What exactly are they afraid of?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Right. I'm suppose to prove a negative.

No. You're supposed to back up your statement that you believe the government, no not even the government - this administration - is hiding a recession from everyone, including economists, the legislation, the media, wall street, foreign markets, and every one of the millions of democrats in all walks of life looking for any reason to demonize this administration further. Like most of your arguments, you back it with a theory that would require you to prove a negative. Instead of seeing that as a flaw in your argument, you ask everyone else to prove you wrong while you construct several of your beloved "straw men" and disregard anything that contradicts you.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find that weather control beam. Unreasonable mistrust of a Republican government? Check. A general assumption the sky is falling? Check. Tinfoil hat? Check. Okay, I'm good.

No, i said they were hiding it. As defined...we aren't in a recession, but by cooking the books it can be delayed. You can't argue that.

I've given you an example of past lies, so, it isn't a huge leap to guess that it could happen again. People on this forum speculate all the time, yet i dont' see you jumping down their throats...Obama will do this, etc.

Recession: Is the worst over? Are we on the road to recovery? Or has something deeper and more intractable gone wrong?

We have seen attempts to stimulate the economy..tax rebates based on slowdown was short-term and that a "stimulus" package should be "targeted and temporary."

Military spending is up. And, based on Cheney's past..we should expect big run-up in outlays. Like i've said, i'd be shocked if the pentagon isn't up to that trick again.

Ben Bernanke cut interest rates relentlessly from August 2007 through the spring of 2008. I don't accuse Bernanke of playing politics. But it's worth noting that this is what usually happens. In presidential election years when Republicans are in office, the Fed regularly and predictably pursues a more expansionary policy than when Democrats rule.

But much of the ordinary effect of interest cuts on new lending—like a rebound in construction and automobile sales—didn't happen this time. That's because the fall in home prices (and therefore the value of collateral) overwhelmed the benefit of cheaper money to the banks. And the banks barely cut mortgage rates, so consumers saw no benefits at all. Lower interest rates did cut the value of the dollar, however, and that promotes exports and foreign investment.

No matter how effective the stimulus, two enormous clouds remain for whoever becomes president: the housing slump and the banking crisis.

The problem with a housing slump is inventory. Unlike factories and Internet startups, shuttered houses don't go away. No one declares them obsolete. They aren't boxed up and sent to China. They remain, a drag on the market, decaying and pulling down property values for years.

Nationally, the subprime debacle is blowing away the homeownership gains of the last few years. Those abusive mortgages were deliberately targeted at vulnerable, even desperate, people who could be steered into financial death traps. Lenders didn't care, because with the help of fraudulent appraisals, the loans could be off-loaded quickly in packages bought by greedy or gullible investors, including your pension fund.

Incidents of the foreclosed expressing themselves to their lenders by yanking the plumbing and the wires on the way out the door are on the rise, as is arson by desperate homeowners, according to the Los Angeles Times. Will students, small businesses, and other borrowers still be able to get credit when this is over?

The mechanisms of mortgage finance and home-equity drawdown haven't simply been damaged. That well has been poisoned. Having largely outsourced mortgage originations to companies like Countrywide who didn't care whether the borrowers had good credit, the banking system cannot easily go back to its old method of making loans to creditworthy people and contenting itself with the interest paid back over many years.

I'd go into more detail..but, no matter what i write..you'll just pooh pooh it.

[mraynrand]

Having largely outsourced mortgage originations to companies like Countrywide who didn't care whether the borrowers had good credit, the banking system cannot easily go back to its old method of making loans to creditworthy people and contenting itself with the interest paid back over many years.

Why not? Isn't that exactly what has to happen? Or will the government just continue the same practice of giving loans to bad risks? It's interesting how you always tell the story from one side - as though all loans were 'predatory' loans and only 'desperate' people took the loans. You hardly give a mention to government policy to enforce risky loans nor people who tried to make money flipping homes. Why not?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Having largely outsourced mortgage originations to companies like Countrywide who didn't care whether the borrowers had good credit, the banking system cannot easily go back to its old method of making loans to creditworthy people and contenting itself with the interest paid back over many years.

Why not? Isn't that exactly what has to happen? Or will the government just continue the same practice of giving loans to bad risks? It's interesting how you always tell the story from one side - as though all loans were 'predatory' loans and only 'desperate' people took the loans. You hardly give a mention to government policy to enforce risky loans nor people who tried to make money flipping homes. Why not?

Who said it wouldn't go back..i said easily. Try and follow along.

One side: I used Countrywide..and that is what they were doing. Is your problem that i'm being to specific and not talking in generalities? Plus, i said i could go on, but i would just be pooh poohed. Of course other situations happened.

Middle-class homeowners are now getting hit a second way: in the declining value of their homes. You don't have to be holding a subprime to find yourself underwater. That means that home-equity loans will dry up. (As of April, California homeowners in default were already a median of eight months behind on those loans.)

The banks no longer trust each other. Last August, as mortgage-backed securities unraveled, finances froze up worldwide. Why? Because banks knew how much undisclosed junk they had on their own books. Who could say what the next fellow had? Overnight lending between banks fell apart. That is a very big deal. If banks will not lend money to each other, why (except for the blessings of federal insurance) should anyone else leave their money to them? Economists wait entire careers to study events such as these.

Remember this convo isn't about the mortgage industry..it is about hiding a recession..theory. So, all your points aren't really germane to this conversation. Got it?

[mraynrand]

Remember this convo isn't about the mortgage industry..it is about hiding a recession..theory. So, all your points aren't really germane to this conversation. Got it?

Yet, you talked about mortgages. So I guess your own points aren't relevant. Got it?

[Cheesehead Craig]

I can't believe there's been no mention of McCain seemingly 'bailing out' of Friday's election...........

To me it's a stunt. It's not like suddenly Congress is going to say "All right, John's here! He's got all the answers to fix this bill." Not going to happen.

[SkinBasket]

You can't argue that...

I'd go into more detail..but, no matter what i write..you'll just pooh pooh it.

Actually you were right. I did not read anything in between these two statements. What's the point? If I can't argue against your conspiracy theory, then I suppose there's not much hope for the rest of it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Remember this convo isn't about the mortgage industry..it is about hiding a recession..theory. So, all your points aren't really germane to this conversation. Got it?

Yet, you talked about mortgages. So I guess your own points aren't relevant. Got it?

Is your point related to the point, no. And, your point wasn't even germane to what i said. You invented an argument where there was none.

[SkinBasket]

Remember this convo isn't about the mortgage industry..it is about hiding a recession..theory. So, all your points aren't really germane to this conversation. Got it?

Yet, you talked about mortgages. So I guess your own points aren't relevant. Got it?

Is your point related to the point, no. And, your point wasn't even germane to what i said. You invented an argument where there was none.

OR

[Harlan Huckleby]

pssst, Skinbasket, that's a rooster. No such thing as a rooster and egg argument, that would be like, "which came first, the hen or the testicle?"

[mraynrand]

pssst, Skinbasket, that's a rooster. No such thing as a rooster and egg argument, that would be like, "which came first, the hen or the testicle?"

Given it's skinbasket, I have to believe the choice of a rooster was intentional. It is probably a hen with a superficial sex change operation.

[SkinBasket]

"which came first, the hen or the testicle?"

Excellent question!



OR