Tell those 15 million unemployed and the additional 1.1 million that have dropped out of the labor market that Obama is cleaning up the Bush mess. Tell that to your kids grandkids why they are paying off the Obama debt that will be 1.2 trillion more than Obama even projected. What Obama and you will never understand is that growing the size of the govt. doesn't grow the size of the economy. it does however create a bill that comes due.
Actually there is quite a difference between the approach that Reagan and Bush along with the Federal Reserve to get us out of the recessions. First of all it is the private sector that drives the U.S. Economy, not the public sector and both Reagan and Bush knew that.Lord Tammerlain;1058603266]No the crisis did not begin in 2001. It was set up back then
The recession in 2001 was quite minor, due in large part to heavy government and Fed stimulation. The Bush admin ran large deficits which are stimulative to the economy and the fed ran historically low interest rates for an extended period of time. The recession of 2001 should have been far larger then it was. The bursting of the stock market bubble should have had a far larger impact on the economy then it did. As such Greenspan increased the moral hazard in the financial industry ( by creating an impression of governmental assistance during economic hard times, let alone the moral hazard he created during the LTCM crisis in the late 90s).
Their tax cuts along with the loose monetary policy which lowered interest rates in Reagan and Bush's terms focused on the private sector, encouraged investment by stimulating consumer spending. That created jobs and reversed the recession. Obama's focus is on the public sector and is doing nothing but creating debt. Reagan entered office with rising unemployment, double digit interest rates, double digit inflation making it a much worse situation than Obama. Reagan did the right thing, Obama didn't
As you stated CRA was signed under Jimmy Carter. It was promoted heavily in the 90's under Bill Clinton, and came to a head in 2007-2008 under Bush but Bush had nothing to do with it other than trying to regulate it more but was rebuked by the Democrat controlled Congress. Bad loans were bundled by banks but that isn't anything new. The extent of the bad paper however was greater in 2007-2008 and that led to the financial collapse which led to TARP.Along with decreased regulation of the banking industry, changes in Basel II all of which increased the short term profitability of offering mortgages where people would have a hard time paying them back ( generally due to the mortgage being far too large for the individual to support making payment. The housing bubble, the CDS (derivative) were issues that were years in the making, they did not just appear in 2006 and lead to the economic collapse in 2008-2009.
Not sure where Cleveland came into the picture but racism had nothing to do with the collapse of the banks. People who couldn't afford mortgages got them regardless of race. ACORN however did promote minority home ownership and Democrats believe every Americna deserves a home.It is racist to believe lending to minorities in Cleveland (ie CRA) is the reason why the banking industry collapsed.
What legislation did Bush sign that led to the lessoning of lending regulations? Chris Dodd will tell you about CountrywideAs for being lectured, if you had a clue you wouldnt need to be lectured, I suggest ignoring who is in office and do some serious reading about the economy and what occurred during the Clinton admin, the Bush admin regarding changes to bank regulation, which allowed the banks to increase their leverage to 30 +to 1. On what changes to the mortgage industry lead to changes in mortgage lending standards (Mortgage backed securities). On who were the leading subprime mortgage lenders, Ie not institutions that were regulated by the CRA (like Countrywide for instance)
Yep, Obama was in school yet when he got out of school he did a lot of work for ACORN. Now we know how non racist ACORN is,The CRA was enacted in the late 70s with a change in the 90s. Obama had very very little to do with creating the CRA ( he would have I believe still been in school)
You seem to want to make this racial just like some want to make challenging Obama policies as being racist which couldn't be further from the truth in most cases. His policies are socialist and contrary to the very principles upon which this country was built. It is no surprise that he is failing and it is further no surprise that people incapable of competing in society like many on this thread support his efforts.It is racist morons who want to blame minorities for the economic crisis rather then idiotic policies of the banks, and individuals across the nation who made poor choices
Lets talk about your boy Phil Gramm shall we?
In the 1990s, as chairman of the Senate banking committee, he routinely turned down Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent.
Gramm also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms from getting too close to the companies they audited—at one point, according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut.
And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms—setting off a wave of merger mania.
But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industry—friends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional career—came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered dead—even by Gramm.
the legislation contained a provision—lobbied for by Enron, a generous contributor to Gramm—that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight, allowing Enron to run rampant, wreck the California electricity market, and cost consumers billions before it collapsed. (For Gramm, Enron was a family affair. Eight years earlier, his wife, Wendy Gramm, as cftc chairwoman, had pushed through a rule excluding Enron's energy futures contracts from government oversight. Wendy later joined the Houston-based company's board, and in the following years her Enron salary and stock income brought between $915,000 and $1.8 million into the Gramm household.)
But the Enron loophole was small potatoes compared to the devastation that unregulated swaps would unleash. Credit default swaps are essentially insurance policies covering the losses on securities in the event of a default. Financial institutions buy them to protect themselves if an investment they hold goes south
Because of the swap-related provisions of Gramm's bill—which were supported by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury secretary Larry Summers—a $62 trillion market (nearly four times the size of the entire US stock market) remained utterly unregulated, meaning no one made sure the banks and hedge funds had the assets to cover the losses they guaranteed.
These unregulated swaps have been at "the heart of the subprime meltdown
Conservative ... shall we talk about Reagan?
Reagan was Governor for 8 years during which he increased Taxes on many items.
He increased the state revenues more than any predecessor.
By Far. Cutting Government? Ho Hum. Blarney Baloney once more.
Reagan policies increased Spending by 80% .
Debt by 186%.
9-3-01 Debt was $999.9 Billion and 9-30-89 at $1,859 Billion
Conservatives use Spin: It was Congress.
From 1930 to 1980 we spent $6066 Billion.
Reagan 8 Budgets totaled over $7000 Billion.
Congress? Ho Hum.
Congress returned Reagan 8 budgets for his signature with
fewer total dollars on them.
Haynes Johnson in “sleepwalking” said Reagan administration was “most scurrilous in history”
138 were investigated /charged/fined. More than total for all preceding Presidents in 20th century.
There were scandals in 27 Departments of the Federal Government.
Most involved money fraud.
The book “Ronald Reagan-There he goes again” documents over 300 incorrect statements by good old Ron.
Each President from 1945 reduced the Debt then came Spend-Borrow Reagan
to increase government by 80%.
Reagan introduced racking up a surplus while complaining about deficits, railing against taxes while signing in the biggest tax increase in history railing against iranian extremists while arming them, talking about law and order while circumventing the constitution, etc
I would let my dog take a big warm crap on Reagan's grave and smile as that
POS was nearly as corrupt
who gives a dang about phil gramm?
who's RUNNING AGAINST phil gramm?
why is anyone RUNNING AGAINST phil gramm?
where IS phil gramm?
phil gramm is LONG GONE, bless his drawling little heart
meanwhile, OBAMA is in the white house
that'd be, umm, TODAY
he's RESPONSIBLE for EVERYTHING
that's the way it works
if he can't handle it he should never have left chicago and reverend wright's gd church of chickens roosting
unemployment is 9.7%
obama promised us it would cap at 8
because of his stimu...
that was a year ago
he was WRONG, obama was
being so WRONG on something so BIG as JOBS on a day like TODAY makes our poor perplexed PRESIDENT a LOSER
so, you gonna call me a boogerhead?
Gramm was a major player in the housing meltdown and those that deny
are really out to to lunch
Conservatives once believed both in lower taxes and in balancing the budget.
Under Reagan, they simply became the party of tax cuts, without any commitment to fiscal responsibility.
Dick Cheney, George W. Bush’s vice-president, admitted as much when he told a cabinet colleague: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
A mystical belief took hold that if you just cut taxes, the economy would grow fast enough to cover the shortfall – or government would shrink, almost by magic. Somehow it would all come right. This drift in Republican thinking was actually profoundly anti-conservative – because it elevated ideology (cut taxes at any cost) over a pragmatic commitment to good governance.
It is the same with foreign policy. Reagan’s insistence that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire” caused many liberals to wince – but was basically accurate. However, when George W. Bush attempted to emulate Reagan’s “moral clarity”, he came up with the “Axis of Evil” – a silly concept that led America into a costly and unnecessary war in Iraq. President Bush also missed the fact that while Reagan had built up the US military, he had avoided any big wars. Invading Grenada under Reagan was one thing; invading Iraq under Mr Bush turned out to be quite another.