Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Fury on October 18, 2011, 05:24:46 PM
-
A New Spending Record
Washington had its best year ever in fiscal 2011.
Maybe it's a sign of the tumultuous times, but the federal government recently wrapped up its biggest spending year, and its second biggest annual budget deficit, and almost nobody noticed. Is it rude to mention this?The Congressional Budget Office recently finished tallying the revenue and spending figures for fiscal 2011, which ended September 30, and no wonder no one in Washington is crowing. The political class might have its political pretense blown. This is said to be a new age of fiscal austerity, yet the government had its best year ever, spending a cool $3.6 trillion. That beat the $3.52 trillion posted in 2009, when the feds famously began their attempt to spend America back to prosperity.
What happened to all of those horrifying spending cuts? Good question. CBO says that overall outlays rose 4.2% from 2010 (1.8% adjusted for timing shifts), when spending fell slightly from 2009. Defense spending rose only 1.2% on a calendar-adjusted basis, and Medicaid only 0.9%, but Medicare spending rose 3.9% and interest payments by 16.7%.
The bigger point: Government austerity is a myth.
In somewhat better news, federal receipts grew by 6.5% in fiscal 2011, including a 21.6% gain in individual income tax revenues. The overall revenue gain would have been even larger without the cost of the temporary payroll tax cut, which contributed to a 5.3% decline in social insurance revenues but didn't reduce the jobless rate.
The nearby table shows the budget trend over the last five years, and it underscores the dramatic negative turn since the Obama Presidency began. The budget deficit increased slightly in fiscal 2011 from a year earlier, to $1.298 trillion. That was down slightly as a share of GDP to 8.6%, but as CBO deadpans, this was still "greater than in any other year since 1945."
Mull over that one. The Obama years have racked up the three largest deficits, both in absolute amounts and as a share of GDP, since Hitler still terrorized Europe. Some increase in deficits was inevitable given the recession, but to have deficits of nearly $1.3 trillion two years into a purported economic recovery simply hasn't happened in modern U.S. history. Yet President Obama fiercely resisted even the token spending cuts for fiscal 2011 pressed by House Republicans earlier this year.
The table also shows how close the federal budget was to balance as recently as fiscal 2007, with a deficit as low as $161 billion, or 1.2% of GDP. Those are the numbers to point to the next time someone says that the Bush tax rates are the main cause of our current fiscal woes.
Under those same tax rates in 2007, the government raised $2.57 trillion in revenue but it spent only $2.73 trillion. Four years later, the government raised $265 billion less thanks to the tepid recovery, but it spent nearly $900 billion more thanks to the never-ending Washington stimulus.
The lesson for Congress's super committee contemplating fiscal reform is that faster economic growth and spending restraint are the keys to reducing deficits. Higher taxes will hurt growth and feed a Washington spending appetite that is as voracious as ever, despite the claims of political sacrifice.
(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AO420_1defic_G_20111017194802.jpg)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637513885592874.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
They're completely out of control.
-
Bump for another Obama record.
-
And still they try to blame the GOP.
-
And still they try to blame the GOP.
It will be his campaign mantra.
-
This thread is oddly silent. Color me surprised. Don't worry, I'm going to keep bumping this.
The graph shows that Downgrade, Pelosi and co. are without a doubt the champions of spending.
-
And still they try to blame the GOP.
Hate to tell you this but no one is being fooled by any charts. There may be a trillion dollar deficit but most people know how it happenned and where it came from. ::)
-
Hate to tell you this but no one is being fooled by any charts. There may be a trillion dollar deficit but most people know how it happenned and where it came from. ::)
Stim bill, obamacare, bailouts, increased spending, increased entitlements, etc.
-
Stim bill, obamacare, bailouts, increased spending, increased entitlements, etc.
Bailout was before Obama took office. Stimulus Bill kept the country from going into another Great Depression...don't know what the hell you're talking about in entitlements.
One thing is clear. You'll be seeing Obama in the White House for another 4 years. The GOP has pretty much goofed up and tore themselves apart
-
Bailout was before Obama took office. Stimulus Bill kept the country from going into another Great Depression...don't know what the hell you're talking about in entitlements.
There's zero real evidence and in fact quite a mountain of factual data showing the stimulus has done more harm to the economy than it did help.
I'd tell you to go educate yourself but it would be akin convincing PJ Braun to go straight.
-
There's zero real evidence and in fact quite a mountain of factual data showing the stimulus has done more harm to the economy than it did help.
I'd tell you to go educate yourself but it would be akin convincing PJ Braun to go straight.
What did the country harm was giving the banks a blank check for 700 billion dollars. The Stimulus kept jobs and the industries running and more than half of it has been paid back unlike the 700 billion.
But when you have excessive spending for almost a decade, its going to take more than just 4 years to clean up the mess....and the last thing people are going to vote for is the party that caused it
-
What did the country harm was giving the banks a blank check for 700 billion dollars. The Stimulus kept jobs and the industries running and more than half of it has been paid back unlike the 700 billion.
But when you have excessive spending for almost a decade, its going to take more than just 4 years to clean up the mess....and the last thing people are going to vote for is the party that caused it
Again douche -
1. Obama supported TARP
2. Obama appointed the co-Author of TARP to be Tres Sec.
3. Obama appointed Goldman Sachs up and down the admn
4. Obama appointed Summers, Rubin, Kashmiri, Gentsler to his Admn.
5. Obama ramped up the AIG bailouts
6. Obama ramped up the Fannie Freddy bailouts
7. Obama ramped up the GM and Chrysler bailouts and put the UAW in ownership
8. Obama did nothing about TBTF, Glass Steagal, Derivatives, etc.
You want more moron?
-
He did everything a repub (not counting RP) would have done lets be honest
-
Again douche -
1. Obama supported TARP - was signed into law by George W Bush...nothing Obama could do to change or modify it.
2. Obama appointed the co-Author of TARP to be Tres Sec. - Read Number 2
3. Obama appointed Goldman Sachs up and down the admn - So what??? They had to work for some bank or investment firm to be qualified for money management. Pick your poison
4. Obama appointed Summers, Rubin, Kashmiri, Gentsler to his Admin. - So what???
5. Obama ramped up the AIG bailouts - AIG was part of the TARP problem - read number 1 again ::)
6. Obama ramped up the Fannie Freddy bailouts - They hold the majority of home mortgages, also part of TARP - read number 1 again and again.... ::)
7. Obama ramped up the GM and Chrysler bailouts and put the UAW in ownership - Part of TARP...how many times I have to tell you this???
8. Obama did nothing about TBTF, Glass Steagal, Derivatives, etc....wrong again. Obama proposed the reinactment of Glass Steagal and Dodd-Frank addresses fraudulent derivatives....but ultimately the world market controls business
I am a moron
Fixed..... ;D
-
Vince - that is why you are a typical 95er.
-
Vince - that is why you are a typical 95er.
You're just a complete moron to think that a 700+ billion dollar bailout to the banks could be paid off in a matter of 2 years.
The economic decline was caused by bad loans from the bank from allowing unqualified people to purchase homes and cars that they could not afford...however the deficit was caused by the Bush Administration that decided to pay for all of their mistakes with no questions asked and no stipulations for reimbursements whatsoever.
-
The economic decline was caused by bad loans from the bank from allowing unqualified people to purchase homes and cars that they could not afford..
Refresh my memory - why did the banks do this?
-
You're just a complete moron to think that a 700+ billion dollar bailout to the banks could be paid off in a matter of 2 years.
The economic decline was caused by bad loans from the bank from allowing unqualified people to purchase homes and cars that they could not afford...however the deficit was caused by the Bush Administration that decided to pay for all of their mistakes with no questions asked and no stipulations for reimbursements whatsoever.
LMFAO.
who forced those loans on the banks and why did the banks give them out?
-
You're just a complete moron to think that a 700+ billion dollar bailout to the banks could be paid off in a matter of 2 years.
The economic decline was caused by bad loans from the bank from allowing unqualified people to purchase homes and cars that they could not afford...however the deficit was caused by the Bush Administration that decided to pay for all of their mistakes with no questions asked and no stipulations for reimbursements whatsoever.
Everything economy is on Obamas head even the things that happened before he took office.
When a terrorist is killed though its because of the policies set by Bush.
LOL its hard to do things right for our prez
-
Everything economy is on Obamas head even the things that happened before he took office.
When a terrorist is killed though its because of the policies set by Bush.
LOL its hard to do things right for our prez
Obama supported every single policy that is the cause of our mess now.
Additionally - he opposed every single policy that has resulted in a "sucess" for him.
Let that sink in to your far leftist jumble of mush between your ears.
-
Again douche -
1. Obama supported TARP
2. Obama appointed the co-Author of TARP to be Tres Sec.
3. Obama appointed Goldman Sachs up and down the admn
4. Obama appointed Summers, Rubin, Kashmiri, Gentsler to his Admn.
5. Obama ramped up the AIG bailouts
6. Obama ramped up the Fannie Freddy bailouts
7. Obama ramped up the GM and Chrysler bailouts and put the UAW in ownership
8. Obama did nothing about TBTF, Glass Steagal, Derivatives, etc.
You can replace "Obama" with "Romney" and even "Cain".... pretty similar results.
-
You can replace "Obama" with "Romney" and even "Cain".... pretty similar results.
::) ::)
More projection and speculation to defend "Black Jesus"
-
Obama supported every single policy that is the cause of our mess now.
Additionally - he opposed every single policy that has resulted in a "sucess" for him.
Let that sink in to your far leftist jumble of mush between your ears.
Yes he did and so does EVERYONE in the GOP Ron Poul excluded and you suck their dick all the time so whats the problem?
-
Yes he did and so does EVERYONE in the GOP Ron Poul excluded and you suck their dick all the time so whats the problem?
I am A B O for 2012 since anyone would be better than what we hav e now.
-
Obama supported every single policy that is the cause of our mess now.
Additionally - he opposed every single policy that has resulted in a "sucess" for him.
Let that sink in to your far leftist jumble of mush between your ears.
Are you deaf and dumb???...TARP was already signed into law. Regardless as to who took office, they would have inherited that deficit and because it was signed with no stipulations to the banks, there's no way to recover those funds. Obama could have supported it or not supported it but it would not have made any difference... ::)
-
wait, obama wasn't the president treatening martial law unless TARP passed? golly.
-
Are you deaf and dumb???...TARP was already signed into law. Regardless as to who took office, they would have inherited that deficit and because it was signed with no stipulations to the banks, there's no way to recover those funds. Obama could have supported it or not supported it but it would not have made any difference... ::)
Hey idiot - obama flew in to DC to support TARP and was being backed by the bankers early in the campaign for him to get behind it.
Again - take off your 95er glasses for a second and wake up.
-
wait, obama wasn't the president treatening martial law unless TARP passed? golly.
::) ::)
I am convinced you dont even read what you type anymore. You just cobble a few words together and press "post" and see if it sticks.
-
More lies from Obama -
-
http://seekingalpha.com/article/301260-bank-of-america-dumps-75-trillion-in-derivatives-on-u-s-taxpayers-with-federal-approval
Its really about to blow.
-
Well, you just pointed out something....
Obama clearly stated that he did not want the banks to be written a blank check....unfortunately after it was voted on, that provision was removed.
-
::) ::)
Obama has a silly little habbit of saying one thing in public and doing the EXACT opposite in private in case you have not figured that out by now.
-
I like how right winger/Obama blamers conveniently forget that "Obama's" deficit includes all the debt payments accumulated by the prior administration. I like how they also conveniently forget that he took office at at time when federal tax revenue was plummeting (again thanks to previous admiministration) and that he was in a situation where he had to spend $$$'s to try to mitigate the financial disaster handed to him by the previous administration. It's also helpful to forget that Obama included the wars in the budget unlike the previous administration
Let's just forget all that and pretend Obama came into office with a budget surplus and with national debt actually being paid down and on track to be retired by 2010 (oh wait, that was the previous administration too)
-
I like how right winger/Obama blamers conveniently forget that "Obama's" deficit includes all the debt payments accumulated by the prior administration. I like how they also conveniently forget that he took office at at time when federal tax revenue was plummeting (again thanks to previous admiministration) and that he was in a situation where he had to spend $$$'s to try to mitigate the financial disaster handed to him by the previous administration. It's also helpful to forget that Obama included the wars in the budget unlike the previous administration
Let's just forget all that and pretend Obama came into office with a budget surplus and with national debt actually being paid down and on track to be retired by 2010 (oh wait, that was the previous administration too)
Obama’s and Bush’s real effects on the deficit in one graph
http://dailycaller.com/ ^ | July 30 2011 | By Steve McMillin
Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:49:40 PM by Para-Ord.45
Ezra Klein recently posted a New York Times graphic supporting his view that the deficit is primarily the fault of former President Bush and his predecessors, rather than President Obama. Interestingly, he makes no attempt to claim that Obama’s policies have reduced the deficit, just that Obama’s deficit increases were smaller than Bush’s.
Leave aside for a moment the fact that Bush’s entire eight-year record is being compared to policies enacted during Obama’s first two and a half years. The fundamental flaw in the New York Times graphic is that it assumes that a president’s fiscal policy is confined to “new” policies enacted under his watch. Every year, the president proposes a budget that contains a mix of new policies and old policies. The result is a comprehensive vision of what federal tax and spending policy ought to be. A president who simply continues the fiscal policy he inherits must bear his share of responsibility for its consequences.
A prime example of this is the “Bush tax cuts,” which the New York Times graphic charges solely to President Bush, conveniently ignoring the fact that President Obama supports making most of the cuts permanent and signed into law a two-year extension of all of them. President Bush also signed a new Medicare drug benefit into law. But President Obama didn’t repeal this new spending, he expanded it.
Below is a graphic that focuses on the results of fiscal policy, not simply on adjustments made on the margins of fiscal policy. If anything, the analysis is overly generous to President Obama because: (1) it assigns full responsibility for Fiscal Year 2009 to President Bush, despite the enactment by Obama of the stimulus, higher domestic appropriations and an expansion of TARP spending during that year; and (2) it gives Obama credit for the policies he intends to enact for the rest of his presidency, since we cannot judge his actual future record. The graphic compares the records of these two presidents based on the deficits, revenues and spending incurred by the federal government on their watch, expressed as a percentage of GDP.
The results show one surprise — thanks in part to the recession and tax stimulus measures which have temporarily lowered federal revenues, Bush and Obama tax policies yield virtually the same amount of revenues on average. But the real story is the comparison of spending. Obama’s policies result in historically high spending as a share of the economy, which in turn results in historically high deficits.
To President Obama’s credit, he has begun to embrace the need for a change in direction, though he was dragged there kicking and screaming by Republicans and continues to insist that significant spending cuts be linked to higher taxes. In contrast, Bush’s initiatives were opposed at every turn by congressional Democrats, who insisted on even higher spending.
-
Obama’s and Bush’s real effects on the deficit in one graph
http://dailycaller.com/ ^ | July 30 2011 | By Steve McMillin
Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:49:40 PM by Para-Ord.45
Ezra Klein recently posted a New York Times graphic supporting his view that the deficit is primarily the fault of former President Bush and his predecessors, rather than President Obama. Interestingly, he makes no attempt to claim that Obama’s policies have reduced the deficit, just that Obama’s deficit increases were smaller than Bush’s.
Leave aside for a moment the fact that Bush’s entire eight-year record is being compared to policies enacted during Obama’s first two and a half years. The fundamental flaw in the New York Times graphic is that it assumes that a president’s fiscal policy is confined to “new” policies enacted under his watch. Every year, the president proposes a budget that contains a mix of new policies and old policies. The result is a comprehensive vision of what federal tax and spending policy ought to be. A president who simply continues the fiscal policy he inherits must bear his share of responsibility for its consequences.
A prime example of this is the “Bush tax cuts,” which the New York Times graphic charges solely to President Bush, conveniently ignoring the fact that President Obama supports making most of the cuts permanent and signed into law a two-year extension of all of them. President Bush also signed a new Medicare drug benefit into law. But President Obama didn’t repeal this new spending, he expanded it.
Below is a graphic that focuses on the results of fiscal policy, not simply on adjustments made on the margins of fiscal policy. If anything, the analysis is overly generous to President Obama because: (1) it assigns full responsibility for Fiscal Year 2009 to President Bush, despite the enactment by Obama of the stimulus, higher domestic appropriations and an expansion of TARP spending during that year; and (2) it gives Obama credit for the policies he intends to enact for the rest of his presidency, since we cannot judge his actual future record. The graphic compares the records of these two presidents based on the deficits, revenues and spending incurred by the federal government on their watch, expressed as a percentage of GDP.
The results show one surprise — thanks in part to the recession and tax stimulus measures which have temporarily lowered federal revenues, Bush and Obama tax policies yield virtually the same amount of revenues on average. But the real story is the comparison of spending. Obama’s policies result in historically high spending as a share of the economy, which in turn results in historically high deficits.
To President Obama’s credit, he has begun to embrace the need for a change in direction, though he was dragged there kicking and screaming by Republicans and continues to insist that significant spending cuts be linked to higher taxes. In contrast, Bush’s initiatives were opposed at every turn by co ngressional Democrats, who insisted on even higher spending.
hey dumbass
how about a link to the actual story so I can see the graphs they are referring to in the story and judge for myself if it's even accurate
-
Saw you posted Ezra klein and just laughed my ass off. He is probably the dumbest most ill-informed dweeb of the leftist lot. No wonder you quoted his moronic ass.
-
Saw you posted Ezra klein and just laughed my ass off. He is probably the dumbest most ill-informed dweeb of the leftist lot. No wonder you quoted his moronic ass.
Klein runs circles around your retarded ass
and I'll take the Washington Post over a website started by Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel (former advisor to Dick Cheney)
-
Klein runs circles around your retarded ass
and I'll take the Washington Post over a website started by Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel (former advisor to Dick Cheney)
LMFAO!
Ezra klein has been wrong about nearly everything from Day 1!
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/ezra-klein-should-stick-to-being-wrong-about-health-care.html
-
I'd like to once again congratulate President Downgrade, Nancy Piglosi and Dingy Reidon another record set. 3 straight years of running $1+ trillion deficits with NOTHING to show for it! Congratulations! Incompetence like that only comes around once in a generation!
Congrats guys and gal, you've earned it!
P.S. Ezra Klein is laughably stupid individual and it's not the least bit surprising that another bright spot like Captain Keynesian Straw Man uses him as his go-to source.
-
LMFAO!
Ezra klein has been wrong about nearly everything from Day 1!
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/ezra-klein-should-stick-to-being-wrong-about-health-care.html
wow - a random blogger doesn't agree with Kleins review of a movie
good job counselor
thanks for taking time out of your busy day of searching for "confirmation" of a random photo to provide this valuable information
-
LMFAO!
Ezra klein has been wrong about nearly everything from Day 1!
lolzerrs..... i did a search on 333386+ezra.
you quote that dude as credible a lot when he bashes obama..
would paste, but why...
-
lolzerrs..... i did a search on 333386+ezra.
you quote that dude as credible a lot when he bashes obama..
would paste, but why...
I've yet to see Ezra Klein bash Obama. The only thing he criticizes him is for not being liberal enough. Much like our own Titans of Keynesianism, Straw Man and kcballer, Klein thinks we can spend to infinity and everything will be peachy.
-
lolzerrs..... i did a search on 333386+ezra.
you quote that dude as credible a lot when he bashes obama..
would paste, but why...
lol
-
I've yet to see Ezra Klein bash Obama. The only thing he criticizes him is for not being liberal enough. Much like our own Titans of Keynesianism, Straw Man and kcballer, Klein thinks we can spend to infinity and everything will be peachy.
don't forget the tea party
they are Keynesians too
I've given you quotes where there talk about how military spending stimulates the economy as a reason why it can't but cut
-
don't forget the tea party
they are Keynesians too
I've given you quotes where there talk about how military spending stimulates the economy as a reason why it can't but cut
Pay attention, sweetheart. *Snaps finger like one does to get a dog's attention*. You listening? Good. Read this next part slowly now, OK? This thread isn't about the Tea Party. It's about your Messiah, Barack Obama, setting a record by running $1+ trillion deficits for three years straight.
You argue that we can spend to infinity and fix the economy. Reasonable people say that we have a $15 trillion debt and $60-100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Anyway, we've seen what constitutes "Keynesian stimulus" with you leftists: payoffs to unions and political allies leading shitty investments in bankrupt companies (Hi, Solyndra!).
I have to say, though, that you name is perfectly fitting. You can't go five posts without building an argument around a straw man.
-
Pay attention, sweetheart. *Snaps finger like one does to get a dog's attention*. You listening? Good. Read this next part slowly now, OK? This thread isn't about the Tea Party. It's about your Messiah, Barack Obama, setting a record by running $1+ trillion deficits for three years straight.
You argue that we can spend to infinity and fix the economy. Reasonable people say that we have a $15 trillion debt and $60-100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Anyway, we've seen what constitutes "Keynesian stimulus" with you leftists: payoffs to unions and political allies leading shitty investments in bankrupt companies (Hi, Solyndra!).
I have to say, though, that you name is perfectly fitting. You can't go five posts without building an argument around a straw man.
Pay attention sonny
You brought up Keynes
All I did was point out a group that you left of your list
If you have a problem with it then stop responding to my posts
Also do some research on what a Straw Man argument actually is
-
Pay attention, sweetheart. *Snaps finger like one does to get a dog's attention*. You listening? Good. Read this next part slowly now, OK? This thread isn't about the Tea Party. It's about your Messiah, Barack Obama, setting a record by running $1+ trillion deficits for three years straight.
You argue that we can spend to infinity and fix the economy. Reasonable people say that we have a $15 trillion debt and $60-100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Anyway, we've seen what constitutes "Keynesian stimulus" with you leftists: payoffs to unions and political allies leading shitty investments in bankrupt companies (Hi, Solyndra!).
I have to say, though, that you name is perfectly fitting. You can't go five posts without building an argument around a straw man.
lol
It's funny how when it's the Tea Party, anybody and everybody is representative of the entire party. But when it's something they support like OWS - the wackos are "fringe" elements.
-
lol
It's funny how when it's the Tea Party, anybody and everybody is representative of the entire party. But when it's something they support like OWS - the wackos are "fringe" elements.
the right wing does this all the time
that's a core tactic of the right
how many times have right wingers on this site posted a video of the same idiot saying Obama is going to pay their mortgage ?
-
Well, that is turning out to be true no?
-
Well, that is turning out to be true no?
what is "that" ?
state your premise
-
lol
It's funny how when it's the Tea Party, anybody and everybody is representative of the entire party. But when it's something they support like OWS - the wackos are "fringe" elements.
anybody and everybody is representative?
you mean like when 333 finds some random picture of a drunk and proclaims it's representative of people who support Obama?
btw - the "anybody and everybody" I was referring to is an actual leader of the something called the Tea Party Nation.
That's a bit different from some random person.
Here's a quote from the guy himself
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/stimulus-thinking
If we decided to build a couple of new carriers, thousands of workers would be hired for the shipyards. Thousands of employees would be hired for the steel mills that would provide the steel for the hull and various sub contractors would hire thousands. Do you know what that means?
It means they would receive paychecks and go out and spend that money. That would help a recovery. That is a shovel ready project!
Increasing spending for the military does a couple of things. It not only not only stimulates the economy, it protects our nation. That is a better investment than say spending money on teaching Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly.
-
Congrats to President Downgrade, Nancy Piglosi and Dingy Reid for 3 straight years of record deficits with nothing positive to show for it. The incompetence is strong with this axis of evil!
-
We still don't even have a budget!
-
We still don't even have a budget!
Don't worry, it's all part of their plan. No budgets = carte blanche to spend us into prosperity. The 3 years of $1+ trillion deficits have worked wonders for the economy!
"WINNING THE FUTURE!"
-
anybody and everybody is representative?
you mean like when 333 finds some random picture of a drunk and proclaims it's representative of people who support Obama?
btw - the "anybody and everybody" I was referring to is an actual leader of the something called the Tea Party Nation.
That's a bit different from some random person.
Here's a quote from the guy himself
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/stimulus-thinking
Hardly, teaparty patriots are the ones typically associated. Tea party nation is a different animal and they seem to collude and divide at varying times.
Great arguments by the way:
33 does it.
Tea Party does it.
My uncle's cousin's nephew's father does it. ::)
-
Hardly, teaparty patriots are the ones typically associated. Tea party nation is a different animal and they seem to collude and divide at varying times.
Great arguments by the way:
33 does it.
Tea Party does it.
My uncle's cousin's nephew's father does it. ::)
does what?
BF loves calling people keynesians and I did nothing more than point out that he left the tea party off his list.
whether tea party nation is significantly different than some other faction doesn't really change the fact that I quoted a tea party leader and not just some random "anybody and everybody". If the individual tea party leaders dont actually speak for the party then who does?
-
does what?
BF loves calling people keynesians and I did nothing more than point out that he left the tea party off his list.
whether tea party nation is significantly different than some other faction doesn't really change the fact that I quoted a tea party leader and not just some random "anybody and everybody". If the individual tea party leaders dont actually speak for the party then who does?
As far as I know, nobody officially speaks for the Tea Party. It's a rag-tag conglomeration of much smaller groups, though you're not alone in trying to make the claim as most media does the same thing.
Alright, I'm declaring myself the leader of VA Tea Party in Williamsburg. Please reference me, my posts, my intellect, and my charm when looking to throw a thread off point.
Thanks,
-
As far as I know, nobody officially speaks for the Tea Party. It's a rag-tag conglomeration of much smaller groups, though you're not alone in trying to make the claim as most media does the same thing.
Alright, I'm declaring myself the leader of VA Tea Party in Williamsburg. Please reference me, my posts, my intellect, and my charm when looking to throw a thread off point.
Thanks,
the only "claim" that I made is that the tea party (ok - correction - a leader of a particular tea party group) seems to be a proponent of keynesian economic policy
-
As far as I know, nobody officially speaks for the Tea Party. It's a rag-tag conglomeration of much smaller groups, though you're not alone in trying to make the claim as most media does the same thing.
Alright, I'm declaring myself the leader of VA Tea Party in Williamsburg. Please reference me, my posts, my intellect, and my charm when looking to throw a thread off point.
Thanks,
;D
-
Refresh my memory - why did the banks do this?
loosened regulations allowed the banks and mortgage companies to give out loans to almost anyone without asking for income verification or collateral.....the banks and mortgage companies charged exorbitant fees every step of the way during the process...therefore the banks made money even on people who were not credit-worthy in the first place due to all the fees they were charging......the banks would also make money on the backend by foreclosing on those who they knew couldn't afford the mortgages and selling the homes..but then we went into a recession, the houses were worth less than their mortgages and the banks couldn't unload the houses because no one had money to buy them
this is it in a nutshell....there was a little more to it but I'm not an economist and economics is boring to explain....this is the gist of it
-
loosened regulations allowed the banks and mortgage companies to give out loans to almost anyone without asking for income verification or collateral.....the banks and mortgage companies charged exorbitant fees every step of the way during the process...therefore the banks made money even on people who were not credit-worthy in the first place due to all the fees they were charging......the banks would also make money on the backend by foreclosing on those who they knew couldn't afford the mortgages and selling the homes..but then we went into a recession, the houses were worth less than their mortgages and the banks couldn't unload the houses because no one had money to buy them
this is it in a nutshell....there was a little more to it but I'm not an economist and economics is boring to explain....this is the gist of it
In a nutshell? You left out the part where the federal govt., led by Bawney Fwank and Christopher Dodd, FORCED the banks to issue loans to these people in order to meet "racial quotas" and then they sat there and encouraged the banks wrapping up these mortgages into MBS with AAA ratings. Thanks to the Democratic bullshit with "everyone has the right to own a house".
Yes, they actually had racial quotas. They harassed a number of banks for not issuing enough loans to certain areas.
Bawney Fwank and Dodd should be in jail.
-
In a nutshell? You left out the part where the federal govt., led by Bawney Fwank and Christopher Dodd, FORCED the banks to issue loans to these people in order to meet "racial quotas" and then they sat there and encouraged the banks wrapping up these mortgages into MBS with AAA ratings. Thanks to the Democratic bullshit with "everyone has the right to own a house".
Yes, they actually had racial quotas. They harassed a number of banks for not issuing enough loans to certain areas.
Bawney Fwank and Dodd should be in jail.
well....I did say that regulations were loosened.....I didn't lie did I???...i just wasn't sure in what way and why the regs were relaxed so I didn't want to go there......but this argument about the banks giving loans to minoriites who didn't deserve it is partly true but you neglect to mention that a whole lot of whites got those loans as well....so "quotas" as you put it wasn't the reason for the housing collapse....
sorry :-\
-
well....I did say that regulations were loosened.....I didn't lie did I???...i just wasn't sure in what way and why the regs were relaxed so I didn't want to go there......but this argument about the banks giving loans to minoriites who didn't deserve it is partly true but you neglect to mention that a whole lot of whites got those loans as well....so "quotas" as you put it wasn't the reason for the housing collapse....
sorry :-\
Loosened as in shaking down perfectly stable banks and forcing them to take on more risk by lending to sub-prime candidates in order to fulfill racial quotas.
Racial quotas weren't the only quotas that they were forced to fill. They also were forced to loan to low-income areas, too. And yes, those low-income areas included poor whites.
-
Oh just wanted to add that people criticize Barney Frank for putting pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for giving loans to the poor...BUT....84% of the housing loans given out by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 2004 and 2009..WERE GIVEN TO WHITES....8% WERE GIVEN TO HISPANICS AND ONLY 5% WERE GIVEN TO BLACKS...so in no way was the failure of minorities to pay off their mortgages the cause of the housing crisis.....obviously there wasn't enough purchases by miniorities as a percentage of housing buys to cause a crisis of that scope
Also the law dictating that the banking industry was unfair to minorities in lending out mortgages in the past and forcing them to take corrective action, WAS PASSED IN 1977!!!!!...BARNEY FRANK WAS ONLY ENFORCING THE ALREADY EXISTING LAW WHEN HE LEANED ON BANKS TO LEND MORE MONEY TO THE POOR...up until then, banks were paying lip service to the law
I am no fan of Barney Frank,,,,,but lets put his involvement in perspective...
-
Not only that - these regulators knew the banks were bundling this crap and did nothing. This is where bush admn was almost criminally negligent from 2005 - 2007 in not slowing down the housing ,market or at least trying to get Greenspan and thers to stop fanning the flames of this crap.
-
Not only that - these regulators knew the banks were bundling this crap and did nothing. This is where bush admn was almost criminally negligent from 2005 - 2007 in not slowing down the housing ,market or at least trying to get Greenspan and thers to stop fanning the flames of this crap.
wow....amazing....you can really say something smart when you put your mind to it....I totally agree with you
-
wow....amazing....you can really say something smart when you put your mind to it....I totally agree with you
If you pay attention I have said from day one I thought GWB second term was a disaster other than Roberts and alito.
-
If you pay attention I have said from day one I thought GWB second term was a disaster other than Roberts and alito.
okay...got me there :)
-
Oh just wanted to add that people criticize Barney Frank for putting pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for giving loans to the poor...BUT....84% of the housing loans given out by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 2004 and 2009..WERE GIVEN TO WHITES....8% WERE GIVEN TO HISPANICS AND ONLY 5% WERE GIVEN TO BLACKS...so in no way was the failure of minorities to pay off their mortgages the cause of the housing crisis.....obviously there wasn't enough purchases by miniorities as a percentage of housing buys to cause a crisis of that scope
Also the law dictating that the banking industry was unfair to minorities in lending out mortgages in the past and forcing them to take corrective action, WAS PASSED IN 1977!!!!!...BARNEY FRANK WAS ONLY ENFORCING THE ALREADY EXISTING LAW WHEN HE LEANED ON BANKS TO LEND MORE MONEY TO THE POOR...up until then, banks were paying lip service to the law
I am no fan of Barney Frank,,,,,but lets put his involvement in perspective...
Who gives a fuck what the skin color was of the people the loans went to. They shouldn't have gone to them, period.
Bawney Fwank wasn't enforcing the law that was on the books. Bawney Fwank, Dodd, Clinton (followed by W) got it in their heads that every American should own a house and then went about making it happen.
-
okay...got me there :)
I actually resigned my RNC membership in 2005 after GWB squandered his political capital on amnesty for illegals in 2005.
I busted my ass in 2004 in Florida for him doing canvassing, voter fraud monitoring, etc, and he used his first reelection Capitol for that?
Fuck that!
-
Who gives a fuck what the skin color was of the people the loans went to. They shouldn't have gone to them, period.
Bawney Fwank wasn't enforcing the law that was on the books. Bawney Fwank, Dodd, Clinton (followed by W) got it in their heads that every American should own a house and then went about making it happen.
you are the one who brought up quotas so obviously YOU care what color they were.....I say its all the bank's fault in the end.....it is their own past discrimination in not giving out loans to minorities who deserved them which led to the gov't coming down on them thus forcing the banks to overreact and then give loans to the less qualified to try to stay in compliance with the law.....
also remember ..as I stated earlier the banks turned their overlending to their advantage by doing what 3333 stated...bundling....and overcharging on fees....so they knew they were going to make money anyway....and no one was looking over their shoulder since the gov't relaxed the regs
I don't have to tell you that when past injustice occurs, the result is often overcompensation and going overboard to write past wrongs......this was a classic case of that....
however I will concede that Clinton, Frank, Dodd, etc did have the mindset you mentioned in your post
-
you are the one who brought up quotas so obviously YOU care what color they were.....I say its all the bank's fault in the end.....it is their own past discrimination in not giving out loans to minorities who deserved them which led to the gov't coming down on them thus forcing the banks to overreact and then give loans to the less qualified to try to stay in compliance with the law.....
also remember ..as I stated earlier the banks turned their overlending to their advantage by doing what 3333 stated...bundling....and overcharging on fees....so they knew they were going to make money anyway....and no one was looking over their shoulder since the gov't relaxed the regs
I don't have to tell you that when past injustice occurs, the result is often overcompensation and going overboard to write past wrongs......this was a classic case of that....
however I will concede that Clinton, Frank, Dodd, etc did have the mindset you mentioned in your post
No, I don't care what the colors were; the government did. That's why they established racial and geographical quotas. ::)
-
they knew they were going to make money by the implicit govt backed guaranty of Fannie and Freddy so they took risky bets that they otherwise would never have done otherwise.
-
they knew they were going to make money by the implicit govt backed guaranty of Fannie and Freddy so they took risky bets that they otherwise would never have done otherwise.
Aided on by SEC regulators watching porn on their computers and the ratings agencies labeling the securities AAA.
-
No, I don't care what the colors were; the government did. That's why they established racial and geographics quotas. ::)
I didn't know about the quotas and I'm still not sure if you're right about it but I will concede your point since you don't have a history of making stuff up....I'll research it when I have the time :P
-
they knew they were going to make money by the implicit govt backed guaranty of Fannie and Freddy so they took risky bets that they otherwise would never have done otherwise.
agreed again...you're on a roll today! :)
-
I didn't know about the quotas and I'm still not sure if you're right about it but I will concede your point since you don't have a history of making stuff up....I'll research it when I have the time :P
There was a WSJ journal article discussing it a month or two ago when some Dems proposed repeating this all over again. I was looking for it but I can't find the link right now.
-
Aided on by SEC regulators watching porn on their computers and the ratings agencies labeling the securities AAA.
Agreed. this is where GWB Admn failed miserably. cox was a disaster and GWB appointing Bernake made matters worse.
-
Agreed. this is where GWB Admn failed miserably. cox was a disaster and GWB appointing Bernake made matters worse.
This is why I laugh at the "REGULATE MORE" crowd. What will more regulations accomplish when the SEC didn't enforce the first ones?
-
This is why I laugh at the "REGULATE MORE" crowd. What will more regulations accomplish when the SEC didn't enforce the first ones?
too many overlapping agencies, too many inexperienced , overmatched , unqualified people in SEC etc.
for fucks sake - Markopolos went to the SEc TWICE about madoff and they gave him a clea bill of health.
-
This is why I laugh at the "REGULATE MORE" crowd. What will more regulations accomplish when the SEC didn't enforce the first ones?
Exactly. Another big fuckup. Wouldn't surprise me if they passed a whole regulatory agency to regulate the regulators. Sometimes, it's just nuts.
-
This thread has brought us closer together, guys.
We need a group hug!
-
Exactly. Another big fuckup. Wouldn't surprise me if they passed a whole regulatory agency to regulate the regulators. Sometimes, it's just nuts.
No joke but I'm almost 100% sure this was proposed. I remember reading about it.
-
This thread has brought us closer together, guys.
We need a group hug!
:)