National Debt Up $3 Trillion on Obama's Watch

Mustachio · Oct 20, 2010

From the article:

President Obama and Congress await recommendations on ways to reduce federal deficits from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

The 18-member panel will report December 1st - after the midterm election.

The Commission, chaired by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, was established by Mr. Obama to provide recommendations on how to "put the budget into primary balance, meaning that the federal government will pay for all of its programmatic obligations."

Should be interesting. Looks like the first half of Obama's presidency was about enacting progressive policies, the second half will be about making the hard choices and reducing spending. Whether or not he can get Americans to buy into whatever that plan is -- and if the plan works -- will probably determine whether or not he will get a second term.

The tone of the OP is annoying to me. The national debt is up 3 trillion dollars. Bush's debt was 5 trillion during his time in office. You're not going to win by taking one side or the other, because at the end of the day, you're an American and the massive overspending will eventually cripple your nation. If your house is on fire and you're sitting there saying "told you that old radiator was a hazard" instead of trying to put the fire out, you're not helping things any.

ptif219 · Oct 20, 2010

Mustachio said:
From the article:

President Obama and Congress await recommendations on ways to reduce federal deficits from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

The 18-member panel will report December 1st - after the midterm election.

The Commission, chaired by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, was established by Mr. Obama to provide recommendations on how to "put the budget into primary balance, meaning that the federal government will pay for all of its programmatic obligations."

Should be interesting. Looks like the first half of Obama's presidency was about enacting progressive policies, the second half will be about making the hard choices and reducing spending. Whether or not he can get Americans to buy into whatever that plan is -- and if the plan works -- will probably determine whether or not he will get a second term.

The tone of the OP is annoying to me. The national debt is up 3 trillion dollars. Bush's debt was 5 trillion during his time in office. You're not going to win by taking one side or the other, because at the end of the day, you're an American and the massive overspending will eventually cripple your nation. If your house is on fire and you're sitting there saying "told you that old radiator was a hazard" instead of trying to put the fire out, you're not helping things any.

Bush took 8 years Obama has only been there 2 years. At this rate Obama will do more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8 years fighting 2 wars.

pbrauer · Oct 20, 2010

ptif219 said:
Did you miss this

The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion.

The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms. The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama's fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That's more than 100 percent of the value of the nation's economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job.

Bush's first year in office was Clinton's budget and Obama's first year in office is from Bush. Obama inherited the Bush tax cuts, the wars and Medicare part "D" which were all unfunded.

USA_1 · Oct 20, 2010

pbrauer said:
Bush's first year in office was Clinton's budget and Obama's first year in office is from Bush. Obama inherited the Bush tax cuts, the wars and Medicare part "D" which were all unfunded.

Obama did kind of inherit the recession, too.

ptif219 · Oct 20, 2010

pbrauer said:
Bush's first year in office was Clinton's budget and Obama's first year in office is from Bush. Obama inherited the Bush tax cuts, the wars and Medicare part "D" which were all unfunded.

Make excuses all you want but Obama did bailouts and took over companies all by himself. Not to mention healthcare.How does what you say justify Obama increasing the debt twice as fast as Bush if he had Bush's same economy?

ptif219 · Oct 20, 2010

USA-1 said:
Obama did kind of inherit the recession, too.

Bush had the Clinton recession and the economic problems from 911 his first year

USA_1 · Oct 20, 2010

ptif219 said:
Bush had the Clinton recession and the economic problems from 911 his first year

Yes he did and Bush used the housing sector to pull us out of that recession which led to the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression.

Aunt Spiker · Oct 20, 2010

pbrauer said:
Bush's first year in office was Clinton's budget and Obama's first year in office is from Bush. Obama inherited the Bush tax cuts, the wars and Medicare part "D" which were all unfunded.

Yep! And Bush talked about it, too.
And Clinton did the Same . .. they all played the blame game for a little while but eventually that runs it's course.

Time acts like a buffer - I wish I was more aware of politics when I was younger - watching Rush Limbaugh flapping his yaps on TV when I was 9 doesn't count

ptif219 · Oct 20, 2010

USA-1 said:
Yes he did and Bush used the housing sector to pull us out of that recession which led to the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression.

That happened when democrats got back the majority in congress

USA_1 · Oct 20, 2010

ptif219 said:
That happened when democrats got back the majority in congress

You're kidding. Right? The collapse of the housing sector began in '06. It amazes me how partisanship can blind people to reality.

j-mac · Oct 20, 2010

USA-1 said:
Yes he did and Bush used the housing sector to pull us out of that recession which led to the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression.

If that is so, then why did demo's double down on the policies in the new financial reform legislation?

j-mac

USA_1 · Oct 20, 2010

j-mac said:
If that is so, then why did demo's double down on the policies in the new financial reform legislation?

j-mac

Because democrats are just as stupid as republicans.

j-mac · Oct 20, 2010

USA-1 said:
You're kidding. Right? The collapse of the housing sector began in '06. It amazes me how partisanship can blind people to reality.

Actually it started with the CRA, and Clinton put it on steroids...Bush didn't help, but repubs were screaming about the impending crisis in 07 to deaf demo's....

Yet demo's wanted to cover for the crook Franklin Raines. What a farce.

j-mac

j-mac · Oct 20, 2010

USA-1 said:
Because democrats are just as stupid as republicans.

Well, I don't totally disagree there, but the electorate kicked them out, now the demo's own the show, and still try the childish game of blame.

j-mac

USA_1 · Oct 20, 2010

j-mac said:
Actually it started with the CRA, and Clinton put it on steroids...Bush didn't help, but repubs were screaming about the impending crisis in 07 to deaf demo's....

Yet demo's wanted to cover for the crook Franklin Raines. What a farce.

j-mac

The CRA really had nothing to do with the real estate boom and bust of the last decade. Do the research and the truth will set you free.

USA_1 · Oct 20, 2010

j-mac said:
Well, I don't totally disagree there, but the electorate kicked them out, now the demo's own the show, and still try the childish game of blame.

j-mac

The childish game of blame is employed equally by both parties.

j-mac · Oct 20, 2010

USA-1 said:
The CRA really had nothing to do with the real estate boom and bust of the last decade. Do the research and the truth will set you free.

Unbelievable....You have the c span video right in front of you and you can say that with a straight face?

j-mac

j-mac · Oct 20, 2010

USA-1 said:
The childish game of blame is employed equally by both parties.

Not today its not. Those who have the bully pulpit control the narrative.

j-mac

USA_1 · Oct 20, 2010

j-mac said:
Unbelievable....You have the c span video right in front of you and you can say that with a straight face?

j-mac

Unbelievable is right. You actually blame the housing boom on the CRA? You really should do some research on the causes of the real estate boom and bust.

http://www.responsiblelending.org/m...lame-for-blame-for-the-mortgage-meltdown.html

he Comptroller of the Currency. John C. Dugan, agrees: "CRA [the Community Reinvestment Act] is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA. A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas."**

j-mac · Oct 20, 2010

USA-1 said:
Unbelievable is right. You actually blame the housing boom on the CRA? You really should do some research on the causes of the real estate boom and bust.

CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

he Comptroller of the Currency. John C. Dugan, agrees: "CRA [the Community Reinvestment Act] is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA. A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas."**

Ok so you take the word of one of Giethner's cronies, and a major role player in TARP, and Stimulus pkgs. Not to mention is credited with helping draft the financial reform bill, some 2,300 pages of crap. I am shocked.

j-mac

ptif219 · Oct 20, 2010

USA-1 said:
You're kidding. Right? The collapse of the housing sector began in '06. It amazes me how partisanship can blind people to reality.

NBER Makes It Official: Recession Started in December 2007 - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met by conference call on Friday, November 28. The committee maintains a chronology of the beginning and ending dates (months and quarters) of U.S. recessions. The committee determined that a peak in economic activity occurred in the U.S. economy in December 2007. The peak marks the end of the expansion that began in November 2001 and the beginning of a recession. The expansion lasted 73 months; the previous expansion of the 1990s lasted 120 months.

USA_1 · Oct 21, 2010

ptif219 said:
NBER Makes It Official: Recession Started in December 2007 - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met by conference call on Friday, November 28. The committee maintains a chronology of the beginning and ending dates (months and quarters) of U.S. recessions. The committee determined that a peak in economic activity occurred in the U.S. economy in December 2007. The peak marks the end of the expansion that began in November 2001 and the beginning of a recession. The expansion lasted 73 months; the previous expansion of the 1990s lasted 120 months.

Like I said, the collapse of the housing sector began in '06.

USA_1 · Oct 21, 2010

j-mac said:
Ok so you take the word of one of Giethner's cronies, and a major role player in TARP, and Stimulus pkgs. Not to mention is credited with helping draft the financial reform bill, some 2,300 pages of crap. I am shocked.

j-mac

CRA had noithing to do with the housing boom or it's collapse. No matter how many times you or anyone else repeats it, the facts prove that it didn't.
Just once try thinking for yourself, do the research and come to your own rational conclusion. Some of you right wingnuts are just way too gullible.

"The Great Housing Bubble was caused by an expansion of credit that enabled irrational exuberance and wild speculation. The expansion of credit came in the form of relaxed loan underwriting terms including high debt-to-income ratios, lower FICO scores, high combined-loan-to-value lending including 100% financing, and loan terms permitting negative amortization."

Bush cut red tape, promoted easier credit and even eliminated down payments while Greenspan lowered interest rates and pumped hundreds of billions into the financial sector.

Whovian · Oct 21, 2010

USA-1 said:
The CRA really had nothing to do with the real estate boom and bust of the last decade. Do the research and the truth will set you free.

Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending

Contrary to my initial conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming that the CRA played a significant role in creating lax lending standards that fueled the housing bubble. Once I realized this, I had to abandon my suspicion that the anti-CRA case was a figment of the rhetoric of Republicans attempting to distract attention from their own role in the mortgage mess.

So I laid out the facts and arguments that had convinced me to switch sides in the CRA debate. It was a long series of posts that generated hundreds of responses and counter-arguments. Felix Salmon’s response is here, Barry Ritholtz’s here, Mike Rorty's here, Ryan Chitum’s here, and Matthew Wurtzel’s here. All of my posts are here. Henry Blodget's earlier post on the CRA, with which I largely agreed until recently, is here. If you carefully run through these posts and the accompanying comments, I think you'll see that every argument raised by the "Defend CRA at all costs" crowd has been refuted.

I did not post the details here, as it si a VERY long piece. But take a look.

USA_1 · Oct 21, 2010

Whovian said:
Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending

I did not post the details here, as it si a VERY long piece. But take a look.

Don’t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Real Time Economics - WSJ

A pair of economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco added another piece of evidence to the case that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasn’t the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.

In a paper focused on California that was presented at a Fed conference on housing and mortgages in Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid say the data “should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low and moderate-income lenders.” Fed governor Randall Kroszner made a similar case earlier this week.

Among the specific findings in “Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown”:
# Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.
# Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were “significantly less likely to be in foreclosure” than those originated by independent mortgage companies that weren’t covered by CRA.
# Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were “half as likely to go into foreclosure” as those made by the independent mortgage companies.
# 28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.
# 12% of the loans made by CRA lenders in these areas were high-priced loans, a technical definition of subprime, compared with 29% of the loans made by those lenders outside their assessment areas and 52.4% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low-income areas.

Blaming the CRA for the boom and bust is just plain dishonest.
The numbers prove the CRA really had nothing to do with the housing boom of the first half of the last decade.

Remember this?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm
In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.

National Debt Up $3 Trillion on Obama's Watch

Cheese