114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2010 06:59 pm
since this info concerns the economy, I am posting the link to a thread that maporcshe started.

I find it interesting that the Obama admin now seems to be changing the rules just to cover their own asses.

http://able2know.org/topic/140250-1





ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2010 07:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, Your one-dimensional stats doesn't really prove anything, except for the fact that you don't understand numbers in its entirety. That's probably how you fly airplanes - but thank goodness for GPS instruments.

Your reaction to MY TWO DIMENSIONS OF NUMBERS shows you don't understand numbers in THEIR entirety. That's probably how you DRIVE VEHICLES ON THE GROUND!
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2010 08:08 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

I find it interesting that the Obama admin now seems to be changing the rules just to cover their own asses.


"Interesting" is one way to say it; probably the PC way.

I prefer to call it "lying," which it really is.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 12:27 pm
@maporsche,
Barack Obama loaned big money to the Big Banks and the Big Banks have paid it back with interest. Now Obama is criticizing the Big Banks for the bonuses the Big Banks have rewarded their managements as a result.

Obama forced the Big Banks to give very low interest loans to people, and then bailed the Big Banks out with government loans. Now that the Big Banks have paid back those government loans with interest, Obama is criticizing the Big Banks for accomplishing what Obama repeatedly said he wanted them to accomplish. That's the approach recommended by Saul Alinski for enabling government to take over the private economy.

Saul Alinski was/is Barack Obama’s mentor:
Quote:

http://www.nea.org/tools/17231.htm
Saul Alinsky wrote the book on American radicalism - two books, in fact: a 1945 best-seller, "Reveille for Radicals" and "Rules for Radicals" in 1971. The "Reveille" title page quotes Thomas Paine... "Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul."

Saul Alinsky spends a lot of time critiquing the idea that "The end does not justify the means." What end? What means? He feels that there are circumstances where one can and should use means that in other circumstances would be unethical.

An inspiration to anyone contemplating action in their community! And to every organizer!

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organizing
1940 to 1960
Saul Alinsky, based in Chicago, is credited with originating the term community organizer during this time period. Alinsky wrote Reveille for Radicals, published in 1946, and Rules for Radicals, published in 1971. With these books, Alinsky was the first person in America to codify key strategies and aims of community organizing. He also founded the first national community organizing training network, the Industrial Areas Foundation, now led by one of his former lieutenants, Edward Chambers.[14]

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 12:35 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

Obama forced the Big Banks to give very low interest loans to people


Attribution for this? To the best of my knowledge, Obama did not force the 'big banks' to give low-interest loans to people.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 01:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
ican understands very little about economics and the realities of why our country got into the great recession. All he knows how to do is cut and paste numbers without understanding why those numbers by themselves mean absolutely nothing.

He doesn't even understand that presidents do not establish interest rates.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 02:11 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, Obama did not force the 'big banks' to give low-interest loans to people.

Sorry, I should have said Obama enticed the Big Banks to give low-interest loans to people by his failure to advocate that Fannie, Freddie, TARP, and Stimulus be curtailed.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 02:14 pm
@cicerone imposter,
If Bush is responsible for initiating and/or allowing this depression, then Obama is responsible for amplifying and/or allowing the amplification of this depression.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 02:27 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, Obama did not force the 'big banks' to give low-interest loans to people.

Sorry, I should have said Obama enticed the Big Banks to give low-interest loans to people by his failure to advocate that Fannie, Freddie, TARP, and Stimulus be curtailed.


Obama had nothing to do with these decisions; he wasn't even in Federal office when the vast majority of these decisions were made.

The Stim package and the TARP program did nothing whatsoever to entice 'low-interest' loans to be given to people; what more, there is no evidence that banks HAVE been giving low-interest loans to people based on these programs. You are making nonsensical statements.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 04:08 pm
@ican711nm,
You know nothing; Obama didn't "amplify" this great recession.

Show us how he "amplified" this great recession? Use English words and your own "opinion" with credible sources that supports your position.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 05:13 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
ican posted: If Bush is responsible for initiating and/or allowing this depression, then Obama is responsible for amplifying and/or allowing the amplification of this depression.

Cycloptichorn posted: Obama had nothing to do with these decisions; he wasn't even in Federal office when the vast majority of these decisions were made.

ican is reposting: Obama is responsible for amplifying and/or allowing the amplification of this depression.

As I have previously posted:
(1) Obama failed to CORRECT fannie and freddie;
(2) Obama failed to RESCIND TARP;
(3) Obama SIGNED Stimulus;
(4) Obama's decisions enticed the Big Banks into making bad low interest loans.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 05:17 pm
@ican711nm,
There was no reason for Obama to rescind the TARP program, and in fact, it has been mostly repaid by the banks in question; in retrospect, it has worked out pretty well.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 05:18 pm
Good evening. Moving right along...
How do yall feel about the $100bn fee that President Obama is proposing be levied on some banks?

As I understand it, as part of the TARP rescue deal passed during the Bush administration, the President would be required to submit a plan to Congress to recover the government's investment in TARP ($700bn).
Mr Obama's proposal calls for a levy of .15% of the liabilities (read- deposits) of banks worth $50bn or more, regardless of whether those banks had received TARP money or not and regardless of whether banks that received assistance have paid the money back. Some 50 banks may have to pay the fee (totaling $90bn to $120bn depending on your source) over 10 years.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 05:21 pm
@ican711nm,
ican wrote:
Quote:
(1) Obama failed to CORRECT fannie and freddie;

Failed to correct? ROFLMAO. Can you agree that GWBush was responsible for fannie and freddie? It was during his watch, wasn't it?


ican wrote:
Quote:
(2) Obama failed to RESCIND TARP;

You still don't understand how our government works; the first TARP was approved by Bush. How does a subsequent president "rescind" legislation that was already acted upon?

ican wrote:
Quote:
(3) Obama SIGNED Stimulus.

Yes, so he "signed" the stimulus bill. What of it? He is the president, and it's not acted upon until the president signs the legislation. When it will take effect is based on how the government meets the bill's mandates. As for the stimulus bill, not all of the monies have been distributed or spent.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 05:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Bush's errors started the depression.

Obama's errors amplified Bush's errors and made an additional error.

Bush's errors:
(1) failed to correct Fannie;
(2) failed to correct Freddie;
(3) Signed TARP.

Obama's errors:
(1) failed to correct Fannie;
(2) failed to correct Freddie;
(3) failed to rescind TARP;
(4) Signed Stimulus.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 05:31 pm
@ican711nm,
You don't seem to understand that nothing Obama could have done to Fannie or Freddie once he became president would change ANYTHING that's happening today, at all. Seriously.

You really just kind of throw stuff out there, general complaints with zero info to back them up, yaknow?

Cycloptichorn
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 06:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Fannie and Freddie were created prior to Bush's elections.
Bush did not cause Fannie and Freddie to make bad, low interest loans.
Fannie and Freddie made bad, low interest loans because it was designed by prior administrations to do that.
Bush failed to convince Congress to correct Fannie and Freddie.
Any program Congress passes can be subsequehtly rescinded if Congress votes for a bill to rescind it and the President signs that bill to rescind it.

If Obama had not signed Stimulus, then no Stimulus funds would have been spent.
If no Stimulus funds had been spent, then Stimulus would not have decreased federal tax revenue and/or increased federal debt.
If federal tax revenue had not been decreased and/or federal debt had not been increased by Stimulus, then the feds would have had more funds to spend on aiding private buying from the private economy.
If the feds would have had more funds to spend on aiding private buying from the private economy, then fewer jobs would have been lost.
If Obama had corrected Bush's errors, then fewer jobs would have been lost.
If fewer jobs had been lost then the depression would have not been as severe.
If the depression had not been as severe, then it could have been only a recession.
If the depression had been reduced to a recession, then the US economy would have sooner again begun increasing total USA employment.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 06:10 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Fannie and Freddie were created prior to Bush's elections.
Bush did not cause Fannie and Freddie to make bad, low interest loans.
Fannie and Freddie made bad, low interest loans because it was designed by prior administrations to do that.


Wow, you are so ******* ignorant, Ican. You have no real understanding of how the mortgage system works in this country.
Quote:

Bush failed to convince Congress to correct Fannie and Freddie.


Bush didn't attempt to do this at all. He may have made some small noises, but there was no push whatsoever to do this by Bush OR the Republicans who controlled Congress. You always leave them off the of the list of people to blame.

Quote:
Any program Congress passes can be subsequehtly rescinded if Congress votes for a bill to rescind it and the President signs that bill to rescind it.

If Obama had not signed Stimulus, then no Stimulus funds would have been spent.


And our nation would have slid straight into a much worse depression than right now, and you would be attacking Obama from the other direction.

Quote:
If no Stimulus funds had been spent, then Stimulus would not have decreased federal tax revenue and/or increased federal debt.
If federal tax revenue had not been decreased and/or federal debt had not been increased by Stimulus, then the feds would have had more funds to spend on aiding private buying from the private economy.


This is just ridiculous. Where do you think those 'stimulus funds' are being spent? On the Government buying things from the private economy, in large part. The other part was tax cuts, something that you continually support. You are tying yourself in knots here.

Quote:
If the feds would have had more funds to spend on aiding private buying from the private economy, then fewer jobs would have been lost.
If Obama had corrected Bush's errors, then fewer jobs would have been lost.


WRONG on both counts, you have zero evidence to support this.

Quote:
If fewer jobs had been lost then the depression would have not been as severe.
If the depression had not been as severe, then it could have been only a recession.
If the depression had been reduced to a recession, then the US economy would have sooner again begun increasing total USA employment.


First, there is no Depression. You are mis-using the term.

Second; if we had some pizza, we could have pizza and beer! If we had beer.

You forgot to add the line: 'If Bush and the Republican party had not been anti-regulation for years, none of this would have happened, period.' You show no real understanding whatsoever of who the true culprits were in the financial crisis; it was banks and companies like AIG who knowingly made bad deals while profiting handsomely, and those who chose not to regulate the markets.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 06:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You don't seem to understand that nothing Obama could have done to Fannie or Freddie once he became president would change ANYTHING that's happening today, at all. Seriously.

You don't seem to understand that Obama could have convinced the Democrat majority in both houses of Congress to change Fannie or Freddie bad loan policies, once he became president.

Bush might have done the same, if he had had a Republican majority in both houses of Congress in the last two years of his administration..

HISTORY OF THE DECLINE OF THE USA’s FINANCE INDUSTRY

Quote:
1977
President Carter signs into law CRA (i.e., Community Investment Act) Carter.
Mandates banks invest in poor urban areas.

1991
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act is expanded to compares rejection rates by race.

1995
Clinton changes CRA to require banks provide mortgages to their poorer communities.

1998
Janet Reno declares that since inception of 1992 fair lending initiative, Justice Department has filed 13 major fair lending lawsuits.

2001
*04/…."Bush declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a potential large financial problem because financial trouble of a large "GSE (i.e., Government Sponsored Enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets."

2003
*01/22"Freddie Mac announces it must restate financial results for the previous 3 years due to earnings report errors.
*06/11"Freddie Mac is the subject of federal securities and criminal investigations.
*09/11"New York Times says, "Bush recommends the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
*09/25--Barney Frank responds, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country … I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists."
*10/29"Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

2004
*06/16"Samuel Bodman, Deputy Secretary of Treasury, repeats Bush Administration call "for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.
*10/06"Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO, testifies before the House Financial Services Committee, "assets are so riskless that the capital for holding them should be under two percent. "

2006
*04/18"Freddie Mac pays a record $3.8 million Federal Election Commission fine.
*05/23"Fannie Mae’s regulator announces that Fannie Mae has for years overstated reported income and capital by $10.6 billion.
*05/25"Senator John McCain calls for GSE regulatory reform legislation, warning: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole.”
*11/07"Democrats win majorities in both houses of Congress. The U.S. economy is growing at about 3 percent, unemployment is at 4.5 percent, and inflation under 2 percent.

2007
*06/23"Two Bear Sterns hedge fund groups collapse due to their mortgage investments.
*08/09" President Bush requests Congress pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*12/06" President Bush warns Congress of need to pass legislation reforming GSEs.

2008
*03/14"J.P. Morgan and the Federal Reserve recognize extent of Bear’s toxic assets, including sub-prime mortgages, and credit default swaps, and interconnection with other banks.
*03/14"At Economic Club of New York, President Bush requests Congress take action and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*04/14"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/03"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/19"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/31"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*06/06"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*07/11"Senator Chris Dodd says: "There’s sort of a panic going on today, and that’s not what ought to be. The facts don’t warrant that reaction, in my opinion … Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were never bottom feeders in the residential mortgage market. People ought to feel comfortable about that. "
*07/13"Treasury Secretary Paulson asks Congress to grant him authority to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*09/07"Paulson takes over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and offers them $200 billion, despite the fact their government credit line had been limited to $25 billion.
*09/15"Lehman Brothers officially collapses, the government does not intervene, and panic occurs, triggering a big Dow decline.
*09/16"Nancy Pelosi is asked if the Democrats bear some responsibility for the current crisis on Wall Street. Pelosi answers, "No. "
*09/17"Harry Reid regarding the economic collapse: "No one knows what to do."
*09/18"About 11:00 AM, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States within two hours, equal to about $550. Treasury puts $105 billion in the system, but quickly realizes it cannot correct the problem.
*09/18"Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke ask Congress for the required funds"and unprecedented authority to bail out the entire financial system. They say failure to act means "we may not have an economy on Monday."
*09/23" Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in Senate Banking Committee testimony outline the $700 billion asset relief program (TARP).
*09/29"That TARP version doesn’t pass the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.
*10/03"Three days later TARP is passed after about $112 billion is added.
*11/05"The day after Barack Obama’s election, stocks plunge 500 points.
*11/12"Paulson changes the TARP rules from purchasing "troubled assets" to buying bank stocks to spur lending.
*11/23"Paulson gives Citibank a $308 billion bailout.
*12/06"Both houses of Congress agree to bail out the U.S. auto companies.
*12/18"President-elect Obama hints at an $800 billion to $1 trillion stimulus plan within his first month of office, and the Dow drops another 2.5 percent.

2009
*02/10"Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner unveils the Administration’s $2 trillion TARP II plan, and the Dow drops 382 points, or 4.6 percent
*02/17"President Obama signs a $787 billion bailout bill.
*02/18" President Obama reveals his mortgage bailout plan.
*02/19"Rick Santelli says in an impromptu speech on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange: "The government is promoting bad behavior … How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage? President Obama are you listening?" Santelli calls for a "Chicago Tea Party."
*02/20"The market falls as Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee floats the idea of nationalizing the nation’s banks. The White House issues a denial, and the Dow ends down 100 points. The Dow is down now more than 800 points"nearly 10 percent"from the day before President Obama’s inauguration.
*02/21"Soros says, "The financial crisis marks end of a free-market model."[/size]

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 06:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
He must be okie's brother - or some relative, because they think alike without any regards to facts or evidence.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.32 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 12:20:45