might have told you, the CRA didn't force banks to make subprime loans, quite the contrary it was simply a measure of a financial institutions performance based on their participation in local community development activities. Corporate greed led to the subprime lending crisis.

I guess if you say so...

I understand what you're saying; I just disagree with the conclusion. The lending happened before the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and that's proven through the CRA lending numbers.

They were pressured by Clinton to hand out more loans. Those loans faulted more often. Yes, the mortgages were gambled, but that isn't why the money was negligently distributed to people unable to pay the loan. If the money had never been force out, it wouldn't have become a problem in the first place. You think the problem started in 1999, but it was already a predicted problem by late-2000. The numbers how that subprime mortgage skyrocketed after 1992 and the Clinton-led enforcement of the CRA.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Subprime lending has occurred at various points but it got out of hand when financial companies realized they could book all the profits and pass off the risks without penalty. Remember the "$1 move in, no credit check" 300K mortgages? You can disagree with that if you want but it doesn't change what happened.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

I guess if you say so...

I understand what you're saying; I just disagree with the conclusion. The lending happened before the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and that's proven through the CRA lending numbers.

They were pressured by Clinton to hand out more loans. Those loans faulted more often. Yes, the mortgages were gambled, but that isn't why the money was negligently distributed to people unable to pay the loan. If the money had never been force out, it wouldn't have become a problem in the first place. You think the problem started in 1999, but it was already a predicted problem by late-2000. The numbers how that subprime mortgage skyrocketed after 1992 and the Clinton-led enforcement of the CRA.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Subprime lending has occurred at various points but it got out of hand when financial companies realized they could book all the profits and pass off the risks without penalty. Remember the "$1 move in, no credit check" 300K mortgages? You can disagree with that if you want but it doesn't change what happened.

Again, the subprime lending increased substantially in 1992. There's no denying that. It went from just a $8 billion to $1.25 trillion by 1999 when you claim the subprime actually took off. That's, what, a 15,000%+ increase all before 1999. In 1990, 80% of mortgages were considered prime mortgages with solid down payments.

Clinton wrote about this in his book. He initially wanted to use private pensions to fund the housing market, but when he couldn't find investors, he used the CRA to enforce it. In 1992, they forced Fannie and Freddie to make 30% of their transactions subprime mortgages. By 1997, it was 42%... 50% in 2000. 

OK. So...

1990 -- Less than $8 billion in subprime mortgages
1992 -- Clinton enforces CRA
1995 -- CRA rules tightened even further after minimal increase in subprime mortgages, CRA at around $100 billion
1997 -- CRA rules fully enforced, CRA at around $400 billion
1999 -- CRA at around $1.25 trillion

After just a couple of years, the CRA increases 15,000%+ but you're saying it's because of something that happened after all of this. I don't disagree that it negatively influenced the whole process, but the chart was vertical by 1999 and it pretty much stayed consistent until the burst.

---