• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Old Timer

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
You need to see this, just in case you didn't read the EXCELLENT post on how the stimulus is "working"

:shock: :roll:
0825_investment-chart_398x293.jpg
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
And what would the graph look like without the TARP money and the Stimulus/Jobs bill :???:

As I told you for several years - and have said lately- the Bush Bust-- a once in a lifetime/100 years bust was not going to be fixed in just a few months- probably not for a few years.....Many will never recover from the wrack of his carnage in their lifetimes....
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
And what would the graph look like without the TARP money and the Stimulus/Jobs bill :???:

As I told you for several years - and have said lately- the Bush Bust-- a once in a lifetime/100 years bust was not going to be fixed in just a few months- probably not for a few years.....Many will never recover from the wrack of his carnage in their lifetimes....

The Bush Bust as you called was started under the Democrats IE President Clinton and allowed to fester by the Democrats IE them refusing to see the problem and do something about it after they were warned. Geez wake up. :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
1977 - Democratic President Jimmy Carter Passes "Community Reinvestment Act," or CRA, designed to encourage banks to reach out to low income communities by offering loans to minorities and the poor.

1994 under the CRA The Law firm Obama was working for Buycks-Roberson sued Citibank forcing them in the settlement to make even more risky loans than they were already. Obama's name was on the court documents as one of the lawyers filing against Citibank.

1995 - Democratic President Bill Clinton revises CRA by making banks meet a quota for a certain number of low income loans. He also increases punishment for banks that dont loan enough money to low income borrowers. This forces banks to write lots of loans that they would not otherwise have written, because the government is forcing them to.

1999 - Democratic President Bill Clinton signs and endorses the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act," or GLBA, designed to make banks profitable in good economic times, as well as poor economic times. The bill allows consumer banks (think checking accounts, savings accounts, etc..) to merge with insurance companies and investment companies, so they all can make money. BUT for a bank to qualify to be a part of the program, you had to have a high CRA score, meaning that you had to have a lot of loans written to low income people. The government was effectively telling banks that if they wanted to be allowed to make money off of the investments of the rich, that they had to also be lending money to the poor.

Taken from a New York Times Article from

Sept 1999 Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.--------In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

Bush tried to regulate Fanny and Freddy but this happened

September 11, 2003– The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago-------Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

On May 25, 2006 John McCain said this For Years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs— and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

Democrats blocked both attempts to reform Fannie Mae.

Fall of 2007 Fanny and Freddy failed and took down the big banks with them IE Bush Bailed them out, something that the New York Times a very Liberal Bias Newspaper predicted would happen in 1999 when Clinton put pressure on the Fanny.

Try deny any of these facts Oldtimer.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Since you like the NY Times- read this article...Pretty good history of GW's involvement...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=3
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
And what would the graph look like without the TARP money and the Stimulus/Jobs bill :???:

As I told you for several years - and have said lately- the Bush Bust-- a once in a lifetime/100 years bust was not going to be fixed in just a few months- probably not for a few years.....Many will never recover from the wrack of his carnage in their lifetimes....

At no time since tarp and porkulus has the graph wiggled up. The stimulus was nothing but a giant rip off....where are the jobs ???? Where is the 8% max. unemployment rate?? OT you may be old but you aint' this friggin blind or stupid
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Since you like the NY Times- read this article...Pretty good history of GW's involvement...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=3


I remember reading this before and I also remember saying that the New York Times needs to look in their own archives and read what they themselves wrote in Sept 1999. to see who was responsible.

That said let us get back to the facts I posted Oldtimer. Do you deny that these things happened?

Did Carter pass CRA?
Did Obama sues Citibank under CRA?
Did Clinton sign GLBA that deregulated the banks?
Did Clinton encourage by pressure banks into Low income loans?
Was Clinton warned that the economy would suffer?
Did Bush warn the Democrats and try to regulate Fanny and Freddy?
Did McCain Warn the Democrats and try to rein in Fanny and Freddy?
Did Frank stand in the way by claiming there was no problems?

Did these things not result in the house mortgage crisis that brought down the banks and US economy?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Tam said:
1977 - Democratic President Jimmy Carter Passes "Community Reinvestment Act," or CRA, designed to encourage banks to reach out to low income communities by offering loans to minorities and the poor.

1994 under the CRA The Law firm Obama was working for Buycks-Roberson sued Citibank forcing them in the settlement to make even more risky loans than they were already. Obama's name was on the court documents as one of the lawyers filing against Citibank.

1995 - Democratic President Bill Clinton revises CRA by making banks meet a quota for a certain number of low income loans. He also increases punishment for banks that dont loan enough money to low income borrowers. This forces banks to write lots of loans that they would not otherwise have written, because the government is forcing them to.

1999 - Democratic President Bill Clinton signs and endorses the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act," or GLBA, designed to make banks profitable in good economic times, as well as poor economic times. The bill allows consumer banks (think checking accounts, savings accounts, etc..) to merge with insurance companies and investment companies, so they all can make money. BUT for a bank to qualify to be a part of the program, you had to have a high CRA score, meaning that you had to have a lot of loans written to low income people. The government was effectively telling banks that if they wanted to be allowed to make money off of the investments of the rich, that they had to also be lending money to the poor.

Taken from a New York Times Article from

Sept 1999 Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.--------In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

Bush tried to regulate Fanny and Freddy but this happened

September 11, 2003– The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago-------Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

On May 25, 2006 John McCain said this For Years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs— and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

Democrats blocked both attempts to reform Fannie Mae.

Fall of 2007 Fanny and Freddy failed and took down the big banks with them IE Bush Bailed them out, something that the New York Times a very Liberal Bias Newspaper predicted would happen in 1999 when Clinton put pressure on the Fanny.

Try deny any of these facts Oldtimer.

Poor Poor Republican majority comes to mind, especially when looking at your September 2003 post above.
Are you trying to say that President Bush was powerless from 2003 until the end of his term to get anything done??? What about the veto power he had??? Why not go to the American people, seems like Obama has lately! Geesh And I say all this having little admiration for either party or politicians in general especially the ones that are lawyers.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
TSR where have you been ?? Seems like ages since you posted anything. But......yes Obama has gone to the people more for "personal appearances and campaigning. But apparently the one thing he still refuses to do along with many congressmen is "listen to the people".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TexasBred said:
Oldtimer said:
And what would the graph look like without the TARP money and the Stimulus/Jobs bill :???:

As I told you for several years - and have said lately- the Bush Bust-- a once in a lifetime/100 years bust was not going to be fixed in just a few months- probably not for a few years.....Many will never recover from the wrack of his carnage in their lifetimes....

At no time since tarp and porkulus has the graph wiggled up. The stimulus was nothing but a giant rip off....where are the jobs ???? Where is the 8% max. unemployment rate?? OT you may be old but you aint' this friggin blind or stupid

You still didn't answer my question...

And what would the graph look like without the TARP money and the Stimulus/Jobs bill :???:
What would have happened if no money were moving- and no one had been able to sell their calves last fall- or get operating loans for this year :???: How many of those people/state and local governments would have had capital to go ahead with improvements or building :???: How many more people would be out of work without the stimulus money :???:

The thing I can't believe is that some of you actually want to suggest that 8-10 years of rape and pillage by the financial/investment industry should be able to be fixed in 6 months :roll:

Whats amazing is that whatever cult you follow- you seem to forget that Repubs were in control of Congress 12 of the last 14 years - and 6 of those in which GW ruled....

I have a hard time putting the blame for the Bush Bust on the Dem controlled Congress that didn't take control until 2007--when the recession was already well starting to grip the country- and already speeding into the Bush Bust....

I see where Obama appointed Bernanke to head the Fed again...

I had a chance the other day to hear an interesting forum representing labor, the financial sector, and the consumers involving the Bush Bust...
One of the questions asked was if Obama should reappoint Bernanke- and all were pretty much in favor of it...

As a former CEO of Goldman Sachs explained when asked what had caused the Bust-- Bernanke kind of came in after the barn door had been left open and all the cows escaped...He put all the blame on Greenspan and Bush- and said Bernankes only fault was he didn't find the cows gone soon enough or do enough to get the doors closed and bring them back early enough....

He compared Greenspans actions during the 90's and early 2000's to get Congress to do away with many of the regulations that would have prevented the Bust as the same as to dropping all the speeding laws on the highways and streets of the country-- then along came Bush and said as long as we have no speed limits--don't enforce any of the traffic laws....So his regulators did nothing- no oversight- no enforcement...

And while many banking folks still handled themselves in a responsible manner- the same as many drivers would if the speed laws were dropped-- you had those that took reckless risks with their breakneck speed to greed- and since so many of these corporates are now interwined and so big (too big to fail)- it sucked in the whole financial community and caused a major world wide crash....
He favored bringing back some of the Glass Steagall Act regulation- and putting more regulation on the financial institutions- but thought the main problem could be fixed by some strong anti trust enforcement and breakup of these "too big to fails"- and monopoly industry conglomerates...
To me that is one of the major things that could improve Agriculture too...

I believe in corporations. They are indispensable instruments of our modern civilization; but I believe that they should be so supervised and so regulated that they shall act for the interest of the community as a whole.
~Theodore Roosevelt

Where is old Teddy when we need him :???:

I hope one thing Presidents learn from this is that they should never again have a Chairman of the Fed that serves 20 years like Greenspan who was appointed by Reagan, GHW, Clinton, and GW ...
 

Tam

Well-known member
TSR said:
Poor Poor Republican majority comes to mind, especially when looking at your September 2003 post above.
Are you trying to say that President Bush was powerless from 2003 until the end of his term to get anything done??? What about the veto power he had??? Why not go to the American people, seems like Obama has lately! Geesh And I say all this having little admiration for either party or politicians in general especially the ones that are lawyers.

TSR you say the Republicans had a majority government Can you please provide the make up of the House and Senate in 2003 when Bush asked to put regulations on Fanny and Freddy? Was it a filibuster proof Senate where they could do what ever they want with out support of at least some Dems?

And wasn't it Obama that told the people that oppose his Health Care bill to shut up and leave him to fix the problems. Wasn't it Obama that told his followers to get in the faces of anyone that opposes him? Is that the way you think a President of the US should act. I think if you look at his tanking poll number you will see Obama is not going to the people he is going to his radical left wing supporters and telling everyone else where they can go.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
TSR said:
Tam said:
1977 - Democratic President Jimmy Carter Passes "Community Reinvestment Act," or CRA, designed to encourage banks to reach out to low income communities by offering loans to minorities and the poor.

1994 under the CRA The Law firm Obama was working for Buycks-Roberson sued Citibank forcing them in the settlement to make even more risky loans than they were already. Obama's name was on the court documents as one of the lawyers filing against Citibank.

1995 - Democratic President Bill Clinton revises CRA by making banks meet a quota for a certain number of low income loans. He also increases punishment for banks that dont loan enough money to low income borrowers. This forces banks to write lots of loans that they would not otherwise have written, because the government is forcing them to.

1999 - Democratic President Bill Clinton signs and endorses the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act," or GLBA, designed to make banks profitable in good economic times, as well as poor economic times. The bill allows consumer banks (think checking accounts, savings accounts, etc..) to merge with insurance companies and investment companies, so they all can make money. BUT for a bank to qualify to be a part of the program, you had to have a high CRA score, meaning that you had to have a lot of loans written to low income people. The government was effectively telling banks that if they wanted to be allowed to make money off of the investments of the rich, that they had to also be lending money to the poor.

Taken from a New York Times Article from

Sept 1999 Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.--------In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

Bush tried to regulate Fanny and Freddy but this happened

September 11, 2003– The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago-------Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

On May 25, 2006 John McCain said this For Years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs— and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

Democrats blocked both attempts to reform Fannie Mae.

Fall of 2007 Fanny and Freddy failed and took down the big banks with them IE Bush Bailed them out, something that the New York Times a very Liberal Bias Newspaper predicted would happen in 1999 when Clinton put pressure on the Fanny.

Try deny any of these facts Oldtimer.

Poor Poor Republican majority comes to mind, especially when looking at your September 2003 post above.
Are you trying to say that President Bush was powerless from 2003 until the end of his term to get anything done??? What about the veto power he had??? Why not go to the American people, seems like Obama has lately! Geesh And I say all this having little admiration for either party or politicians in general especially the ones that are lawyers.

Please point out what legislation Bush should have vetoed that would have stopped this recession? Just because a party has the majority does not mean they can get whatever they want! The Democrats now have a filibuster proof congress and they can not get Health care through even with their super majority.

Things are not always as simple as you guys make it that quote who was president and who was in charge of congress.

But now things are that simple Democrats control everything and control it in super majority that means it is filibuster proof. The Democrats have total and unchecked power and look what they are doing with it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thought this might be of interest to the forum.


Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act


Act of Congress: Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (1985)

> Library > History, Politics & Society > Acts of CongressThe Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (P.L. 99-177, 99 Stat. 1038) is popularly known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act after the names of its principal sponsors, and was designed to reduce the federal budget deficit. The law did so primarily by setting seemingly rigid deficit limits and authorizing mandatory, across-the-board spending reductions to reach them. Although the Supreme Court ruled that a key part of this mechanism was unconstitutional, the basic concepts embodied in the statute have continued to influence the process for adopting the federal budget.

Background and Major Provisions

Although the Constitution does not mandate a balanced budget, it does require Congress to approve all federal expenditures (Article I, section 9, clause 7), and it empowers the federal government to raise revenue through taxes, tariffs, and other measures (Article I, section 8, clause 1). The latter provision also authorizes the government to incur and pay debts. Congress has passed legislation establishing procedures for adopting the federal budget (e.g., the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act) and for handling the national debt (e.g., the Public Debt Act).

The government regularly ran a budget deficit in the years following World War II, but the situation became especially serious in the early 1980s. Between 1981 and 1985 the annual budget deficit nearly quadrupled, and it threatened to remain at high levels indefinitely. Further, if nothing were done, the total national debt would have more than doubled between 1985 and 1990. The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act was adopted in the fall of 1985 in connection with a measure that raised the national debt ceiling.

The law's most important feature was a schedule for reducing the federal budget deficit to zero by 1991. It fixed a maximum allowable deficit for each fiscal year. If Congress and the president failed to adopt a budget that met the target, the law called for across-the-board spending reductions in most federal programs. Responsibility for determining whether the budget satisfied this requirement was given to the comptroller general, who is the head of the General Accounting Office (an agency that does research and investigations at the behest of Congress). The comptroller also had the authority to order the across-the-board spending cuts needed to lower the deficit to the required level.

Legal Challenge

Opponents of this law immediately challenged its constitutionality. In Bowsher v. Synar (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that the comptroller general could not exercise the authority given to that official under the act. This decision left the rest of the statute intact.

The Court explained that the task of implementing a law passed by Congress is an executive function, and that the Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 1) gives the executive power to the president. Of course, the president cannot personally execute all the laws passed by the legislative branch. Therefore, the chief executive must have the assistance of agents who are subject to presidential supervision and dismissal to assure their loyalty and efficiency. The comptroller general, in the Court's view, was not accountable to the president. Instead, this official was legally subservient to Congress. Allowing an official who is accountable to the legislature rather than to the president to execute the law violated the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution.

What made the comptroller general subservient to Congress? It was, the Court explained, the procedure for firing that official. The president could not dismiss the comptroller for any reason. Congress alone was in charge of the process for removing the comptroller. It could initiate removal proceedings and could even dismiss the comptroller over the president's objection.

The ability to discharge executive agents has long been regarded as a crucial component of presidential power. This issue lay at the heart of the controversy over the discredited Tenure of Office Act (1867), which required the president to obtain the Senate's approval to discharge a cabinet member. (President Andrew Johnson's defiance of that law was the primary basis for his impeachment.)

The comptroller was subservient to Congress, the Court reasoned, even though the legislative branch had never threatened to remove anyone from that office for any reason. All that mattered was that the comptroller had no reason to fear the president but every reason to fear Congress in order to stay out of trouble and remain on the job. The comptroller could continue to perform other duties on behalf of Congress but could not play any role in executing or enforcing federal statutes.

Aftermath

The Supreme Court's ruling did not address two other problems with the statute. First, the law addressed only the projected deficit at the beginning of each fiscal year, not the actual deficit at the end of the year. Second, the law did not require that the projected deficit be based on realistic assumptions about inflation and economic growth or on standard accounting principles.

In response to the Court's decision, Congress amended the statute to give primary responsibility for implementation to the Office of Management and Budget, an executive branch agency, with advisory input from the Congressional Budget Office. In 1987 Congress revised the deficit targets, extended the deadline for eliminating the budget deficit, and changed the procedures for enacting the federal budget. Subsequent laws have altered the focus from the overall deficit to spending caps and other mechanisms designed to limit the growth of discretionary expenditures.

Meanwhile, Congress and the president have managed to avoid the across-the-board spending cuts authorized by the original Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. Only in late 1990 were such cuts ordered, but they were repealed in early 1991 after Congress and President George H.W. Bush reached agreement on a budget that complied with the deficit limit for that year. At the same time, the federal budget deficit was eliminated during the second administration of President William J. Clinton. That happened because of improvements in the national economy, however, not because of the threat of automatic spending cuts. The deficit's elimination was short-lived, as it recurred as a result of spending and tax policies during the administration of President George W. Bush.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
OT, "And what would the graph look like without the TARP money and the Stimulus/Jobs bill"

OT, please, don't be telling us that bill was for stimulus and jobs.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
OT we were all still investing under Dubya. Investor confidence is down the tubes under Obama. Everyone started dumping stocks when he and Pelosi started running their mouths.

Look at the chart.

Consumer confidence isn't good either. Consumers were indeed over spending under Dubya. I'll give you that.

The stimulus only puts more scare into everyone.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
backhoeboogie said:
OT we were all still investing under Dubya. Investor confidence is down the tubes under Obama. Everyone started dumping stocks when he and Pelosi started running their mouths.

Look at the chart.

Consumer confidence isn't good either. Consumers were indeed over spending under Dubya. I'll give you that.

The stimulus only puts more scare into everyone.

Well Dubya could only lie to the people for so long...He tried to sneak by with his "the fundamentals of the economy are strong"--but folks aren't that dumb-- and some had saw for years that he was bankrupting the country...
Remember- I TOLD YOU SO!! :wink: :p :p :lol:

Stocks and confidence isn't going to be strong for sometime...Stocks are actually more bullish than I would have guessed- back up to October numbers when Wall Street was tumbling around GW as he still tried to figure out how to say the word "recession" :roll: ....

And its becoming apparent now that the Bush Bust even runs deeper than thought--with another 500 smaller banks predicted to fail because of their previous playing around with the Big Boy crooks of the investor world....
 
Top