- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
That was actually how the Republican legislature "balanced the budget" in Minnesota.
Fannie Mae Posts $8.7 Billion Loss, Requests More Fed Aid
WASHINGTON -- Mortgage buyer Fannie Mae reported a loss of $8.7 billion for the January-March quarter, and asked for an additional $8.5 billion in federal aid.
Fannie Mae Posts $8.7 Billion Loss, Requests More Fed Aid
nie Mae, Freddie Mac Seek $3.1 Billion Amid Improved Earnings
QBy Lorraine Woellert - Feb 24, 2011 9:01 PM PT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-earnings.html
Fannie Mae needs another $5.1 billion in aid as more loans sour
.Date: Friday, August 5, 2011,
http://www.bizjournals.com/washingto...1-billion.html
Bank Of America To Cut 30,000 Jobs As Part Of Restructuring Plan
9/12/11
Bank of America stock was up 2 cents at $7 at midday. The stock has lost half its value this year, largely over problems related to poorly-written mortgages it acquired with its 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial Corp. The bank faces lawsuits from investors and regulators over the sales of mortgage-backed securities that lost value after the housing boom collapsed.
Bank Of America To Cut 30,000 Jobs As Part Of Restructuring Plan (VIDEO)
3. Bush’s legacy is still hurting economy (10/24/2011)
Some people say that after three years, Obama can’t blame Bush on economy failure any more. But the housing crisis still hurts economy and looks like will continue to damage the economy for several years. The problem he left for this country is huge and long-lasting.
The main expense is to bail out the firms too big to fail, especially the mortgage giant Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The program to help unemployed, incentive to promote car sale and house sale, program to help the home owners whose house value now are underwater. Here is the real expense, that's the real hole you try to avoid of. Three years after sub-prime loan crisis, the roof is still leaking. Here is the some recent "leaking" result:
Fan
Three years after the break-off of the housing bubble, it still hurts economy and causes unemployment.
End of the ‘Ownership Society’
Oct 10, 2008
Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.
As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system,
So Much for Bush's 'Ownership Society' - The Daily Beast
4. How Bush blew up the Housing bubble.
Here is a Federal bench interest rate in Bush's term.
you can see how the interest rate dropped to the bottom from 6% to 1% in his first year administration. That low interest rate created a housing bubble. Bush boasted in his administration, America developed an ownership society. The fast growing up bubble without any restriction was finally boken up in 2007, caused the financial crisis in next year. It is still hurting the economy and likely will continue for years.
One thing else you can see from that interest rate chart. Clinton left his a nice interest rate tool to control the economy. The interest rate was 6%. With that interest rate tool, Bush did push up a economy. But he didn't regulate the economy, loosen the bridle of housing loan for his homeowners' society, that caused today's foreclosure problem. What did he leave for Obama? The Federal interest rate was below 1% which left little space for obama to operate. Without that tool, Obama had to borrow money, or do QE (quantitative easing) to push the economy.
Clinton left for Bush a surplus budget and a nice financial tool. What has Obama got from Bush?
Greenspan admits he got it wrong over Bush's tax cuts
By Michael Gawenda, Herald Correspondent in Washington
March 17, 2005
The chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, has admitted he made a mistake in 2001 when he defended President George Bush's tax cuts, which led to the turnaround of a large budget surplus at the end of the Clinton presidency to a budget deficit this year of more than $US400 billion ($506 billion).
Greenspan admits he got it wrong over Bush's tax cuts - World - www.smh.com.au
It's funny. With your words Bush had nothing to do with that economic mess. It becomes Clinton, Carter and Obama's responsibility. What did Bush do in his eight years?
The tax cut law was proposed and carried out by former President Bush. It is proved being a failed policy. In Bush's eight years term, the national debt raised from 6 trillian to 12 trillian. His tax cut law contributes big in debt increasing. Yet, when Obama wanted to recover the tax rate on rich people, the law makers resisted. It proves they are now working for a little group of rich people not for the majority of Americans.
Here is a confession from Greenspan:
Yet, when Obama proposed to cancel that tax cut law to save US from debt increasing, he is facing the opposition from the Republican.
Interesting re-write of history on your part, simply false but right out of the DNC talking points. There is a lot of blame to go around but to totally ignore the Obama involvement is what you are trying to do. Congress was under Democrat control from 2007-2011 and he could have stopped the Bush tax cuts any time from 2009-2010 but couldn't sell the Democrats who knew the American people wouldn't stand for a tax cut during a recession.
Your knowledge of the debt is flawed. Bush took office with a 5.7 trillion dollar debt and left it at 10.6 trillion which is a 4.9 trillion increase. Obama has added 4.4 trillion in 3 years
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Obama did proposed to eliminate the tax cut law or maintain the tax cut for middle class but recover tax rate on rich people. It's the Republican and tea party members who keep on opposing Obama's tax on rich policy.
Yes, it's true. The huge debt increased in Obam regime was used to save US economy that is damaged by the Bush. I made it very clear that Bush damaged US economy with housing bubble, financial crisis, tax cut bill and two wars in Mid-east. Obama has to repair the damaged house with huge money. Some one broken the glass. You accuse the man spend money to repair the window. Is it a manner of of gentleman? or a villain?
U.S. cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting
By Daniel Trotta
NEW YORK | Wed Jun 29, 2011
Reuters) - When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion (622 billion pounds) price tag for America's wars.
Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday.
The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (Home | Costs of War)
U.S. cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters
Sorry, I think I made it clear in my articles. I have to admit I am not a good teacher to explain everything to a student like you.
---------------
Bush increased the national debt not only with his “Tax cut law”, but also with his two Mid-east wars. The war cost is another heavy burden to the US tax payers.
How can tax cuts which grew govt revenue create a deficit? Interesting how people who probably don't pay any FIT believe any tax cut is an expense to the govt. i call that being brainwashed.
As for the cost of the war, the Treasury disagrees with you and that is the only number that matters since it what we pay debt service on
Whatta hoot you are. First you throw in the false strawman that tax cuts raise revenue then you start pounding away on your strawman. :roll:
Almost all economist that worked in the bush administration.including professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of bushs Council of Economic Advisers from 03 to 05 says in his book that the tax cuts didn’t increase revenues.
That's correct, but you realize there is a cult that thinks they do. Hell, not even President Reagan believed that, he raised taxes 11 times.Whatta hoot you are. First you throw in the false strawman that tax cuts raise revenue then you start pounding away on your strawman. :roll:
Almost all economist that worked in the bush administration.including professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of bushs Council of Economic Advisers from 03 to 05 says in his book that the tax cuts didn’t increase revenues.
Whatta hoot you are. First you throw in the false strawman that tax cuts raise revenue then you start pounding away on your strawman. :roll:
Almost all economist that worked in the bush administration.including professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of bushs Council of Economic Advisers from 03 to 05 says in his book that the tax cuts didn’t increase revenues.
That's correct, but you realize there is a cult that thinks they do. Hell, not even President Reagan believed that, he raised taxes 11 times.
Quote conservative
The U.S. treasury says there was an increase in revenue after the Reagan and Bush FIT cuts.
So in conservitiveland if we saw revenue increase after the Reagan and bush tax cuts that must mean that economist dont not know what they’re talking about eh?
Even Arthur Laffer when ask the question, did the bush tax cuts pay for themselves answered "I don't know."
In conservitiveland if it disagrees with the point that you’re trying to make, in whatever strawman you happen to be pounding on at the time even the “Laffer curve” sucks.:roll:
How it works is it jump starts the economy by putting more money in peoples pockets through lower income taxation, the people that actually drive the economy. The people spend creating demand. Demand creates a greater need for workers to fulfill the demand. The economy comes slowly back to life. As it gains strength, the taxes need to rise to keep the economy from going out of control. As Reagan did by lowering the income tax then raising it a few years later.
So you are calling the Treasury Dept. which is the bank account of the U.S. a liar. We pay debt service on those lies then. You need to do your civic duty and write or call them to tell them of their lies.
Then explain to me how taxes went up when Clinton raised taxes during his term. Don't give me the dotcom bubble bull****.
View attachment 67120328
Maybe you had better tell the CBO that there numbers suck.While you're peering at the numbers, notice how the revenue comes in during the Clinton years.Couldn't happen according to poplar conservative belief because Clinton raised taxes s eh?. :shock:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/85xx/doc8565/08-23-Update07.pdf
View attachment 67120328
Maybe you had better tell the CBO that there numbers suck.While you're peering at the numbers, notice how the revenue comes in during the Clinton years.Couldn't happen according to poplar conservative belief because Clinton raised taxes s eh?. :shock:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/85xx/doc8565/08-23-Update07.pdf
I’m old enough to know that the $240 billion tax increase, called the "1993 deficit reduction legislation" was passed in …duh, 1993. The deficit-reduction started going down shortly after the “1993 deficit reduction legislation “was put in place.
Got anymore bull**** that you would like to sling at the wall?:roll:
quote conservative
Nothing but his opinions
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?