FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Republicans trashing US economy for political points?





handfleisch
The debt ceiling was raised seven times under Pres. Bush, but now the Republicans are threatening to crash the US economy over not raising it again. Leading Republican Jim DeMint said "serious disruption" to the US economy is okay with the GOP.

Not raising the debt ceiling could cause catastrophic consequences, no one even knows exactly what would happen, and it could even send a shock wave through international finances as big as the collapse of giant financial institutions like Lehman Bros in 2008 did. Another world financial crisis after only three years? The Repubs are willing to risk it to get their way with their insane and failed program of tax breaks for the wealthy and cutting government spending to almost nothing (except the military).
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/170085-demint-would-accept-serious-disruptions-to-economy-to-win-debt-debate

Quote:
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said Wednesday night that Republicans should maintain their hardline position in the debt-ceiling debate even if it results in “serious disruptions” to the economy.

“We're at the point where there would have to be some, you know, some serious disruptions in order not to raise [the debt ceiling],” he said. “I'm willing to do that.”
ocalhoun
I do recognize the Republicans' hypocrisy and malicious apathy here...

But what's the point of even having a 'debt ceiling' if it is going to be raised every time we approach it?



In reality, the only thing excessive debt will do is to raise the interest rate of that debt. While that will be disastrous for the USA's government budget, I do think that rising interest rates would benefit the economy as a whole. Interest rates have been held artificially low for quite a while, and I think things might begin to return to 'normal' if the interest rates are allowed to return to the market-dictated natural level.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
In reality, the only thing excessive debt will do is to raise the interest rate of that debt. While that will be disastrous for the USA's government budget, I do think that rising interest rates would benefit the economy as a whole. Interest rates have been held artificially low for quite a while, and I think things might begin to return to 'normal' if the interest rates are allowed to return to the market-dictated natural level.
Isn't low interest rates a logical consequence of printing more money? The more money that is pumped into society the lower the interest rate, and the less money that is printed, the higher the interest rate. Which would mean that the Government would have to knuckle down and stop spending period if they wanted higher interest rates?

I'm also wondering at the interest rates that the US Government have to pay on their debt to China and Japan? If they wanted to negotiate further loans would a higher interest rate make a negative or a positive difference? Sorry, I'm completely out of my depth here. All I sense is that there is a delicate balance between paying off international debt, getting more international loans, keeping the economy in the US chugging and the level of interest rates?
handfleisch
This quote sums it up:

Quote:
The British government's business secretary, Vince Cable, summed up the situation as he saw it on the BBC this weekend: "The irony of the situation at the moment, with markets opening tomorrow morning, is that the biggest threat to the world financial system comes from a few right-wing nutters in the American Congress."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/25/avlon.debt.showdown/index.html

I hope all the Americans who voted for the Tea Party Republicans --or "right wing nutters" as they're called in England-- understand that this is their fault. This childish, irrational tantrum of their elected representatives is already causing economic instability and we haven't even reached the deadline yet.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
This quote sums it up:

Quote:
The British government's business secretary, Vince Cable, summed up the situation as he saw it on the BBC this weekend: "The irony of the situation at the moment, with markets opening tomorrow morning, is that the biggest threat to the world financial system comes from a few right-wing nutters in the American Congress."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/25/avlon.debt.showdown/index.html

I hope all the Americans who voted for the Tea Party Republicans --or "right wing nutters" as they're called in England-- understand that this is their fault. This childish, irrational tantrum of their elected representatives is already causing economic instability and we haven't even reached the deadline yet.
I don't agree. The greatest threat comes from Government overspending as a result of big and bulging Government bureacracies with too large overheads relative to the services people are paying taxes for.
jwellsy
The democrats want the largest incremental debt ceiling increase in history and off set it with unspecified future spending cuts. They have used this unspecified future cuts tactic before and then just ignored it. Given their documented past, there is no reason to believe the democrats are negotiating in good faith.

It's all about politics. BO wants to dirt bag his successor by having the issue come back up after the election cycle to address the root causes. Of course if he wins reelection then they just kick the can further down the down the road with procrastination ( just like Harry Reid and the Senate refusing to pass a budget for 3 years).

A balanced approach means people need to pay more so they can spend more.

It's the spending stupid!
handfleisch
jwellsy wrote:
The democrats want the largest incremental debt ceiling increase in history and off set it with unspecified future spending cuts. They have used this unspecified future cuts tactic before and then just ignored it. Given their documented past, there is no reason to believe the democrats are negotiating in good faith.

It's all about politics. BO wants to dirt bag his successor by having the issue come back up after the election cycle to address the root causes. Of course if he wins reelection then they just kick the can further down the down the road with procrastination ( just like Harry Reid and the Senate refusing to pass a budget for 3 years).

A balanced approach means people need to pay more so they can spend more.

It's the spending stupid!


I'll let McCain answer you:
Quote:

McCain erupts: Conservatives are lying to America
By Greg Sargent

So the debt limit debate has come to this: John McCain, who you may recall was the GOP’s 2008 standard bearer, is now openly accusing conservatives of actively misleading America with their completely unrealistic demands, which he labeled “deceiving” and “bizarro.

In a seminal moment in this debate, here’s some video of McCain on the Senate floor today, unleashing an angry tirade at conservatives who are still holding out for a balanced budget amendment as part of any compromise on the debt ceiling. McCain accused them of “deceiving” America into believing such a thing can pass the Senate:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mccain-erupts-conservatives-are-lying-to-america/2011/03/03/gIQAUm2HdI_blog.html
jwellsy
McCain is a clown that has lost touch with reality, that's why the hateful left tolerates him.
deanhills
jwellsy wrote:
McCain is a clown that has lost touch with reality, that's why the hateful left tolerates him.
Totally agreed! He should have retired a LONG time ago. He is a people pleaser, definitely not a leader.
handfleisch
jwellsy wrote:
McCain is a clown that has lost touch with reality, that's why the hateful left tolerates him.

LOL. The deranged right wing and the Tea Party are calling their own Republican presidential candidate a clown that is out of touch with reality.

The conservatives and the Tea Party Republicans are crashing and burning, fighting each other. We can only hope they don't take the whole country down with them
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
McCain is a clown that has lost touch with reality, that's why the hateful left tolerates him.
Totally agreed! He should have retired a LONG time ago. He is a people pleaser, definitely not a leader.

Actually, I considered him somewhat the last hope of the Republican party...
An anti-corruption stance, and now the audacity to call out fellow Republicans when they are hypocritical and self destructive?
But now, must Republicans seem to have dropped off the edge of 'normal politics' into 'complete insanity'... and I don't see the trend reversing any time soon.


As for the debt ceiling raise, the budget deficit and out of control debt IS a major problem... But simply refusing to raise the debt ceiling is not the solution.
(Remind me again, though, why do we have a 'debt ceiling' if we are going to raise it every time we get close?)
It is a simple matter of cutting spending and/or raising income (taxes).
The Republicans say they want to fix it by cutting spending, but they don't cut enough.
The Democrats (mainly) say they want to fix it by raising taxes, but they don't raise enough.

Really there is no 'politically viable' solution.
To balance the government's budget, you must choose (at least) one:
-Raise taxes dramatically -- and keep raising them as expenses increase. (political suicide)
-Cut social security, medicare, AND defense spending.* (political suicide)


*You have to cut those three because even if you cut all other spending to $0, those three alone would still cause a budget deficit, and are projected to only get more expensive in the future if current trends continue.
deanhills
@Ocalhoun. Ask anyone outside the United States and they are all in agreement. The US is broke. That is the truth isn't it? Yet it is still spending as though there is no tomorrow.

I wonder how many millions of dollars have gone into all the lobbying by Republicans and Democrats and the Government for all of those hundreds of negotiations in order to come to an agreement about increasing the debt ceiling? The Government machinery, including decision making is feeding off itself, like a black hole. I sometimes wonder whether it is like that story about the Ceaser with no clothes. And everyone being duped into saying how wonderful his clothes look like. The US is broke. It has been raising debt levels since for ever and now those debt levels are feeding off themselves. Like a loop that they just can't get out off without going through some real pain.

One thing I learned when I was doing a course in stocks was that the value of a currency depends on the amount of confidence people have in that country's economy. I think that confidence is waning and is probably going to have a very negative affect on the value of the dollar. Which in its own is going to increase the interest on debt to China and other countries. And then more debt will have to be created to service that interest.
Dennise
handfleisch wrote:
This quote sums it up:

Quote:
The British government's business secretary, Vince Cable, summed up the situation as he saw it on the BBC this weekend: "The irony of the situation at the moment, with markets opening tomorrow morning, is that the biggest threat to the world financial system comes from a few right-wing nutters in the American Congress."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/25/avlon.debt.showdown/index.html

I hope all the Americans who voted for the Tea Party Republicans --or "right wing nutters" as they're called in England-- understand that this is their fault. This childish, irrational tantrum of their elected representatives is already causing economic instability and we haven't even reached the deadline yet.


What a joke! You use a statement by a British government member who says a few US right-wing nutters are a big threat? And just what kind of economic shape do you think the Britts are in these days? Who is calling the kettle black here?
handfleisch
Dennise wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
This quote sums it up:

Quote:
The British government's business secretary, Vince Cable, summed up the situation as he saw it on the BBC this weekend: "The irony of the situation at the moment, with markets opening tomorrow morning, is that the biggest threat to the world financial system comes from a few right-wing nutters in the American Congress."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/25/avlon.debt.showdown/index.html

I hope all the Americans who voted for the Tea Party Republicans --or "right wing nutters" as they're called in England-- understand that this is their fault. This childish, irrational tantrum of their elected representatives is already causing economic instability and we haven't even reached the deadline yet.


What a joke! You use a statement by a British government member who says a few US right-wing nutters are a big threat? And just what kind of economic shape do you think the Britts are in these days? Who is calling the kettle black here?


You know you're wrong, don't you? It is clear that the downgrade of the US credit rating was caused by the Tea Party subset of the Republicans.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61147.html
Quote:

Without specifically mentioning Republicans, S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,” Mukherji said.

That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,” he added. “This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.”


And the "Britts" as you call them still have a AAA rating. Let's be clear -- the Tea Party factor is runs the Republican agenda that caused this damage to the USA's stability and economic position in the world, and that's correctly being called a "Tea Party Downgrade"
jwellsy
The Tea Party wants a balanced budget amendment, and the irresponsible left wants to spend money unchecked into oblivion.
ocalhoun
jwellsy wrote:
The Tea Party wants a balanced budget amendment, and the irresponsible left wants to spend money unchecked into oblivion.

Oversimplified much?
Bikerman
Beyond recognition.
The Tea Party 'think' they want a balanced budget, just like many previous congressmen of the right 'thought' they did. Funnily enough most of them also want lower taxes, and vote for massive federal aid for their own states.....
If you look at the states that get the most 'handout' from the Federal Government, surprise surprise - the great majority are Republican.....
jwellsy
A trillion dollars in bailouts was supposed to save the economy.
A trillion dollars in stimulus was supposed to save the economy.
10 trillion dollars in health care was supposed to bend the cost curve and save the economy.
Quantitative Easing 1 was supposed to save the economy.
Quantitative Easing 2 was supposed the save the economy.

Democrats owning the budget since 07 has been a complete failure and their only recourse is to double down and ridicule anyone who dares to stand in the way of their delusional utopia.
gandalfthegrey
HYPOCRISY

The Republicans are responsible for the vast majority of the total American debt. Unless cutting the military, raising taxes on the rich and monetary reform, I don't take their proposed solutions seriously.
Klaw 2
jwellsy wrote:
A trillion dollars in bailouts was supposed to save the economy.
A trillion dollars in stimulus was supposed to save the economy.
10 trillion dollars in health care was supposed to bend the cost curve and save the economy.
Quantitative Easing 1 was supposed to save the economy.
Quantitative Easing 2 was supposed the save the economy.

Democrats owning the budget since 07 has been a complete failure and their only recourse is to double down and ridicule anyone who dares to stand in the way of their delusional utopia.


Kinda funny that you don't mention that republicans pretty much screwed the whole economy. And now their not really helping either, tax cuts for the rich Rolling Eyes and super rich Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes .
jmi256
Klaw 2 wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
A trillion dollars in bailouts was supposed to save the economy.
A trillion dollars in stimulus was supposed to save the economy.
10 trillion dollars in health care was supposed to bend the cost curve and save the economy.
Quantitative Easing 1 was supposed to save the economy.
Quantitative Easing 2 was supposed the save the economy.

Democrats owning the budget since 07 has been a complete failure and their only recourse is to double down and ridicule anyone who dares to stand in the way of their delusional utopia.


Kinda funny that you don't mention that republicans pretty much screwed the whole economy. And now their not really helping either, tax cuts for the rich Rolling Eyes and super rich Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes .

Really? So Republicans were the ones that forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, thereby causing the housing bubble, its burst and the resulting financial mess we’re in? I could have sworn Clinton was a Democrat.

The stark truth the most extremist Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge is that Obama and the Democrats have managed to screw up just about everything they touch. Their solution to everything is more government spending and more intrusive government programs that line the pockets of their campaign contributors at the expense of taxpayers.

Want specifics? Ok. For example Obama and the Democrats got their way with the “stimulus bill” that cost almost $1 trillion and they claimed was necessary to keep unemployment below 8%, yet the unemployment rate has skyrocketed above what they claimed would result without the huge bill. Where is the accountability on that? Obamacare was supposed to do everything from cut the deficit, cut costs, drive premiums down and create millions of jobs (almost 400,000 “almost immediately” according to Nancy Pelosi), but as predicted has had the exact opposite effect while adding another $1 trillion to the deficit. The deficit went up, costs went up, premiums went up and millions of more jobs were lost. All the while rewarding Obama and the Democrats’ health insurance industry contributors with new customers forced to buy their products or suffer penalties. The list of specific programs and policies Obama and the Democrats have enacted and forced down everyone’s throats and have failed miserably goes on and on.

But I’m curious which specific programs and policies Republicans have enacted that “pretty much screwed the whole economy”. Can you elaborate? Tax cuts for all taxpayers? I’ve heard this meme several times, yet I haven’t heard a coherent explanation of why lower taxes for everyone is such a bad thing if coupled with smaller government and less government bureaucracy and waste. So I’d be interested in your reasoning. Wars? Yes, they are costly (in dollars and lives), but it is hypocritical for Democrats to claim wars are a Republican-made phenomenon when they voted for the wars, have continued the wars and Obama and the Democrats decided it was such a good thing that they would double down and start two new wars.

BTW, here is the 1999 article from the New York Times outlining the Democrats “brilliant” policy of forcing banks to offer mortgages to those who would be unlikely to afford them. How’d that work out for ya?


Quote:
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

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 addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

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.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Source = http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?src=pm
ocalhoun
"The Democrats ruined the economy"
"The Republicans ruined the economy"
Rolling Eyes
The corporations -- especially large banks in this case -- ruined the economy, and they used bought-and-paid-for politicians on both sides to help them do it.

(Though the debt-crazy culture may be ultimately to blame. Everybody, individuals, corporations, even the government were (and still are) borrowing money like there's no tomorrow. The economy became (and still is) so debt-centered that the main focus of the recovery effort (at least initially) was 'getting banks lending again'. The economy became so debt-centered that any reduction in the availability of easy credit could be a disaster.)
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
"The Democrats ruined the economy"
"The Republicans ruined the economy"
Rolling Eyes
The corporations -- especially large banks in this case -- ruined the economy, and they used bought-and-paid-for politicians on both sides to help them do it.

(Though the debt-crazy culture may be ultimately to blame. Everybody, individuals, corporations, even the government were (and still are) borrowing money like there's no tomorrow. The economy became (and still is) so debt-centered that the main focus of the recovery effort (at least initially) was 'getting banks lending again'. The economy became so debt-centered that any reduction in the availability of easy credit could be a disaster.)


The reason debt has become so central to the government is due to overspending. You can tax people at 100%, but if you still continue to spend more than is coming in, you’ll run into deficit problems. We can sit back and b*tch and moan about it being a cultural issue somehow, but the key is to address the root problem, which is deficit spending. And the solution, at least to this problem, is to balance the budget (and just to be clear, I have often knocked on Bush for failing to curb government spending to offset lowering taxes). Democrats and Republicans can debate whether this should be done with higher taxes or with cuts to government waste, but to pretend you can continue to consume more than you pay indefinitely is simply idiotic. But that is exactly what Obama and the Democrats’ most fervent supporters are attempting to avoid. If someone brings up the actual solution, a balanced budget amendment, they are quickly call racists (that card is played a lot these days), fringers, etc. But we all know it is the best solution.

And the reason big corporations like the healthcare insurance companies uses politicians like Obama to get lucrative deals done for their benefit in exchange for campaign contributions is because the federal government has overstepped its powers as outlined in the US Constitution. I’ve asked several times for a simple reference to where in the US Constitution the power to force citizens to buy a product is given to the federal government, yet no one seems to be able to direct me. I’ve read it several times and I still can’t find it. Yet statists simply pretend the US Constitution doesn’t exist or pretend it says something it doesn’t. We can sit there and blame big ol’ scary companies, but the real fault lies in allowing too much power to be usurped by Big Government fanatics.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
"The Democrats ruined the economy"
"The Republicans ruined the economy"
:roll:
The corporations -- especially large banks in this case -- ruined the economy, and they used bought-and-paid-for politicians on both sides to help them do it.

(Though the debt-crazy culture may be ultimately to blame. Everybody, individuals, corporations, even the government were (and still are) borrowing money like there's no tomorrow. The economy became (and still is) so debt-centered that the main focus of the recovery effort (at least initially) was 'getting banks lending again'. The economy became so debt-centered that any reduction in the availability of easy credit could be a disaster.)


Far-ranging right wingers are just talking to themselves at this point. JMI especially has shown himself to be a serial liar out of touch with reality.

@calhoun, I would agree with you. Both parties are responsible for the mess we are in. BUT it is "conservative" policies that got us into this mess, from unfunded wars to the deregulation that led to the financial crisis to the insane tax breaks for the rich which have hurt the economy. Remember that Clinton gave Bush a balanced budget, economic prosperity and no wars. Just look what Bush did with it. So though both parties are responsible, it's because both parties are letting the right wing go crazy.



In my job I talk to a lot of European professionals, bankers etc. Though they too have their problems, they are all shocked at the Tea Party Downgrade and they ask me how could this happen. What am I supposed to tell them? I just say the country is a de facto Plutocracy stuck on irrational policies of Tax Breaks for the Rich, Deregulation At All Costs and Short Term Profits causing Long Term Downgrades. I tell them the Debt Ceiling fiasco leading to the credit downgrade is total proof that these people are irresponsible, reckless and irrational. The Tea Party/Republican Party, Bush, Perry, Bachman all stand for this, and the Democrats let them because the whole system runs on money. The recent Supreme Court decisions, decided on ideological lines, that say Corporations have "freedom of speech" and so unlimited power to influence elections, make the future even darker for changing this system.
Klaw 2
jmi256 wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
A trillion dollars in bailouts was supposed to save the economy.
A trillion dollars in stimulus was supposed to save the economy.
10 trillion dollars in health care was supposed to bend the cost curve and save the economy.
Quantitative Easing 1 was supposed to save the economy.
Quantitative Easing 2 was supposed the save the economy.

Democrats owning the budget since 07 has been a complete failure and their only recourse is to double down and ridicule anyone who dares to stand in the way of their delusional utopia.


Kinda funny that you don't mention that republicans pretty much screwed the whole economy. And now their not really helping either, tax cuts for the rich Rolling Eyes and super rich Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes .

Really? So Republicans were the ones that forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, thereby causing the housing bubble, its burst and the resulting financial mess we’re in? I could have sworn Clinton was a Democrat.


I never said that democrats didn't do anything bad either however bush had about 7.5 years to fix that, he didn't. Republicans are all about less rules (for the financial industry) and Democrats are about more rules. They bubble was caused by lack of rules. People had to pay more and more every month for their morgage until they couldn't and their house was sold.

jmi256 wrote:
The stark truth the most extremist Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge is that Obama and the Democrats have managed to screw up just about everything they touch. Their solution to everything is more government spending and more intrusive government programs that line the pockets of their campaign contributors at the expense of taxpayers.


What Obama is doing isn't great it costs a lot of money but no one knows how it would have turned out if he didn't do those things, he's doing his best maybe his decisions are making it worse maybe not. But all you do is complain and point fingers, why don't you come up with your own plan.

jmi256 wrote:
Want specifics?....

No I don't, see the text above for a reply...

jmi256 wrote:
But I’m curious which specific programs and policies Republicans have enacted that “pretty much screwed the whole economy”. Can you elaborate? Tax cuts for all taxpayers? I’ve heard this meme several times, yet I haven’t heard a coherent explanation of why lower taxes for everyone is such a bad thing if coupled with smaller government and less government bureaucracy and waste. So I’d be interested in your reasoning. Wars? Yes, they are costly (in dollars and lives), but it is hypocritical for Democrats to claim wars are a Republican-made phenomenon when they voted for the wars, have continued the wars and Obama and the Democrats decided it was such a good thing that they would double down and start two new wars.

Lower taxes are good when you spend less but when you get yourself into two wars you'r building up a huge debt, kinda like bush did and last time I checked he was a republican. Besides didn't the republicans mad the deficit ceiling higher and higher themselves. They got the US in a massive dept in the first place. When clinton left there was no debt, there was money left. And now... there's not enough money.

jmi256 wrote:
BTW, here is the 1999 article from the New York Times outlining the Democrats “brilliant” policy of forcing banks to offer mortgages to those who would be unlikely to afford them. How’d that work out for ya?


Quote:
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

In a move ...... applicants.

Source = http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?src=pm


You said "forcing", that's not quite the same as "encourage" or "pressure". Also, not mentioned by you there's also in the article something about interest rates going up, doubt. You kinda not mentioned that or made it fatter. And Clinton or democrats aren't mentioned at all just a small line at the end saying.

On a side note;
You keep talking about "extremist obama supperters" or in terms similar to them and not only in this (sub)discussion. You keep complaining about them while your quite the right-wing-nut yourself. People like you create a hostile political atmosphere.
People like you are responsible for a hostile political atmosphere.
And that causes violence; when that politican got shot and a bunch of other people got killed by some idiot. Or when Breivik blew up several ministries and sot those kids.
Those people are moved to do those horrible things by the atmosphere people like you create.
They are FED by the atmosphere people like YOU create...
ocalhoun
ocalhoun wrote:
"The Democrats ruined the economy"
"The Republicans ruined the economy"
Rolling Eyes
The corporations -- especially large banks in this case -- ruined the economy, and they used bought-and-paid-for politicians on both sides to help them do it.

jmi256 wrote:

But that is exactly what Obama and the Democrats’ most fervent supporters are attempting to avoid. If someone brings up the actual solution, a balanced budget amendment, they are quickly call racists (that card is played a lot these days), fringers, etc. But we all know it is the best solution.

handfleisch wrote:
BUT it is "conservative" policies that got us into this mess,


I don't think my message is getting through.

...

Also, a minor little correction:
Klaw 2 wrote:
When clinton left there was no debt, there was money left.

There was no budget deficit, but there was still a large national debt.
The difference was that at that time, we were slowly paying it off, rather than adding to it.
Klaw 2
ocalhoun wrote:

Also, a minor little correction:
Klaw 2 wrote:
When clinton left there was no debt, there was money left.

There was no budget deficit, but there was still a large national debt.
The difference was that at that time, we were slowly paying it off, rather than adding to it.


I meant that, I should have worded it better...
jmi256
Klaw 2 wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
A trillion dollars in bailouts was supposed to save the economy.
A trillion dollars in stimulus was supposed to save the economy.
10 trillion dollars in health care was supposed to bend the cost curve and save the economy.
Quantitative Easing 1 was supposed to save the economy.
Quantitative Easing 2 was supposed the save the economy.

Democrats owning the budget since 07 has been a complete failure and their only recourse is to double down and ridicule anyone who dares to stand in the way of their delusional utopia.


Kinda funny that you don't mention that republicans pretty much screwed the whole economy. And now their not really helping either, tax cuts for the rich Rolling Eyes and super rich Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes .

Really? So Republicans were the ones that forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, thereby causing the housing bubble, its burst and the resulting financial mess we’re in? I could have sworn Clinton was a Democrat.


I never said that democrats didn't do anything bad either however bush had about 7.5 years to fix that, he didn't. Republicans are all about less rules (for the financial industry) and Democrats are about more rules. They bubble was caused by lack of rules. People had to pay more and more every month for their morgage until they couldn't and their house was sold.

You’re the one who made the unsupported claim that “republicans pretty much screwed the whole economy”. I asked for specific policies you objected to and I provided very concrete examples of the Democrats’ policies and programs that have had negatives effects on the economy, like creating the Housing Bubble through regulation (i.e. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae). In fact, Democrats weren’t happy with the damage those regulations imposed, and decided to double down and create another housing bubble. The idea that the housing bubble was caused by “lack of rules” (I assume you mean regulations/laws) flies in the face of reality. It was the Democrats’ regulations on Fannie and Freddie, and by extension the entire mortgage industry, that forced them to back mortgages to people who could not afford them that led to the bubble.

And I’m not sure if you understand how mortgages work. People don’t “pay more and more every month”. When someone applies for a mortgage they have two basic options (they come in many flavors, but realistically they are the same): a fixed rate mortgage or an ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage). The fixed rate is exactly that, and for the term of the loan the mortgage payment remains constant. ARMs vary in terms, but they usually start at lower rates, with future higher rates spelled out in the contract. Common ARMs adjust rates at the two- and/or five-year points, but they don’t really change each month so that people “pay more and more every month”. The problem with those who took ARMs is that many of those the Democrats forced the mortgage industry to offer loans to were greedy. Not only were they unable to qualify for loans under the free market (i.e. have a down payment, have a job, have documentation, have good credit, etc), but they wanted even larger houses so they took ARMs with lower introductory rates so that they could mortgage more expensive homes. When interest rates went up, the new rates were too high for them to make the payments. It was clear rates would eventually go up, but these people were too greedy to care. Or if they were able to make the payments but decided to walk away or sell because the balance of the mortgage was higher than the value of the home as home prices fell.



Klaw 2 wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The stark truth the most extremist Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge is that Obama and the Democrats have managed to screw up just about everything they touch. Their solution to everything is more government spending and more intrusive government programs that line the pockets of their campaign contributors at the expense of taxpayers.


What Obama is doing isn't great it costs a lot of money but no one knows how it would have turned out if he didn't do those things, he's doing his best maybe his decisions are making it worse maybe not. But all you do is complain and point fingers, why don't you come up with your own plan.

I have presented ideas before, so I won’t go into specifics here. But your comments are somewhat alarming. First of all, as a taxpayer I have every right to hold those responsible accountable. If they want to use their own money and earnings to fund their pet projects, that’s fine and I wouldn’t get in their business. But when they take my earnings and take away my rights it becomes my business. Secondly, Obama is making things worse, as I have shown in the examples. There is no “maybe”. Unemployment is much higher than when he was elected, the deficit is larger and continues to grow. The US’s credit rating has been downgraded thanks to Obama and the Democrats unable to control their spending. If you look to when the Democrats took control of the House and Senate you’ll see a clear demarcation between the decline and better economic times. Thirdly, just as you said “he's doing his best”, which is obviously not good enough. In the real world it is results that matter not good intensions. It’s painfully obvious that Obama was not qualified and continues to fail at leadership. He has been a train wreck, and it is time for him to go.





Klaw 2 wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Want specifics?....

No I don't, see the text above for a reply...

Sorry. I thought you were interested in facts.




Klaw 2 wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
But I’m curious which specific programs and policies Republicans have enacted that “pretty much screwed the whole economy”. Can you elaborate? Tax cuts for all taxpayers? I’ve heard this meme several times, yet I haven’t heard a coherent explanation of why lower taxes for everyone is such a bad thing if coupled with smaller government and less government bureaucracy and waste. So I’d be interested in your reasoning. Wars? Yes, they are costly (in dollars and lives), but it is hypocritical for Democrats to claim wars are a Republican-made phenomenon when they voted for the wars, have continued the wars and Obama and the Democrats decided it was such a good thing that they would double down and start two new wars.

Lower taxes are good when you spend less but when you get yourself into two wars you'r building up a huge debt, kinda like bush did and last time I checked he was a republican. Besides didn't the republicans mad the deficit ceiling higher and higher themselves. They got the US in a massive dept in the first place. When clinton left there was no debt, there was money left. And now... there's not enough money.

You seem to be all over the place here, but I’ll try to address each issue you raise.
1. Lower taxes and war. The actual rate of taxes is more like a symptom, not the cause. Taxes should be used to cover what is outlined in the US Constitution, not pet projects. “War” is not a pet project, however, and the authority to tax to fund wars is provided in the Constitution. We can debate the wisdom of the two wars Bush executed, but I think we can agree that the wars should have been funded. I would have even accepted higher taxes to pay for the wars. But only with a lot of debate. In fact, I think if increasing taxes to fund the war was raised, we would have seen a smaller likelihood that the wars would have been levied, but that’s neither here nor there. But the idea that “war” is somehow a Republican issue isn’t based in reality. The vast majority of Democrats voted to fund the wars, and have continued to fund the wars. In fact Obama started two new ones.
2. “Deficit ceiling”. First of all, I think you mean “debt ceiling”; Deficit and debt are two very different things. The debt ceiling is a limit on how much the national debt can be. It’s basically a credit limit, and in recent years it has been raised, but never to the level Obama and the Democrats wanted and got. They claimed that unless the debt ceiling was raised, the US would be downgraded, yet the debt ceiling was raised and the US was downgraded for the first time in its history. The downgrade didn’t happen because the ceiling wasn’t raised. It was raised, but the downgrade occurred because investors are worried about the level of Obama’s spending without any control or leadership on how to stop it from our president and the party in power, the Democrats.
3. Clinton and debt. It is a common misperception that Clinton is responsible for getting rid of our debt. First of all, he managed some accounting tricks (moving Social Security money around, etc.) to make his budgets look better, but the main thrust of deficit reduction came from Newt Gingrich and the Republicans. Clinton and the Democrats fought tooth and nail to avoid balancing the budget, but were forced to by Republicans. The “surplus” that Bush supposedly inherited was simply projections on paper. And those projections did not account for the recession Bush inherited, September 11, the Asian markets meltdown (mainly due to bird flu and swine flu fears and a general slowdown earlier in the decade) or fighting two simultaneous wars. (Here is more about the subject if you’re interested: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656 ). But let’s just assume for a moment there was a “surplus.” A surplus of what? How does the government get money? The answer is taxes. And a surplus means the government took more taxes than it needed. And if that’s the case, who should get their money back if they overpaid? That’s right, the taxpayers.



Klaw 2 wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
BTW, here is the 1999 article from the New York Times outlining the Democrats “brilliant” policy of forcing banks to offer mortgages to those who would be unlikely to afford them. How’d that work out for ya?


Quote:
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

In a move ...... applicants.

Source = http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?src=pm


You said "forcing", that's not quite the same as "encourage" or "pressure". Also, not mentioned by you there's also in the article something about interest rates going up, doubt. You kinda not mentioned that or made it fatter. And Clinton or democrats aren't mentioned at all just a small line at the end saying.

Again, I don’t think you understand the way mortgages work, specifically the roles of Freddie and Fannie. I can go into more detail, but it would be too much I think and I think I covered enough above. But the point is that Clinton administration absolutely forced banks to offer mortgages to those who couldn’t afford them through Freddie and Fannie.



Klaw 2 wrote:
On a side note;
You keep talking about "extremist obama supperters" or in terms similar to them and not only in this (sub)discussion. You keep complaining about them while your quite the right-wing-nut yourself.

So now it’s name calling, huh? If you notice I haven’t called you any names, but it’s ironic that the one who complains about a lack of civility would be the one who starts with the name calling. Talk about hypocrisy.


Klaw 2 wrote:
People like you create a hostile political atmosphere.
People like you are responsible for a hostile political atmosphere.

People like me? What exactly are “people like me”? People with opinions? People who refuse to be sheep as their government assumes powers not afforded to it in the US Constitution? What you object to as “hostile” is really an objection to people with differing points of view. I’ve said this many times, but if you want to blow your own money and resources on cockamamie pursuits, policies and pet projects, more power to you. When you put a gun to my head and take what I work hard to earn it becomes my problem, and I won’t sit down and “eat my peas.”



Klaw 2 wrote:
And that causes violence; when that politican got shot and a bunch of other people got killed by some idiot. Or when Breivik blew up several ministries and sot those kids.
Those people are moved to do those horrible things by the atmosphere people like you create.
They are FED by the atmosphere people like YOU create...

That’s a BS red herring and you know it. Please tell me where I have advocated violence? I’m a supporter of defense, but I have not advocated violence toward my fellow citizens, unlike Obama and the Democrats who use violent rhetoric to squash any dissent, like calling for “bringing guns to knife fights” and calling anyone who disagrees terrorists and racists.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

But I’m curious which specific programs and policies Republicans have enacted that “pretty much screwed the whole economy”.


I know there's no point trying to pierce your right wing fantasy bubble or trying to argue with a serial liar, as you've already totally discredited yourself on these forums many times. But just in case someone else is reading and needs some basic facts about how Democratic policies under Clinton put us on the track to prosperity and Republican policies derailed the economy:



Here is a short list of the programs, policies and actions of the Bush years of Republicans that led to the near collapse of the US economy and continues now in the global downturn. Some of them had plenty of help from conservative Democrats, but they were very much instigated by Republicans and continue to be Republican policy.

-TWO UNFUNDED WARS during Bush years.

-TEA PARTY DOWNGRADE: REFUSING TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING ON TIME. The Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling because Obama is president, even though they raised it many times for Bush. They started the crisis when they walked out of negotiations even though they were offered more than what they initially asked for. This led to the historic first-ever downgrade of USA's credit rating right at the worst time.

-TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH increasing deficits and other negative economic outcomes both during Bush years and continuing now.

-MORTGAGE CRISIS from DEREGULATION of Wall Street that led to derivatives trading in the housing market which led to the mortgage and banking crisis, resulting in the collapse of giant financial institutions. Banks and investors actually made money if people defaulted on their mortgages! The same thing that happened under the first Bush president with the S&L deregulation crisis happened again under Bush2 but on a much larger scale.

-CUTBACKS of government services that increase unemployment and hurt the US infrastructure

I didn't put the Bush bailout of the banks on the list because 1) it's arguable to what extent this helped or hurt the economy in the long run, though they definitely help in the short run, we probably would have done into a depression if more financial institutions had collapsed and 2) it continued under Obama and 3) this is not clearly a conservative or progressive policy. It's definitely not a fiscally conservative policy, but Republicans haven't been fiscal conservatives since Reagan.
handfleisch
Looks like it's happening again. First the Tea Party downgrade, now it looks like Republicans will sabotage Obama's jobs plan just to get political points, despite the fact that economists say it could create a million jobs. But the Republicans' #1 priority is defeating Obama, so to hell with the American unemployed, I guess. Also Repubs are giddy about the bad economy because it benefits them politically -- and doesn't hurt the megarich they generally represent. So the GOP might block this million jobs plan:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/09/news/economy/obama_jobs_plan_impact/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1
Quote:
Jobs plan may create 1 million jobs - economists

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Economists gave generally positive reviews to President Obama's jobs plan Friday, with some estimating that at least 1 million jobs could be added in the next year if Congress passes the package.

The payroll tax holiday for workers and small businesses was cited specifically for having a relatively good "bang for the buck." And that part of the plan may have the most bipartisan support.

"This additional spending capacity in the hands of consumers should continue to foster improvements in aggregate domestic demand. And ultimately, it is demand and demand alone that will lead to more business hiring," said Russell Price, senior economist for Ameriprise Financial Services.

Price estimates the increased payroll tax holiday for workers by itself is likely to add between 750,000 to 1 million jobs, and that the new break on payroll taxes for employers could add an additional 100,000 to 200,000 jobs.

He added that gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity, could get a 1.5 percentage point boost as well.

Macroeconomic Advisors, a St. Louis research firm, estimates that payrolls would grow by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and another 800,000 by the end of 2013, if the package passed as proposed. It is looking for a 1.3% rise in GDP.

Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisors, said even if the impact to the economy is short lived, the jobs plan should be passed.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Quote:

Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisors, said even if the impact to the economy is short lived, the jobs plan should be passed.


I'm having trouble understanding that last sentiment...
Why would it be worthwhile if it was only temporary?
deanhills
I think both the Republicans and Democrats are to be blamed - more accurately perhaps the whole of the Political System should take the blame for allowing the debt levels to have got that high.

At any rate, the Democrats had their chance. They received billions of dollars to bail out banks and in stimulus money, and it did not have any affect. Why would it have an affect now?

I'd also say ditto the Republicans - Bush started the whole bailing out the Banks dance at the end of his Presidency and Obama just magnified it a few times over.
Alaskacameradude
deanhills wrote:
I think both the Republicans and Democrats are to be blamed - more accurately perhaps the whole of the Political System should take the blame for allowing the debt levels to have got that high.

At any rate, the Democrats had their chance. They received billions of dollars to bail out banks and in stimulus money, and it did not have any affect. Why would it have an affect now?

I'd also say ditto the Republicans - Bush started the whole bailing out the Banks dance at the end of his Presidency and Obama just magnified it a few times over.


Wow, I'm impressed. One person in the world who actually gets this stuff. I had
almost wrote it off as useless, but somebody somewhere actually understands. Now if
we could just get another 170 million American citizens to understand and vote accordingly............
Related topics
points
The downfall of american society
Forget...
should we care about antartic ice melting?
WHATS WITH THE "US ECONOMY WILL DIE IN 5 YEARS" BU
Investments that could survive US economy failure...
Obama and Dems Hindering Recovery
Obama's Unemployment Numbers Keep Going Up
Eight fake scandals. What next for FOX / GOP / right wing?
where is us economy headed?
Do you hope US dollar exchange rate get lower?
something is wrong
Obama's health care reform wins in court again
Coming out and the people that come with it
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.