An Unstable Limbaugh Blames Obama for Ft. Hood Shootings

[Mrs Jolly]

he's a political comedian.. a joke.. why you people on the left fall prey to his shtick so much is beyond me.. i think his point was valid! and also totally lacking any comedic value! btw who do u think this rat bastard voted for? id bet obama shama lama ding dong... i wonder why he would of voted for him! gee i wonder... tell me one thing obama has done that he claimed he would do?
also luv the lil brandine thing u got goin on at the bottom of ur bar... i guess to you pickin on southerners shows how intelligent someone is... or is it just more liberal bonding??? some of the best people u will ever meet u would meet in what u libs call 'flyover country' ive lived in ny city, san fran, wash dc, tampa and a slew of other big cities and let me tell u. country dont mean stupid...

Er, let me try and get this right...............a tag line originating with a group of Los Angeles based scriptwriters of unknown origin, depicting a rural gentleman parrotting a Washington DC based administration justification for an excursionary war is nothing but a liberal sneer at the supposed educational inadequacies of the rural poor.

Hmmm.

What if the person who wrote it was displaying an ironic touch? Or the person who used it as a tag line on this board? What in turn would that say about those who pile in with two feet who appear not to have pondered such circumstances? Or are you under the bold impression that "The Simpsons" is an irony free enterprise?

 

[USNinc]

If anyone is to blame than it has to be MLB and their steroid testing ability.

This guy saw through it and snapped....

 

[Rey C.]

It's not what Rush says that's wrong, he is careful to state only the truth...

No, not really. I've been listening to Rush on and off for the past couple of decades. I don't listen to him, or any other talk radio show, on a daily basis these days. But to say that he is careful to state only the truth is not accurate in all cases.

The clip below starts with a recent episode where Limbaugh apparently flew with a story about something Obama was supposed to have written in college, and Rush's story apparently didn't have fully formed wings. But he justifies the flight based on him hearing what he's heard and knowing what he knows - always a great (il)logical device to cover ones tracks. And interestingly enough, he further rationalizes it by saying that the media has done it to him... so I guess he belives in the goose & the gander theory? :dunno:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOQvlwoff6c

Now, as for accuracy (and I don't mean to get this "interesting" thread onto another topic), Rush really does have his facts crossed up rather badly on the banking crisis (about 6:00 minutes into the clip). This notion (myth ) that the government ****** banks to issue loans to people who could not pay the money back seems to be rather popular among a certain set. And while it is true that administrations (under Democrat and Republican Presidents), and the Fed, allowed the problem to grow, it is not at all accurate that any institution was ****** to make these loans. Or as some unfortunate, unknowing fellow on this board claimed a few months ago: "the government paid banks a stipend to make loans to poor people." I've repeatedly asked him to provide a link for that (ridiculous and false) claim, but he will no longer respond to me. In fact, I don't think he posts here anymore. I assume he went elsewhere to spread the gospel. What many (including Mr. Limbaugh, I suppose) don't understand is that the term "subprime" may apply to the borrower, or it may apply to the property. But anyway, according to a 2006 Wall Street Journal article, 61 percent of all borrowers receiving subprime mortgages had credit scores high enough to qualify for prime conventional loans.

The primary reason that banks wanted to make mortgages which would fall into the subprime category (even for those who would qualify for prime loans) is because the profits on points, spreads and fees were outrageously larger.

But in Rush's mind, Barney Frank (who I don't particularly care for either), and whomever else, made/****** resistant banks to make loans that they really didn't want to make - and that's what caused the credit crisis. It's a nice, neat , simplistic story with a bow on top, but it's factually incorrect. Similar to other fantasies in the minds of Birthers, et al, it just didn't go down that way. If anyone is particularly bored, I can detail exactly why mortgage bankers did what they did. People like Rush either don't know the mortgage banking industry well enough to comment on it, or he prefers to overlook the facts... I really don't know - don't really care. But in any case, he and the truth certainly are not on the same page on this particular issue.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

No, not really. I've been listening to Rush on and off for the past couple of decades. I don't listen to him, or any other talk radio show, on a daily basis these days. But to say that he is careful to state only the truth is not accurate in all cases.

The clip below starts with a recent episode where Limbaugh apparently flew with a story about something Obama was supposed to have written in college, and Rush's story apparently didn't have fully formed wings. But he justifies the flight based on him hearing what he's heard and knowing what he knows - always a great (il)logical device to cover ones tracks. And interestingly enough, he further rationalizes it by saying that the media has done it to him... so I guess he belives in the goose & the gander theory? :dunno:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOQvlwoff6c

Now, as for accuracy (and I don't mean to get this "interesting" thread onto another topic), Rush really does have his facts crossed up rather badly on the banking crisis (about 6:00 minutes into the clip). This notion (myth ) that the government ****** banks to issue loans to people who could not pay the money back seems to be rather popular among a certain set. And while it is true that administrations (under Democrat and Republican Presidents), and the Fed, allowed the problem to grow, it is not at all accurate that any institution was ****** to make these loans. Or as some unfortunate, unknowing fellow on this board claimed a few months ago: "the government paid banks a stipend to make loans to poor people." I've repeatedly asked him to provide a link for that (ridiculous and false) claim, but he will no longer respond to me. In fact, I don't think he posts here anymore. I assume he went elsewhere to spread the gospel. What many (including Mr. Limbaugh, I suppose) don't understand is that the term "subprime" may apply to the borrower, or it may apply to the property. But anyway, according to a 2006 Wall Street Journal article, 61 percent of all borrowers receiving subprime mortgages had credit scores high enough to qualify for prime conventional loans.

The primary reason that banks wanted to make mortgages which would fall into the subprime category (even for those who would qualify for prime loans) is because the profits on points, spreads and fees were outrageously larger.

But in Rush's mind, Barney Frank (who I don't particularly care for either), and whomever else, made/****** resistant banks to make loans that they really didn't want to make - and that's what caused the credit crisis. It's a nice, neat , simplistic story with a bow on top, but it's factually incorrect. Similar to other fantasies in the minds of Birthers, et al, it just didn't go down that way. If anyone is particularly bored, I can detail exactly why mortgage bankers did what they did. People like Rush either don't know the mortgage banking industry well enough to comment on it, or he prefers to overlook the facts... I really don't know - don't really care. But in any case, he and the truth certainly are not on the same page on this particular issue.

I actually agree with you. And i am extremely bored so please enlighten me as to why the mortgage bankers did what they did. I would say greed, a change in lending rules and a foreknowledge that the bubble would burst. They always do.. ALWAYS!
Alot of the hyperventilating done amongst both the left and right over any issue is really a sham. Most of these conservative radio personalities are so full of b.s. i sometimes wonder why people listen to them. but, then again, i know they just want to be entertained. Listening to a man like Michael Savage reminds me so much of Orwells 1984 theme 'the three minute ****' that i go into paroxysms of laughter...
I am a conservative as most of you now probably know. however, it is very true that claiming Clinton was responsible for the problem is a much better soundbite than getting into an economic discussion on the radio. That wont sell advert time nor will it rally the ideologues... Business as usual! Both sides do it...
The best political flame ever imo was attributed to 'Gorgeous' George Smathers. "Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his ******-in-law, and he has a ****** who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper before his marriage habitually practiced celibacy," The man never even said this and fought it til his grave.. A political hack like Limbaugh was the one who threw this nugget to the world... A COMEDIAN!

 

[ed259r2345]

What an jerk... The man has no independant thought in his head....You know what he is going to say about any issue before he even says it..

 

[grassninja]

The primary reason that banks wanted to make mortgages which would fall into the subprime category (even for those who would qualify for prime loans) is because the profits on points, spreads and fees were outrageously larger.

I listen to Rush for about an hour every weekday, and generally think favorably about him I don't agree with everything that he says, and your comment above makes a lot of sense.

I think this is a good example of how things can be very good when the economy is trucking a long and very bad when it's not.

When people have good paying jobs or small businesses and are able to buy homes, as well as other products and services, everything is great! Even for the government, since it is more likely their tax receipts will be higher.

When the economy is in the toilet, everyone is screwed. I get the scary feeling that things will be bad for awhile. The job market has not been great for many years. I would guess it's going to suck for probably the next five years.

I didn't hear Rush blame Obama for the Fort Hood shootings. If he did, I'm not sure that would a reasonable thing do. I do believe that the shooter's chain of command made some serious errors and they are partly to blame for what happened - ultimately it was the actions of this soldier, who is looking more and more like a domestic terrorist, was the one that deserves all the blame.

I'm not a big fan of Obama. I didn't vote for him, I didn't think he was qualified to be president; maybe if had been governor of Illinois first and a track record as a government executive, I'd have felt better.

Unless Obama pardons or commutes the eventual sentence of this army major, I'm not going to direct any criticism towards him for this event.

 

[Hot Mega]

I listen to Rush for about an hour every weekday, and generally think favorably about him I don't agree with everything that he says, and your comment above makes a lot of sense.

I think this is a good example of how things can be very good when the economy is trucking a long and very bad when it's not.

When people have good paying jobs or small businesses and are able to buy homes, as well as other products and services, everything is great! Even for the government, since it is more likely their tax receipts will be higher.

When the economy is in the toilet, everyone is screwed. I get the scary feeling that things will be bad for awhile. The job market has not been great for many years. I would guess it's going to suck for probably the next five years.

I didn't hear Rush blame Obama for the Fort Hood shootings. If he did, I'm not sure that would a reasonable thing do. I do believe that the shooter's chain of command made some serious errors and they are partly to blame for what happened - ultimately it was the actions of this soldier, who is looking more and more like a domestic terrorist, was the one that deserves all the blame.

I'm not a big fan of Obama. I didn't vote for him, I didn't think he was qualified to be president; maybe if had been governor of Illinois first and a track record as a government executive, I'd have felt better.

Unless Obama pardons or commutes the eventual sentence of this army major, I'm not going to direct any criticism towards him for this event.

:wtf:

How dare you come here and post a well reasoned, objective response!

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

There was nothing about his response which implied objectivity at all.. It seemed to me to be more subjective, but still valid, very valid actually...
As far as the economy tanking. Please, listen to my advice... get a job and pay your dues in a critical industry. If you learn how to do something which everyone needs(and i don't mean flipping burgers-food service), then you have set yourself up for a lifetime of high paid employment. I worked 70 hours this week and still didnt finish all the work that i have to do.. I have around a 2 month backlog of work actually...
Imo the economy never tanked, it just cut out all the bullshit jobs.... Btw, i do heating, cooling, refrigeration, electrical, plumbing and work upon water systems such as reverse osmosis ones (I cant be outsourced).. It's very technical and demanding! There is also a SERIOUS dearth of qualified technicians in this field... Want a good job, and a guarantee of never being unemployed? Work in this field...

 

[Hot Mega]

There was nothing about his response which implied objectivity at all.. It seemed to me to be more subjective, but still valid, very valid actually...
As far as the economy tanking. Please, listen to my advice... get a job and pay your dues in a critical industry. If you learn how to do something which everyone needs(and i don't mean flipping burgers-food service), then you have set yourself up for a lifetime of high paid employment. I worked 70 hours this week and still didnt finish all the work that i have to do.. I have around a 2 month backlog of work actually...
Imo the economy never tanked, it just cut out all the bullshit jobs.... Btw, i do heating, cooling, refrigeration, electrical, plumbing and work upon water systems such as reverse osmosis ones (I cant be outsourced).. It's very technical and demanding! There is also a SERIOUS dearth of qualified technicians in this field... Want a good job, and a guarantee of never being unemployed? Work in this field...

So the answer is everyone who is out of work should have learned your trade??

The economy is where it is today for one major reason, billions of dollars were siphoned away from typical goods and services we purchased and poured into our gas tanks.

"bullshit jobs" weren't cut out as businesses only employ the people they need to accommodate or expand to meet the needs of their customers. Private enterprise doesn't hire people to sit around and do nothing.

When your revenue drops consistently enough to where you downsize that's usually because your customer base has shrank. A shrinking customer base across diverse business sectors is usually reflective of depressed spending by the consumer. Consumers who don't spend capital where they once did usually have stopped because they no longer have it to spend. When consumers no longer have money to spend in areas they typically do it's for one, two or both of the following reasons; they no longer have it to spend at all or they must spend it elsewhere.

Of those who had it to spend and spent it elsewhere, the elsewhere was in their gas tanks.

Correspondingly, virtually every business sector experienced depression while the oil industry sector realized record profits.

The logic is as simple as 1+1....:dunno:

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

So the answer is everyone who is out of work should have learned your trade??

The economy is where it is today for one major reason, billions of dollars were siphoned away from typical goods and services we purchased and poured into our gas tanks.

"bullshit jobs" weren't cut out as businesses only employ the people they need to accommodate or expand to meet the needs of their customers. Private enterprise doesn't hire people to sit around and do nothing.

When your revenue drops consistently enough to where you downsize that's usually because your customer base has shrank. A shrinking customer base across diverse business sectors is usually reflective of depressed spending by the consumer. Consumers who don't spend capital where they once did usually have stopped because they no longer have it to spend. When consumers no longer have money to spend in areas they typically do it's for one, two or both of the following reasons; they no longer have it to spend at all or they must spend it elsewhere.

Of those who had it to spend and spent it elsewhere, the elsewhere was in their gas tanks.

Correspondingly, virtually every business sector experienced depression while the oil industry sector realized record profits.

The logic is as simple as 1+1....:dunno:

I myself am actually glad that not everyone has learned my trade. However it is a dead useful one to have! I was offering advice nothing more... The guarantee of employment is something which everyone should strive for... I am still continuously trying to update my skills... There is a huge problem in any technical field with regards to blue collar work. It seems that everyone wants to be a lawyer or a banker and MOST cant make the cut.. To this i say, try your hands at the trades. The money is good and the work is there. And as long as people still need to live and breathe you will always have work. Too much work, actually, if you are good at it.
I also stand by my bullshit jobs statement... well mostly! Alot of the jobs we lost to other countries were no skill jobs which involved route and routine and no troubleshooting experience at all... These people should of thought ahead and tried to make themselves more crucial to there local economies... You can always try again by simply getting a job in a trade and get paid well to learn it.. become useful! Thats the key...
There really is no such thing as a bulshit job! If you are working *my hats off* Keep at it!
As far as your lil consumer index goes HOTMEGA. it's quite simple to me at least. When times are tight people only get what they need! they wont build that new addition onto there house or get that deck they have always wanted.. But, if the furnace doesn't work in the middle of winter 99% of the people will want it fixed... Which brings me back to trying to get a job in a critical industry.. Find your niche and go for it...

 

[mistress007]

limbaugh is a stroke...
so is glen beck...:fight:

 

[Rey C.]

I actually agree with you. And i am extremely bored so please enlighten me as to why the mortgage bankers did what they did. I would say greed, a change in lending rules and a foreknowledge that the bubble would burst. They always do.. ALWAYS!

You're correct.

As an example: leave out a couple of verifications or (purposefully) make it a fast track loan instead of one which goes through the normal underwriting channels, and the borrower with a 740 credit score and a steady job is suddenly a subprime borrower. According to a study, roughly 60% of subprime mortgages could/should have been prime loans.

Example:
Prime borrower: 740 credit score. $60K/year annual income. 24/32 debt to income ratio (28/36 is typically max for a coventional). Verifications of employment, income, assets and debts sent out and received back. This borrower can afford a 30 year, fixed rate mortgage at 5.25%, in the amount of roughly $250K. Let's assume it has a 1 point origination fee and 1 discount point. Let's say this loan originator is a relative newbie with a standard split with the bank. He gets half the origination and half the discount. So, for writing this $250K mortgage, of the $5K in fees and points, he'll make $2500. If he's a senior officer or a VP, he'll make somewhat more. But let's stick with $2500 as a base. $2500 for about an hours work isn't bad, is it? No, unless you can make a helluva lot more for that same amount of (or less) work. One note: if he's on straight salary, he won't see the boosts from the fees and points. But he will still get bonuses based on volume. And with a subprime/fast track being less work, that allows him more time to generate the volume... and get his bonus.

Subprime borrower: Every detail is the same as the prime borrower. Only this time, we're not going to verify the income and/or the monthly obligations. We're going to make this a low or no doc loan. We're not going to monkey with their income or anything like that. We're just going to change the classification of the mortgage in the eyes of the underwriter and the investor. Let's see what that does. Instead of a 30 year fixed (which he prices at let's say, 6%), he thinks he can talk the borrower into a 3/1 Arm (3 years fixed and then it adjusts every year). For a prime borrower, that rate would be (let's say) 4.5%. For these folks though, it's going to be 5.5%. But look! They did have 6%! He's saving them money every month! What a guy!

So, what does Mr. Mortgage Banker make on this one? He still gets half of the standard 1% origination fee ($1250). And he's still just going to charge them 1 point on the discount (another $1250). But he juiced the interest rate. The rule of thumb is 1% = 8 discount points. On this $250K loan, he just brought in an additional $20,000 for his bank. On his first **** & pillage deal, he'll get his regular 50/50 cut. and they'll give him $10K of the take. So he can make $2500 or $12,500. And he better learn to make choices that put the most money in his pocket (as well as the bank's).

As for the bundling of mortgage backed securities, and rating them to the best of what was in the package, the same train of logic applies: tell people what they want to hear (are willing to believe), and do what generates the most revenue.

If Rush wanted to make an intelligent commentary on the mortgage crisis, he should have given a more complete picture of what ACTUALLY happened. Fraud and ***** within FNMA and FHLMC were major contributors to the problem - he'd be right about that. Lax standards and oversight from Congress were major contributors - he'd be right about that. But Rush (conveniently) left out the large hand that the financial and appraisal industries had in this. When 60% of loans are wrongly classified as subprimes and $400K houses are appraised for $500K, that keeps the scheme going too.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

His first **** and pillage deal... ROFL i love it... You are spot on Rey C. Thanks for the info... rep...

 

[Hot Mega]

I myself am actually glad that not everyone has learned my trade. However it is a dead useful one to have! I was offering advice nothing more... The guarantee of employment is something which everyone should strive for... I am still continuously trying to update my skills... There is a huge problem in any technical field with regards to blue collar work. It seems that everyone wants to be a lawyer or a banker and MOST cant make the cut.. To this i say, try your hands at the trades. The money is good and the work is there. And as long as people still need to live and breathe you will always have work. Too much work, actually, if you are good at it.
I also stand by my bullshit jobs statement... well mostly! Alot of the jobs we lost to other countries were no skill jobs which involved route and routine and no troubleshooting experience at all... These people should of thought ahead and tried to make themselves more crucial to there local economies... You can always try again by simply getting a job in a trade and get paid well to learn it.. become useful! Thats the key...
There really is no such thing as a bulshit job! If you are working *my hats off* Keep at it!
As far as your lil consumer index goes HOTMEGA. it's quite simple to me at least. When times are tight people only get what they need! they wont build that new addition onto there house or get that deck they have always wanted.. But, if the furnace doesn't work in the middle of winter 99% of the people will want it fixed... Which brings me back to trying to get a job in a critical industry.. Find your niche and go for it...

:crash: (There must be a tree somewhere which grows these people.)

What are you saying? The economy is in the tank because more people didn't decide to fix air conditioners and furnaces for a living??

Sorry Sir Osis of Babble...it's a tad bit more complicated than that.

I will concede to you this on sheer supply and demand principles if you're working on average 12 -14 hrs. per day all year long, there are not enough people doing what you do.

As an employer it's far more economical for me to hire another person than pay one guy that much in overtime and double time. Being self employed it's good business to hire an employee to ensure someone else doesn't meet the consumer need in my backlog.

But I assure you "Sir" the economy is not in the "tank" because not enough people fix ACs and furnaces.:2 cents:

 

[Hot Mega]

You're correct.

As an example: leave out a couple of verifications or (purposefully) make it a fast track loan instead of one which goes through the normal underwriting channels, and the borrower with a 740 credit score and a steady job is suddenly a subprime borrower. According to a study, roughly 60% of subprime mortgages could/should have been prime loans.

Example:
Prime borrower: 740 credit score. $60K/year annual income. 24/32 debt to income ratio (28/36 is typically max for a coventional). Verifications of employment, income, assets and debts sent out and received back. This borrower can afford a 30 year, fixed rate mortgage at 5.25%, in the amount of roughly $250K. Let's assume it has a 1 point origination fee and 1 discount point. Let's say this loan originator is a relative newbie with a standard split with the bank. He gets half the origination and half the discount. So, for writing this $250K mortgage, of the $5K in fees and points, he'll make $2500. If he's a senior officer or a VP, he'll make somewhat more. But let's stick with $2500 as a base. $2500 for about an hours work isn't bad, is it? No, unless you can make a helluva lot more for that same amount of (or less) work. One note: if he's on straight salary, he won't see the boosts from the fees and points. But he will still get bonuses based on volume. And with a subprime/fast track being less work, that allows him more time to generate the volume... and get his bonus.

Subprime borrower: Every detail is the same as the prime borrower. Only this time, we're not going to verify the income and/or the monthly obligations. We're going to make this a low or no doc loan. We're not going to monkey with their income or anything like that. We're just going to change the classification of the mortgage in the eyes of the underwriter and the investor. Let's see what that does. Instead of a 30 year fixed (which he prices at let's say, 6%), he thinks he can talk the borrower into a 3/1 Arm (3 years fixed and then it adjusts every year). For a prime borrower, that rate would be (let's say) 4.5%. For these folks though, it's going to be 5.5%. But look! They did have 6%! He's saving them money every month! What a guy!

So, what does Mr. Mortgage Banker make on this one? He still gets half of the standard 1% origination fee ($1250). And he's still just going to charge them 1 point on the discount (another $1250). But he juiced the interest rate. The rule of thumb is 1% = 8 discount points. On this $250K loan, he just brought in an additional $20,000 for his bank. On his first **** & pillage deal, he'll get his regular 50/50 cut. and they'll give him $10K of the take. So he can make $2500 or $12,500. And he better learn to make choices that put the most money in his pocket (as well as the bank's).

As for the bundling of mortgage backed securities, and rating them to the best of what was in the package, the same train of logic applies: tell people what they want to hear (are willing to believe), and do what generates the most revenue.

If Rush wanted to make an intelligent commentary on the mortgage crisis, he should have given a more complete picture of what ACTUALLY happened. Fraud and ***** within FNMA and FHLMC were major contributors to the problem - he'd be right about that. Lax standards and oversight from Congress were major contributors - he'd be right about that. But Rush (conveniently) left out the large hand that the financial and appraisal industries had in this. When 60% of loans are wrongly classified as subprimes and $400K houses are appraised for $500K, that keeps the scheme going too.

Sub prime mortgages were preferred by loan agents for one reason, the bonus paid more.

But the mortgage bubble was a symptom of the economic downturn, not a cause.

People with all sorts of mortgages, loans and credit cards were defaulting...not just sub prime mortgage holders.:2 cents:

 

[Rey C.]

As far as the economy tanking. Please, listen to my advice... get a job and pay your dues in a critical industry. If you learn how to do something which everyone needs(and i don't mean flipping burgers-food service), then you have set yourself up for a lifetime of high paid employment. I worked 70 hours this week and still didnt finish all the work that i have to do.. I have around a 2 month backlog of work actually...
Imo the economy never tanked, it just cut out all the bullshit jobs.... Btw, i do heating, cooling, refrigeration, electrical, plumbing and work upon water systems such as reverse osmosis ones (I cant be outsourced).. It's very technical and demanding! There is also a SERIOUS dearth of qualified technicians in this field... Want a good job, and a guarantee of never being unemployed? Work in this field...

I have to say, that's a rather odd way of looking at the macro downturn in employment. And the economy most certainly "tanked". I don't think there's an economist alive who would dispute that.

You're a contractor, I assume? Let's say you are and you own your own company.

Here's an example of how the bullshit could affect you... and has affected a great many in your field.

In late 2007, you won the bid to do the HVAC portion on a large commercial project. In the middle of the project (mid 2008), the developer had his credit line cut in the midst of the credit crisis and couldn't complete the project. You're on the hook to your suppliers for your materials. You have the 30% or so that was advanced up front, but your hole is much deeper than that. You file the mechanics liens and go to court. You get the judgment. But the developer is now bankrupt. You may get 30 or 40 cents/$... one of these days. But you rent office space from me and you're now in a spot that you can't pay me. I'm sorry for your issues with the developer, but I need this month's rent. If you can't pay, then I'm going to have to serve notice and maybe evict you. And I'll have to get a judgment against you. Nothing personal, that's just what I'd have to do.

You are indeed in an industry where there is work out there. But having work or providing a service and getting paid are two very different things. Even in the case of just doing residential work, there's no guarantee that you're going to get paid in a timely manner. I have a drawer full of judgments dating back to the late 80's. They're not worth the paper they're written on. Depending on the amount involved, renewing judgments, and chasing down turnips to squeeze them, often is not worth the hassle or effort.

And even if your customers are paying, if your business is successful and growing, you would have a need to access credit lines from time to time as well. But last year, that didn't happen. It all came to a grinding halt. Lines were cut or eliminated, often without prior notice.

All of this to say, while some industries may have been better insulated during this downturn, not every job that was lost was a "bullshit job". Police, firefighters, nurses, teachers, engineers and many other fields got caught - and I would say that these people are pretty critical. Some could or have moved to places where their services could be paid for. But what if a person is relocating and having to sell a house in a down market to accomplish the move? Making a mortgage payment and renting somewhere else is seldom practical for most people. So... another foreclosure. Again, except for a few places, this downturn has touched many, many people across the U.S., and not just those in "make work" or less skilled jobs.

 

[Will E Worm]

If you learn how to do something which everyone needs(and i don't mean flipping burgers-food service),

People still need their burgers flipped. :tongue:

The economy never tanked, it just cut out all the bullshit jobs....

Excuse me?

Many good jobs were lost or had to cut back.

Companies should be penalized for shipping jobs overseas.
They would stay here if that happened.

 

[Rey C.]

Sub prime mortgages were preferred by loan agents for one reason, the bonus paid more.

But the mortgage bubble was a symptom of the economic downturn, not a cause.

People with all sorts of mortgages, loans and credit cards were defaulting...not just sub prime mortgage holders.:2 cents:

One of the best explanations I heard was by a gentleman who likened the crisis to a house full of gasoline and explosives (artificially low interest rates, overpriced housing, easy credit, etc.) and someone walked by and flipped a match inside the house (spiking fuel prices being the match). At a time when real wages had been flat for many years and people had been using their homes like ATM machines (the so called "wealth effect"), it simply was not possible for this condition to sustain itself forever. Our economy is very dependent on consumption. And when there is a shock to consumption, GDP is going to necesssarily take a dive.

The issue I have with Limbaugh is that he can only give a simplistic (partisan) explanation on this and many other issues, that ignores the whole picture. I'm not sure if he's really that stupid/ignorant, or if he simply plays up bits of the truth in order to give his audince what (he knows) they want to hear. Any old rockers here will remember the Kinks song, Give the People What They Want. You can make a good living doing that - and I don't blame Rush or anybody else for milking it for all it's worth. But I would rather hear complete explanations. And that's why I seldom listen to him anymore. I have no need to hear my thoughts in an echo chamber in order to feel better about my views. Some (though not all) of Rush's listeners seem to be able to repeat his words a bit too accurately for my taste.

 

[Hot Mega]

One of the best explanations I heard was by a gentleman who likened the crisis to a house full of gasoline and explosives (artificially low interest rates, overpriced housing, easy credit, etc.) and someone walked by and flipped a match inside the house (spiking fuel prices being the match). At a time when real wages had been flat for many years and people had been using their homes like ATM machines (the so called "wealth effect"), it simply was not possible for this condition to sustain itself forever. Our economy is very dependent on consumption. And when there is a shock to consumption, GDP is going to necesssarily take a dive.

The issue I have with Limbaugh is that he can only give a simplistic (partisan) explanation on this and many other issues, that ignores the whole picture. I'm not sure if he's really that stupid/ignorant, or if he simply plays up bits of the truth in order to give his audince what (he knows) they want to hear. Any old rockers here will remember the Kinks song, Give the People What They Want. You can make a good living doing that - and I don't blame Rush or anybody else for milking it for all it's worth. But I would rather hear complete explanations. And that's why I seldom listen to him anymore. I have no need to hear my thoughts in an echo chamber in order to feel better about my views.

I would say the spark was the artificial skyrocketing of gasoline pricing. Well the skyrocketing wasn't artificial as there were real market ****** which drove oil pricing. But high gas pricing competed for the discretionary spending of the consumer and business suffered. As business suffered naturally jobs did too.

Add to that, consumers using credit (cards) to buy gasoline or necessities they otherwise would have used the cash on hand for..

Now you have the perfect storm where shrinking and evaporating incomes can no longer sustain their debt burdens....then comes the ripple effect on lending institutions.

Without the pressure on consumables caused by high gas pricing you don't have businesses sending debt laden former employees to the unemployment office.

Anytime you have something which competes for the consumer discretionary dollar at the rate and duration high gas prices did for most of this decade...the ripple effect will be deep and sustained.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Personally I think both of you(hot mega and Rey C) are focusing more on the effects of the crisis then it's true root causes.You were suppose to watch this Rey


Both political parties had their fingerprints on the debacle.It was really a failure of economic philosophy as expressed priimarily by people like Alan Greenspan who had a libertarian zero regulation view.He now see's his folly,better late then never I guess.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/



In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

"I didn't know Brooksley Born," says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton's powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. "I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable." Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group -- former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- convinced him that Born's attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was "clearly a mistake."

Born's battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President's Working Group vehemently opposed regulation -- especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born.

"I walk into Brooksley's office one day; the ***** has drained from her face," says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. "She's hanging up the telephone; she says to me: 'That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, "You're going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II."... [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.'"

Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. "Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming," Kirk says. "Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves."

Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, The Warning reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempts to prevent the next one.

"It'll happen again if we don't take the appropriate steps," Born warns. "There will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap over and over until we learn from experience."