World considers a Trump presidency, and many shudder

[Scott]

If you are going to complain about a thread being off-topic, then please done reply to what you consider to be an off-topic post and take it further off-topic.

[Publicus]

What are exports as percent of GDP? 13% ? Something like that. I imagine most of that is grain and weapons. None of that's going away.

US in 2013 exported $147.8 bn of IT and other high tech.

Unless Donald Trump is defeated somewhere along the line here, US is going to be using nuclear weapons in the ME (against Daesh). Trump won't rule it out, which means Trump is never going to get in. Goldwater talked this way in 1964 concerning the Vietnam war, on his way to getting crushed in the general election. Trump learns nothing nor does he care.

It's relevant and material that most US "arms" exports are high tech and high performance items such as Global Hawk Recon Drones to Japan, F-16 fighter jet contracting to Nato ally Turkey (blasted the Russian Su-24 fighter-bomber out of the sky)....in fact, most US "arms" exports are to treaty allies, to include Nato.

South Korea which has the FA-118 Super Hornet jet fighter has in recent months taken to actively and aggressively trying to also get the US Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system which is humongous bucks and a serious defense weaponry. US had also been ambiguous about it until very recently. Seems Washington doesn't much care any more what the CCP Dictators in Beijing say, like or dislike, to include the whackjobs in Pyongyang.

SecDef Ashton Carter is btw in the process of disinviting CCP from the 23-nation bi-annual Naval exercises off Hawaii. CCP has been saying their missiles and fighters on new islands in the SCS is the same as US military being in Hawaii. Minus one = 22 nations and that's just fine, if not perfect.

Now Trump has gone nuclear. The whole of the long term point of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to never use the weaponry again. Imagine Mussolini with nuclear weapons and, moreover, a hostile Pentagon.

Apologies for being off topic but this has to be replied to

The whole of the long term point of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to never use the weaponry again.

That is soooooooo made up. I don't know if they used the weapons to see if they would actually work ( which wasn't certain ) or if they just wanted to save thousands of American lives by not invading Japan. Whatever, having a "long term" plan is something I doubt they had in mind when they dropped the bombs. Back then, Russia was even an ally. Who knew what was to come?

Who knew what was to come?

It's what didn't come that matters most, namely World War III.

Now we have Donald Trump however who's going to give it a strong last go. Trump's going head down right for it. It's Trump or never.

Trump wants to use nuclear weapons tactically, to include in Europe.

Trump wants Japan and South Korea to go nuclear and construct nuclear weapons. He wants Nato, which is the prime factor in no WW3 to exclude the United States, which could mean Germany too could have to go nuclear.

Trump wants to stop Beijing in the South China Sea yet he wants to pull the US Navy back to Pearl Harbor to leave the helpless and hopeless Asean to do it (if Trump knows about Asean) and which would also have the US abandon Australia.

With Trump and his fanboyz we do in fact know what is to come.

This nuclear weapons use ain't picking daisies. Barry Goldwater found that out in his crushing defeat in 1964 and voters are going to put down the rabid Donald Trump too.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Publicus

[slipperylobster]

As far as Asia is concerned....Trump is correct.

Leave it Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.etc.etc.

No use in us being here. Let them folks take care of this side.

LOL.....save us a bundle. We're tired of the bitchin' anyways.

Edited April 13, 2016 by slipperylobster

[lostboy]

For year 2015, The deficit is the smallest of Barack Obama’s presidency and the lowest since 2007 in both dollar terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product.

For the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 the shortfall was $439 billion, a decrease of 9%, or $44 billion, from last year.

The deficit fell to 2.5% of GDP.

Now you know.

Please can you tell us why you keep saying "Now you know" ?

"Now you know?" I borrowed that from Trink.

I say it for the benefit of our friends here that watch the fake conservative news. They just don't know. Clueless.

Over to you.

Just for you and the lost boy

Fake? Illiterate? Clueless? 10 out of 10 for hyperbole. Careful those words don't turn around and bite you on the bum.

But don't worry about me, argue with the Congressional Budget Office, ("Non partisan" not "fake conservative news")

You believe that the US exists in a perpetual green zone

Your ideas assume there is no economic cost to carrying debt.

You assume that there will never be any upward pressure on interest rates.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50250 The 2015 Long-Term Budget Outlook

http://www.nber.org/papers/w19253 National Bureau of Economic Research Off Balance sheet Federal Liabilities

OK then

Don't worry, be happy

Well I was up for a discussion but clearly you are not. A link to an article about Debt to GDP Ratio and another link to a paper on contingent liabilities. I have an ongoing unresolved argument with an IMF debt management specialist on the meaning of implicit guarantees and I will be proven correct in the end. Implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on. Explicit guarantees are contingent. They should be recorded in GFMIS of course but aggregating them with total debt is misleading.

For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/shiller-most-people-who-look-at-debt-to.html

What's your other points? Oh, inflation. Please tell us why you would want to deflate the US economy? As for transaction costs, so what? All transactions have costs. It is built into pricing models. The issue is the NPV of the debt in relation to the economic stimulus or financial return it provides.

The Right Wing are meant to love markets. Yet not the debt market. Ideological economics at its best.

[boomerangutang]

BL-obama-presidents-debt-celing_600.jpg

Look at the chart above (if it shows). In terms of % increases, it's clear that the two biggest increases in debt (in recent administrations) happened during Reagan's and Bush Jr's terms. Republicans not only commit the US to war more often, they increase federal spending by larger margins - than Democrats.

Percentages are more realistic than dollar amounts. President Washington was dealing with tens of thousands of dollars. Current presidents are dealing with trillions.

[chuckd]

"The World considers a Trump Presidency..." is OP and we have pages long discussion about Bush and Obama !?!? Amazing ..

Come on.

Trump is promising to undo everything Obama has done to repair all the damage Bush did.

"everything Obama has done to repair all the damage Bush did." You seriously believe this part -- Really ? Wow!

Perhaps amnesia is playing a factor here?

Since our newest cousin hasn't been around but one week he can't be expected to know very much.

However, for the record, the 2008 sub-prime mortgage recession was due, in large part, to the actions of the federal government mandating lenders make loans to less then qualified home purchasers using the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 as their primary weapon of choice. This act was passed by Democrats and signed by President Carter. Bill Clinton then put it to good political use by forcing quotas on lenders to make sub-prime home loans. Bush warned against it and the Democrats in Congress rallied in support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the rest is history.

By the way, the 2008 recession was declared officially over in June 2009, barely five months into Obama's administration. He had little to do with ending the recession but has now been in charge of the longest recovery in the history of the federal government. Not exactly anything remarkable to add to his CV.

Your other posts concerning adding to the national debt have been discounted several times on the forum. The positions you take are ridiculous, even though they are the main talking points for those liberal Democrats with nothing else.

Look it all up on the forum. Spend a little time catching up and less time offering an opinion. You'll be surprised how much real information this forum actually contains.

[jmd8800]

You can argue the numbers all you want but if you look at this in simple terms. No high level math needed.

The people are broke. Governments are broke. Banks, corporation and the wealthy are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash.

[Publicus]

As far as Asia is concerned....Trump is correct.

Leave it Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.etc.etc.

No use in us being here. Let them folks take care of this side.

LOL.....save us a bundle. We're tired of the bitchin' anyways.

A lobster is slippery when we pick it up then it's red when it's cooked.

Presently Beijing and Washington are slicing salami in the South China Sea but Trump is a swinging salami and nothing else, which makes Trump dangerous.

Washington is involved in the SCS because the world knows if the CCP Dictators in Beijing sail freely on the SCS it means they'll one day soon sail freely up the Potomac. So it's time the US had a lobster roast.

Trump is meanwhile peddling hard salami and spreading soft baloney. Radiated meats.

[jmd8800]

As far as Asia is concerned....Trump is correct.

Leave it Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.etc.etc.

No use in us being here. Let them folks take care of this side.

LOL.....save us a bundle. We're tired of the bitchin' anyways.

Washington is involved in the SCS because the world knows if the CCP Dictators in Beijing sail freely on the SCS it means they'll one day soon sail freely up the Potomac. So it's time the US had a lobster roast.

Correct me if I am wrong... but isn't that the same argument given for the war in Vietnam? How did that turn out?

When I grew up (i'm 60 now) in the USA nobody would have bought something made in a communist country. That was unheard of. Yet before the war officially ended Nixon was normalizing relations with China.... a communist country. A communist country that aided the enemy in Vietnam. Now just about everything one buys is from China. We have only ourselves to blame as the west was the group that changed course. China just grinned while the money rolled in. And the capitalists in the west counted the cash.

None of this has ever been about liberty and freedom. In the beginning maybe. But by 1850s in the USA things had changed. It is always about money and power. The only reason there was ever a middle class was because 2 World Wars and a Great Depression took the wind out of the sails of the rich people. 60 years on we are back to business as usual for the wealthy.

[zydeco]

As far as Asia is concerned....Trump is correct.

Leave it Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.etc.etc.

No use in us being here. Let them folks take care of this side.

LOL.....save us a bundle. We're tired of the bitchin' anyways.

A lobster is slippery when we pick it up then it's red when it's cooked.

Presently Beijing and Washington are slicing salami in the South China Sea but Trump is a swinging salami and nothing else, which makes Trump dangerous.

Washington is involved in the SCS because the world knows if the CCP Dictators in Beijing sail freely on the SCS it means they'll one day soon sail freely up the Potomac. So it's time the US had a lobster roast.

Trump is meanwhile peddling hard salami and spreading soft baloney. Radiated meats.

I see you made one point amid all the lame attempts at being witty: "Washington is involved in the SCS because the world knows if the CCP Dictators in Beijing sail freely on the SCS it means they'll one day soon sail freely up the Potomac."

Sort of like if we don't fight them over "there," we'll have to fight them over "here." You channeling George W. Bush these days?

[lostboy]

Since our newest cousin hasn't been around but one week he can't be expected to know very much.

However, for the record, the 2008 sub-prime mortgage recession was due, in large part, to the actions of the federal government mandating lenders make loans to less then qualified home purchasers using the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 as their primary weapon of choice. This act was passed by Democrats and signed by President Carter. Bill Clinton then put it to good political use by forcing quotas on lenders to make sub-prime home loans. Bush warned against it and the Democrats in Congress rallied in support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the rest is history.

By the way, the 2008 recession was declared officially over in June 2009, barely five months into Obama's administration. He had little to do with ending the recession but has now been in charge of the longest recovery in the history of the federal government. Not exactly anything remarkable to add to his CV.

Your other posts concerning adding to the national debt have been discounted several times on the forum. The positions you take are ridiculous, even though they are the main talking points for those liberal Democrats with nothing else.

Look it all up on the forum. Spend a little time catching up and less time offering an opinion. You'll be surprised how much real information this forum actually contains.

Since I was still going through puberty in 1977, I never got around to reading the Community Reinvestment Act. Can you tell us Charles, does the Act require sub prime mortgage obligations to be bundled with AAA rated mortgage obligations and such CDO's sold on to investors by banks essentially committing a fraud? Blaming Jimmy Carter for the Global Financial Crisis is a bit rich.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong or economically risky about sub prime mortgage lending. I am not really a fan of Prahalad but his book 'The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid' is a primer on poverty alleviation through wealth generation http://www.amazon.com/The-Fortune-Bottom-Pyramid-Eradicating/dp/0131467506 and of course De Soto is internationally renowned for his work on the eradication of poverty through the creation of capital http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Hernando-Soto-ebook/dp/B004FV4XTE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460521884&sr=1-1&keywords=the+mystery+of+capital

However any legal, regulatory and economic framework directed towards alleviating poverty will not work when there is outright fraud taking place. Read the Big Short http://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine-ebook/dp/B004JXXKWY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460522036&sr=1-1&keywords=the+big+short or go watch the excellent Steve Carell movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Edited April 13, 2016 by lostboy

[chuckd]

BL-obama-presidents-debt-celing_600.jpg

Look at the chart above (if it shows). In terms of % increases, it's clear that the two biggest increases in debt (in recent administrations) happened during Reagan's and Bush Jr's terms. Republicans not only commit the US to war more often, they increase federal spending by larger margins - than Democrats.

Percentages are more realistic than dollar amounts. President Washington was dealing with tens of thousands of dollars. Current presidents are dealing with trillions.

You still haven't learned anything.

Percentages are only important when all Presidents begin with the same base amount of federal debt they inherit.

FactCheck has debunked the "Percentage" argument properly. It all depends on the starting point

"Our chart looks much different from Pelosi’s, because ours shows the actual dollar increase, not just the percentage change. As can be seen here, Obama’s 45 percent rise is nearly equal in dollar terms to his predecessor’s 85 percent increase — because Obama started from a much higher base."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/

My suggestion is you read the article completely and attempt to comprehend what it is saying. This should also be required reading for CousinEddie and all Democrats.

[chuckd]

Since our newest cousin hasn't been around but one week he can't be expected to know very much.

However, for the record, the 2008 sub-prime mortgage recession was due, in large part, to the actions of the federal government mandating lenders make loans to less then qualified home purchasers using the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 as their primary weapon of choice. This act was passed by Democrats and signed by President Carter. Bill Clinton then put it to good political use by forcing quotas on lenders to make sub-prime home loans. Bush warned against it and the Democrats in Congress rallied in support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the rest is history.

By the way, the 2008 recession was declared officially over in June 2009, barely five months into Obama's administration. He had little to do with ending the recession but has now been in charge of the longest recovery in the history of the federal government. Not exactly anything remarkable to add to his CV.

Your other posts concerning adding to the national debt have been discounted several times on the forum. The positions you take are ridiculous, even though they are the main talking points for those liberal Democrats with nothing else.

Look it all up on the forum. Spend a little time catching up and less time offering an opinion. You'll be surprised how much real information this forum actually contains.

Since I was still going through puberty in 1977, I never got around to reading the Community Reinvestment Act. Can you tell us Charles, does the Act require sub prime mortgage obligations to be bundled with AAA rated mortgage obligations and such CDO's sold on to investors by banks essentially committing a fraud? Blaming Jimmy Carter for the Global Financial Crisis is a bit rich.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong or economically risky about sub prime mortgage lending. I am not really a fan of Prahalad but his book 'The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid' is a primer on poverty alleviation through wealth generation http://www.amazon.com/The-Fortune-Bottom-Pyramid-Eradicating/dp/0131467506 and of course De Soto is internationally renowned for his work on the eradication of poverty through the creation of capital http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Hernando-Soto-ebook/dp/B004FV4XTE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460521884&sr=1-1&keywords=the+mystery+of+capital

However any legal, regulatory and economic framework directed towards alleviating poverty will not work when there is outright fraud taking place. Read the Big Short http://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine-ebook/dp/B004JXXKWY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460522036&sr=1-1&keywords=the+big+short or go watch the excellent Steve Carell movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/?ref_=nv_sr_1

"Since I was still going through puberty in 1977, I never got around to reading the Community Reinvestment Act. "

Sometimes I suspect you are still going through puberty.

I don't intend doing the work for you. Read the Act, then follow it for the next 39 years and make that determination yourself.

This should get you started... https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-91/pdf/STATUTE-91-Pg1111.pdf

This might even help...https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-survived/2015/11/15/86cba904-8a20-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html

Lastly my final suggestion to cut your work short... http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

[Publicus]

As far as Asia is concerned....Trump is correct.

Leave it Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.etc.etc.

No use in us being here. Let them folks take care of this side.

LOL.....save us a bundle. We're tired of the bitchin' anyways.

Washington is involved in the SCS because the world knows if the CCP Dictators in Beijing sail freely on the SCS it means they'll one day soon sail freely up the Potomac. So it's time the US had a lobster roast.

Correct me if I am wrong... but isn't that the same argument given for the war in Vietnam? How did that turn out?

When I grew up (i'm 60 now) in the USA nobody would have bought something made in a communist country. That was unheard of. Yet before the war officially ended Nixon was normalizing relations with China.... a communist country. A communist country that aided the enemy in Vietnam. Now just about everything one buys is from China. We have only ourselves to blame as the west was the group that changed course. China just grinned while the money rolled in. And the capitalists in the west counted the cash.

None of this has ever been about liberty and freedom. In the beginning maybe. But by 1850s in the USA things had changed. It is always about money and power. The only reason there was ever a middle class was because 2 World Wars and a Great Depression took the wind out of the sails of the rich people. 60 years on we are back to business as usual for the wealthy.

Without my whole post and only one statement displayed from it you have cherry picked my post. Let's not make a habit of it plse thx.

My whole post discusses the fact Donald Trump is nuclear despite being many neutrons short of a normal brain.

The thread topic is the world according to a prezziduce' Trump, the world's reaction to a weapons grade Trump and his minority and odd fellow supporters in the USA.

Your post also ignores that the CCP in Beijing have become self-convinced the USA has decided to take down the CCP's economy when the Boyz themselves are in fact doing a fine job of it without anyone's assistance or encouragement. (He who laughs last laffs best.)

Trump all the while is talking about using nuclear weapons in Europe and to return Nato countries to their pre-Nato state of nature that goes back through 2500 years of a mutual mass murder and a continued self-slaughter.

CCP in Beijing wants to pick off Asean and US allies of the region one country at a time and Moscow wants to pick off Europe one country at a time. Each Trump and Putin are talking nuclear weapons use which means neither Trump nor Putin is good for the environment and other living things. They are in fact horrendous about it. American voters have sovereign control over putting down Donald Trump and to leave Putin to a rational Potus because she is the one who has the best and safest hands.

[CousinEddie]

US National Debt Total Increase since 1981:

Republicans + 328%

Democrats + 82%

Another interesting financial statistic.

Since WW 2, Average Stock Market returns:

Republicans 6.3% per year

Democrats 11.9% per year

The Democrats consistently beat the Republicans in economics areas.

GDP, Jobs , Debt. management, War spending....

[lungmi]

The Super Troll will lose vs.Clinton/Sanders.

Not more than 40%

And the World will see that the US citizens are in a majority instructed people.

(John Grisham)

[chuckd]

US National Debt Total Increase since 1981:

Republicans + 328%

Democrats + 82%

<<snip>>

US National Debt Total Increase since 1981

Republicans - $8.16 Trillion

Democrats - $10.14 Trillion

Your percentages are silly.

[Publicus]

As far as Asia is concerned....Trump is correct.

Leave it Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.etc.etc.

No use in us being here. Let them folks take care of this side.

LOL.....save us a bundle. We're tired of the bitchin' anyways.

A lobster is slippery when we pick it up then it's red when it's cooked.

Presently Beijing and Washington are slicing salami in the South China Sea but Trump is a swinging salami and nothing else, which makes Trump dangerous.

Washington is involved in the SCS because the world knows if the CCP Dictators in Beijing sail freely on the SCS it means they'll one day soon sail freely up the Potomac. So it's time the US had a lobster roast.

Trump is meanwhile peddling hard salami and spreading soft baloney. Radiated meats.

I see you made one point amid all the lame attempts at being witty: "Washington is involved in the SCS because the world knows if the CCP Dictators in Beijing sail freely on the SCS it means they'll one day soon sail freely up the Potomac."

Sort of like if we don't fight them over "there," we'll have to fight them over "here." You channeling George W. Bush these days?

Trying to associate this poster with GW Bush and his Dick Cheney fails and it fails immediately.

It's been said with an increasing frequency the only thing to fear more than a rising China is a falling China.

Donald Trump thinks only in wild economics and in terms of swindler finance. Bernie Sanders thinks only of a political-economic paradigm. Neither knows much of anything about either and more about nothing in foreign policy than anyone since Bush and his Cheney.

CCP in Beijing figures it can relocate 500 million Chinese to the territory of the former USA, 50 million to the territory of the former Australia, another 500 million to its intended colony of Africa. CCP's most pressing immediate problem thus gets solved....

Chinese Defense Minister General Chi Haotian explained that an ailing Chinese economy would produce a social explosion that could sweep away the Communist Party. “If we do not have good ideas,” warned Chi, “China will inevitably change … and we will all become criminals in history. After some deep pondering, we finally came to this conclusion: only by turning our developed national strength into the force of a fist striking outward – only by leading the people to go out – can we win forever the Chinese people’s support and love for the Communist Party.”

To survive the consequences of an economic downturn, the Party needs to lead the Chinese people – as Gen. Chi Haotian suggests – “out of China.” This may seem confusing to those who think China is a post-Communist country; but as journalist Richard McGregor points out in his book The Party, China is yet a Leninist state. And yes, they really are Communists, though what this means is lost on nearly all outside observers – and somewhat bewildering to the Chinese themselves. The rulers of China keep their Communist goals and objective from public view. They do not like the glare of publicity; and so they banned McGregor’s book.

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/jr-nyquist/2011/09/06/when-the-china-bubble-bursts

[lostboy]

Since our newest cousin hasn't been around but one week he can't be expected to know very much.

However, for the record, the 2008 sub-prime mortgage recession was due, in large part, to the actions of the federal government mandating lenders make loans to less then qualified home purchasers using the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 as their primary weapon of choice. This act was passed by Democrats and signed by President Carter. Bill Clinton then put it to good political use by forcing quotas on lenders to make sub-prime home loans. Bush warned against it and the Democrats in Congress rallied in support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the rest is history.

By the way, the 2008 recession was declared officially over in June 2009, barely five months into Obama's administration. He had little to do with ending the recession but has now been in charge of the longest recovery in the history of the federal government. Not exactly anything remarkable to add to his CV.

Your other posts concerning adding to the national debt have been discounted several times on the forum. The positions you take are ridiculous, even though they are the main talking points for those liberal Democrats with nothing else.

Look it all up on the forum. Spend a little time catching up and less time offering an opinion. You'll be surprised how much real information this forum actually contains.

Since I was still going through puberty in 1977, I never got around to reading the Community Reinvestment Act. Can you tell us Charles, does the Act require sub prime mortgage obligations to be bundled with AAA rated mortgage obligations and such CDO's sold on to investors by banks essentially committing a fraud? Blaming Jimmy Carter for the Global Financial Crisis is a bit rich.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong or economically risky about sub prime mortgage lending. I am not really a fan of Prahalad but his book 'The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid' is a primer on poverty alleviation through wealth generation http://www.amazon.com/The-Fortune-Bottom-Pyramid-Eradicating/dp/0131467506 and of course De Soto is internationally renowned for his work on the eradication of poverty through the creation of capital http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Hernando-Soto-ebook/dp/B004FV4XTE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460521884&sr=1-1&keywords=the+mystery+of+capital

However any legal, regulatory and economic framework directed towards alleviating poverty will not work when there is outright fraud taking place. Read the Big Short http://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine-ebook/dp/B004JXXKWY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460522036&sr=1-1&keywords=the+big+short or go watch the excellent Steve Carell movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/?ref_=nv_sr_1

"Since I was still going through puberty in 1977, I never got around to reading the Community Reinvestment Act. "

Sometimes I suspect you are still going through puberty.

I don't intend doing the work for you. Read the Act, then follow it for the next 39 years and make that determination yourself.

This should get you started... https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-91/pdf/STATUTE-91-Pg1111.pdf

This might even help...https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-survived/2015/11/15/86cba904-8a20-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html

Lastly my final suggestion to cut your work short... http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

Thank you Charles for your kind remarks about my youthfulness.

Since I am not doing Songkran until next week and the drudgery of doing admin and housekeeping on the Afghanistan project is a bit boring, I took up your challenge.

Title 1 S108(3)( of the Public Reinvestment Act "No guarantee or commitment to guarantee shall be made with respect to any note or other obligation if the issuer's total outstanding notes or obligations guaranteed under this section would thereby exceed an amount equal to three times the amount of the grant approved for the issuer pursuant to section 106."

The Housing and Community Development Act 10977 as presented in your link did not cause the Global Financial Crisis. S108(3)( provides clear financial criteria on the lending and guarantees under the Act. In fact even John Carney in your 3rd linked reference, which is clearly the source of your particular obsession on this issue, admits that it did not cause the crisis. He says it was a factor on the basis of its evolution over the years, something to which you also refers. However, referencing your 2nd link on the issue of Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) which we call here in Thailand State Owned Enterprises (SOE), it was clearly regulatory and governance issues not a legislative issue that contributed to the crisis.

Weak financial regulation of the market in CDO's, conflicts of interest with ratings agencies and policy intervention in GSE's, which is evident from both political parties. I have spend my working life in Thailand dealing with SOE's and issues of governance and regulation. The primary cause of the financial crisis was fraud compounded by the other factors I mentioned above.

You want an ideological fight about the cause of the GFC? It won't be found in the HCDA (CRA) 1977. It won't even be found in detailing who intervened more in Fannie and Freddie, although I am sure you will one day tell us because policy intervention in government enterprises is a known quantity and such risks are assessed. No, you will find the causes of the GFC primarily in the weakness of the regulatory framework and institutions. Institutions weakened by ideological zealotry in the idea of deregulation and unfettered free enterprise. This made it easier for the criminals to defraud the system.

What has this to do with Trump? Are his fans expecting him to clear the national debt (for the debt hawks) and prevent future financial downturns through some magical, fantastical means to which he has never referred, nor provided any detail, nor provided any evidence of any capacity to formulate and implement policies that would achieve that outcome. Sure, he can get a building erected in Manhattan through deals with the Mob and political cronies that are paid well for their service. No evidence that he has any comprehension of public finance, so he will just hire some Investment Banker as Sec Treasury and the round robin will continue.

The gullibility of the Trump fanboys is quite something.

Edited April 13, 2016 by lostboy

[boomerangutang]

<snip> Messed up quotes

You think % are silly because % don't back what you're trying to convey.

What some of us are showing is, THE % INCREASE OF BUDGET FROM THE PRIOR BUDGET. I noticed, in your chart above, that Carter wasn't shown. His Federal budget hardly increased at all, after Ford's. The two budgets that increased the most (from preceding budgets) were Reagan's and Bush Jr's. Sorry (not really) if that doesn't convey the myth that you're trying to put forth, but instead shows clearly that Republicans are far-away more reckless spenders than Democrats.

Who was the biggest fan of spending hundreds of billions on SDI/Star Wars? Reagan. Even though nothing useful came out of it, except scheming corporations (friends with the men holding the purse strings) got a whole lot richer. Who got the US into a war under false pretenses, and who was on governing boards of several corporations which hold contracts to supply troops? Bush Jr, and Cheney. Connect the dots. Perhaps it's been conveniently forgotten, but when Romney and Ryan were running 4 years ago, they promised to increase military spending MUCH MORE than military brass were asking for. It's not enough that the US military is rife with wasteful spending and spends more than most other countries' military budgets combined. Republicans want to shovel ever more (than they want) in their laps. Trump has said recently how the US military is very weak (which is not true) underfinanced (also not true) and that he would drastically increase military spending (true). .....as if we need another reason to add to the dozens of reasons why Trump would be a disaster for America.

[Jai Dee]

One post containing messed up quotes has been removed from this thread.

Apologies... I could not fix it.

[CousinEddie]

Whenever I hear a politician say, our military needs rebuilding. It boggles the mind.

[slipperylobster]

As far as Asia is concerned....Trump is correct.

Leave it Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.etc.etc.

No use in us being here. Let them folks take care of this side.

LOL.....save us a bundle. We're tired of the bitchin' anyways.

Washington is involved in the SCS because the world knows if the CCP Dictators in Beijing sail freely on the SCS it means they'll one day soon sail freely up the Potomac. So it's time the US had a lobster roast.

Correct me if I am wrong... but isn't that the same argument given for the war in Vietnam? How did that turn out?

When I grew up (i'm 60 now) in the USA nobody would have bought something made in a communist country. That was unheard of. Yet before the war officially ended Nixon was normalizing relations with China.... a communist country. A communist country that aided the enemy in Vietnam. Now just about everything one buys is from China. We have only ourselves to blame as the west was the group that changed course. China just grinned while the money rolled in. And the capitalists in the west counted the cash.

None of this has ever been about liberty and freedom. In the beginning maybe. But by 1850s in the USA things had changed. It is always about money and power. The only reason there was ever a middle class was because 2 World Wars and a Great Depression took the wind out of the sails of the rich people. 60 years on we are back to business as usual for the wealthy.

Pubicus is more accurate on his cooking skills, than his politics.

I bet we caught him at a bad time....perhaps the street food here does not agree with him.

As I do not agree with his politics...lol

Is he referring to the "Russian" Threat? The Communists are coming...the communist are coming!!!

oh no... all potatoes and no meat.

Edited April 13, 2016 by slipperylobster

[chuckd]

<snip> Messed up quotes

You think % are silly because % don't back what you're trying to convey.

What some of us are showing is, THE % INCREASE OF BUDGET FROM THE PRIOR BUDGET. I noticed, in your chart above, that Carter wasn't shown. His Federal budget hardly increased at all, after Ford's. The two budgets that increased the most (from preceding budgets) were Reagan's and Bush Jr's. Sorry (not really) if that doesn't convey the myth that you're trying to put forth, but instead shows clearly that Republicans are far-away more reckless spenders than Democrats.

Who was the biggest fan of spending hundreds of billions on SDI/Star Wars? Reagan. Even though nothing useful came out of it, except scheming corporations (friends with the men holding the purse strings) got a whole lot richer. Who got the US into a war under false pretenses, and who was on governing boards of several corporations which hold contracts to supply troops? Bush Jr, and Cheney. Connect the dots. Perhaps it's been conveniently forgotten, but when Romney and Ryan were running 4 years ago, they promised to increase military spending MUCH MORE than military brass were asking for. It's not enough that the US military is rife with wasteful spending and spends more than most other countries' military budgets combined. Republicans want to shovel ever more (than they want) in their laps. Trump has said recently how the US military is very weak (which is not true) underfinanced (also not true) and that he would drastically increase military spending (true). .....as if we need another reason to add to the dozens of reasons why Trump would be a disaster for America.

" What some of us are showing is, THE % INCREASE OF BUDGET FROM THE PRIOR BUDGET."

Sorry to pop your little plastic bubble, but budgets have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

We are discussing actual expenditures, not anticipated. Therefore, "What some of us are showing is...WRONG."

What you have been quoting is the amount each administration has increased the national debt based on what the debt was at the beginning of their administration and what it was at the end, or in Obama's case, through today.

World War II, Korea and Viet Nam are three pretty good reasons why we don't need another Democrat in office either.

[Publicus]

As far as Asia is concerned....Trump is correct.

Leave it Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.etc.etc.

No use in us being here. Let them folks take care of this side.

LOL.....save us a bundle. We're tired of the bitchin' anyways.

Washington is involved in the SCS because the world knows if the CCP Dictators in Beijing sail freely on the SCS it means they'll one day soon sail freely up the Potomac. So it's time the US had a lobster roast.

Correct me if I am wrong... but isn't that the same argument given for the war in Vietnam? How did that turn out?

When I grew up (i'm 60 now) in the USA nobody would have bought something made in a communist country. That was unheard of. Yet before the war officially ended Nixon was normalizing relations with China.... a communist country. A communist country that aided the enemy in Vietnam. Now just about everything one buys is from China. We have only ourselves to blame as the west was the group that changed course. China just grinned while the money rolled in. And the capitalists in the west counted the cash.

None of this has ever been about liberty and freedom. In the beginning maybe. But by 1850s in the USA things had changed. It is always about money and power. The only reason there was ever a middle class was because 2 World Wars and a Great Depression took the wind out of the sails of the rich people. 60 years on we are back to business as usual for the wealthy.

Pubicus is more accurate on his cooking skills, than his politics.

I bet we caught him at a bad time....perhaps the street food here does not agree with him.

As I do not agree with his politics...lol

Is he referring to the "Russian" Threat? The Communists are coming...the communist are coming!!!

oh no... all potatoes and no meat.

Once youse guyz get your posts cooking then we can all speak with a better appetite to address the serious issues. Youse jokers and clowns need to nestle my whole post btw, not only one statement from it and not cherry picking it.

In the meantime throw some Songkran ice water on the face.

If youse guyz decide to get serious about the CCP Dictators in Beijing lemme know. Only some of youse have got serious about the complete failure of Donald Trump to qualify himself for the office of Potus. Some of you are still on the slow boat to China too.

You don't know or recognise it yet but the time has passed for bucks to determine, direct and dominate US relations with the CCP Dictators in Beijing. The power of money gets diminished once the geostrategic factors come to the fore, which is what is happening now that the CCP economy has headed straight due south.

Last week for instance, at the Global Nuclear Summit in Washington, Xi Jinping told President Obama the South China Sea is CCP territory period. Next day the Pentagon announced another Freedom of Navigation assertion is imminent in the SCS inside a 12 nautical mile radius of another CCP artificial island.

The core force of the 7th Fleet had already moved into the SCS two months ago, to include the carrier USS John Stennis and its Strike Force 3 of the 7th Air Wing of 72 fighter jets and other aircraft, the 7th Fleet command ship the heavy cruiser USS Mobile Bay, another missile cruiser, three missile destroyers, a Marine Corps amphibious landing ship and support ships and, although the US never discusses its submarine force deployments, at least two attack subs.

The imminent 3rd US FON exercise in the SCS will have an unprecedented support against the new CCP fighter jets on Woody Island along with PLA anti-air missle batteries just recently located there and an also unannounced presence of PLA Navy submarines (which btw sound like the engine of my first used car in college).

There's a bad moon rising in the SCS and its no longer a cat and mouse thing. The question is which FON exercise by the USN will be the one.

We will also see how little Donald Trump knows in all of this, if he knows anything at all.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Publicus

[Linzz]

Well I was up for a discussion but clearly you are not. A link to an article about Debt to GDP Ratio and another link to a paper on contingent liabilities. I have an ongoing unresolved argument with an IMF debt management specialist on the meaning of implicit guarantees and I will be proven correct in the end. Implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on. Explicit guarantees are contingent. They should be recorded in GFMIS of course but aggregating them with total debt is misleading.

For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/shiller-most-people-who-look-at-debt-to.html

What's your other points? Oh, inflation. Please tell us why you would want to deflate the US economy? As for transaction costs, so what? All transactions have costs. It is built into pricing models. The issue is the NPV of the debt in relation to the economic stimulus or financial return it provides.

The Right Wing are meant to love markets. Yet not the debt market. Ideological economics at its best.

While "implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on" might be true in regards to the uncertainty of projections, growing aging baby boomer population is real and thereby healthcare costs are a certainty for growing budget deficits pushing debt to higher levels. Unsustainable debt levels into the future would have to be addressed through spending cuts and raising revenues either by taxation or further borrowing.

"For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicp...at-debt-to.html "

Thanks for the link. The last paragraph is especially good:

"Bottom line: Shiller's argument isn't about people being stupid. It's an attempt by Shiller to hoodwink people into supporting an ever growing big government interventionist state, and cause people to ignore common sense rough guides as to what is going on in the economy."

Left Wing ideological economics at it's best

[stillbornagain]

Debt now $19 Trillion and climbing. Perhaps numbers speak clearer than comparing inter party percentages?

BL-obama-presidents-debt-celing_600.jpg

US-Federal-Debt-1992-2014-Presidents-Performance.png

obama-debt-added2.jpg

What amazes me is how financially, shall we say, naive are those on the right. For instance take Reagan's total addition to the debt. Yes it was 1.9 trillion dollars. But that was in that decade's dollars. But when you adjust for inflation , which on average for those 8 years comes to 210% in present day dollars, then Reagan's total in present day dollars was about 4.0 trillion. But it gets even better. You see the GDP back then was virtually half of what it is now (actually slightly less.) So, that means, in relation to the size of the present day economy it comes to about 8 trillion dollars. So, he's actually still leading Obama. And that despite that fact that the recession he faced was far less of a danger to the world economy than the one that Obama faced. Go Ronnie!

[stillbornagain]

Since our newest cousin hasn't been around but one week he can't be expected to know very much.

However, for the record, the 2008 sub-prime mortgage recession was due, in large part, to the actions of the federal government mandating lenders make loans to less then qualified home purchasers using the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 as their primary weapon of choice. This act was passed by Democrats and signed by President Carter. Bill Clinton then put it to good political use by forcing quotas on lenders to make sub-prime home loans. Bush warned against it and the Democrats in Congress rallied in support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the rest is history.

By the way, the 2008 recession was declared officially over in June 2009, barely five months into Obama's administration. He had little to do with ending the recession but has now been in charge of the longest recovery in the history of the federal government. Not exactly anything remarkable to add to his CV.

Your other posts concerning adding to the national debt have been discounted several times on the forum. The positions you take are ridiculous, even though they are the main talking points for those liberal Democrats with nothing else.

Look it all up on the forum. Spend a little time catching up and less time offering an opinion. You'll be surprised how much real information this forum actually contains.

Speaking of real information, why do you persist in making things up? Okay, to be fair to you, you probably just swallowed the lies that the right has promoted about the Community Reinvestment Act. So allow me to educate you.

More than 83 percent of subprime mortgages were lent by private lending institutions. These were not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act. Only commercial banks and thrifts are subject to it.

In 2006, the height of the frenzy, only one of the top 25 subprime lenders was subject to the CRA.

It's important to note that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don't make loans. They buy securitized loans.

Between 2004 and 2006, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actually went from holding 48% of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market

down to 24%, In other words, as that market heated up, Fannie and Freddie cooled down. Way down.

What's more, a huge study by the Federal Reserve bank, in which they asked more than 500 lending institutions subject to CRA rules, how these CRA loans performed. Even those loans with high enough interest rates to qualify as sub-prime had a far lower default rate than that experienced by private lenders.

In short, it's amazing what cr*p some people will swallow.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24504598.html

https://www.federalreserve.gov/communitydev/craloansurvey.htm

[lostboy]

Well I was up for a discussion but clearly you are not. A link to an article about Debt to GDP Ratio and another link to a paper on contingent liabilities. I have an ongoing unresolved argument with an IMF debt management specialist on the meaning of implicit guarantees and I will be proven correct in the end. Implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on. Explicit guarantees are contingent. They should be recorded in GFMIS of course but aggregating them with total debt is misleading.

For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/shiller-most-people-who-look-at-debt-to.html

What's your other points? Oh, inflation. Please tell us why you would want to deflate the US economy? As for transaction costs, so what? All transactions have costs. It is built into pricing models. The issue is the NPV of the debt in relation to the economic stimulus or financial return it provides.

The Right Wing are meant to love markets. Yet not the debt market. Ideological economics at its best.

While "implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on" might be true in regards to the uncertainty of projections, growing aging baby boomer population is real and thereby healthcare costs are a certainty for growing budget deficits pushing debt to higher levels. Unsustainable debt levels into the future would have to be addressed through spending cuts and raising revenues either by taxation or further borrowing.

"For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicp...at-debt-to.html "

Thanks for the link. The last paragraph is especially good:

"Bottom line: Shiller's argument isn't about people being stupid. It's an attempt by Shiller to hoodwink people into supporting an ever growing big government interventionist state, and cause people to ignore common sense rough guides as to what is going on in the economy."

Left Wing ideological economics at it's best

You retreat to the absolutism of numbers and then sink even further into polemic.

Your point about increased debt burdens as a result of higher health care costs for aging baby boomers may or may not be true. You do not provide any data to support the supposition. Assuming that government funded health care costs will increase and this is funded by debt, then all you are saying is that the number will increase. Back to being a size queen. My argument is that in this case size does not matter. What matters is the capacity of the market to sustain the debt. The market does not support your statement that such future debt levels are unsustainable. Here is some actual data on the market https://ycharts.com/indicators/20_year_treasury_rate

US fiscal policy is a more significant determinant of future debt sustainability. The markets will soon punish irresponsible fiscal policy. Watch the reactions of the markets when the details of Trumps fiscal policies emerge, if they ever do.

Again, higher debt numbers are not alarming. What matters is the capacity of the market to manage the debt burden, irrespective of what drives the increase in debt.

Your retreat into polemic about left leaning ideology is entirely irrelevant to my point.

Edited April 13, 2016 by lostboy

[chuckd]

Debt now $19 Trillion and climbing. Perhaps numbers speak clearer than comparing inter party percentages?

BL-obama-presidents-debt-celing_600.jpg

US-Federal-Debt-1992-2014-Presidents-Performance.png

obama-debt-added2.jpg

What amazes me is how financially, shall we say, naive are those on the right. For instance take Reagan's total addition to the debt. Yes it was 1.9 trillion dollars. But that was in that decade's dollars. But when you adjust for inflation , which on average for those 8 years comes to 210% in present day dollars, then Reagan's total in present day dollars was about 4.0 trillion. But it gets even better. You see the GDP back then was virtually half of what it is now (actually slightly less.) So, that means, in relation to the size of the present day economy it comes to about 8 trillion dollars. So, he's actually still leading Obama. And that despite that fact that the recession he faced was far less of a danger to the world economy than the one that Obama faced. Go Ronnie!

Good effort.