• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama announces his Candidacy for 2012.

rocket88 said:
Still throws water on your party that this is only Democrats. Unless Jack Kemp was a raging lefty.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that either party supported giving loans to people that didn't have the ability to pay them back? That is foolish although Democrats wanted the constituent group since liberals claim that Republicans are the party of big business and the rich.
 
pbrauer said:
Zero-down mortgage initiative by Bush is hit - The Boston Globe :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Oh, my...
President Bush's weekend campaign promise that he will push legislation allowing for no money down on some federally insured mortgages could cost taxpayers as much as $500 million over four years because of a higher rate of defaults, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The election-year idea may appeal to those who can't save as fast as home prices are rising. But some financial planners warn that increasingly common no- and low-down-payment programs can be ruinous for some consumers -- especially if home values decline.

If housing prices fall, consumers with little or no money of their own invested in the home are more vulnerable to ending up with mortgages larger than the value of the house.

And those who can't afford large down payments usually don't have enough savings to serve as a cushion if someone in the household gets sick or is laid off.
​
And that was before the election, yet Conservative voted to give Bush another 4 years; which Bush used to wreck the economy with his homeownership plan. Those are the results Conservative voted for. :shock:
 
Conservative said:
Do you really believe that either party supported giving loans to people that didn't have the ability to pay them back? That is foolish although Democrats wanted the constituent group since liberals claim that Republicans are the party of big business and the rich.
Click to expand...
As usual, blinded by partisanship, you completely miss the point. I don't see anyone saying Democrats were on the right side of the issue. In fact, they were more wrong than Republicans. At least Republicans saw the need for oversight.

But it was Republicans who were in charge. It was Republicans who chaired the committees. And it was Republicans who failed to get a bill out of committee to create the much needed oversight.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
As usual, blinded by partisanship, you completely miss the point. I don't see anyone saying Democrats were on the right side of the issue. In fact, they were more wrong than Republicans. At least Republicans saw the need for oversight.

But it was Republicans who were in charge. It was Republicans who chaired the committees. And it was Republicans who failed to get a bill out of committee to create the much needed oversight.
Click to expand...

And exactly what does that have to do with the thread topic?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Oh, my...
President Bush's weekend campaign promise that he will push legislation allowing for no money down on some federally insured mortgages could cost taxpayers as much as $500 million over four years because of a higher rate of defaults, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The election-year idea may appeal to those who can't save as fast as home prices are rising. But some financial planners warn that increasingly common no- and low-down-payment programs can be ruinous for some consumers -- especially if home values decline.

If housing prices fall, consumers with little or no money of their own invested in the home are more vulnerable to ending up with mortgages larger than the value of the house.

And those who can't afford large down payments usually don't have enough savings to serve as a cushion if someone in the household gets sick or is laid off.
​
And that was before the election, yet Conservative voted to give Bush another 4 years; which Bush used to wreck the economy with his homeownership plan. Those are the results Conservative voted for. :shock:
Click to expand...

Since obviously you believe I made a mistake in voting for Bush for a second term I would have expected you to learn from someone else's mistake and not make it by voting for Obama for a second term. Here are a couple of the reasons I voted for Bush, here are the GDP change by year along with the employment by year.

GDP

2000 9951.50 6.39%
2001 10286.20 3.36%
2002 10642.30 3.46%
2003 11142.10 4.70%
2004 11867.80 6.51%
2005 12638.40 6.49%
2006 13398.90 6.02%
2007 14077.60 5.07%
2008 14441.40 2.58%
2009 14256.30 -1.28%
2010 14657.8 2.82%

Employment

January numbers, employment total. Let me know when Obama gets employment back to the level it was when he took office.

2000 136559
2001 137778
2002 135701
2003 137417
2004 138472
2005 140245
2006 143142
2007 146032
2008 146421
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
Calling people "dumb" for disagreeing with your political ideology is an inability to respect people with different political ideologies - you shouldn't have said it if you can't own up to it.
Click to expand...

It is what it is dude, you should own up to the fact that you are backing, and continually making excuses for an empty suit. A non leader. A weak stick.

He should have stuck to teaching in Chicago.

j-mac
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Since you believe each job cost us $228,000, how on Earth do you deny that the stimulus saved or created 3.5 million jobs?

Since you believe each job cost us $228,000, how on Earth do you deny that the stimulus saved or created 3.5 million jobs?
Click to expand...

I've even questioned Conservative a time or two when I disagreed with him. But in this case you are just flapping your jaws, to be flapping your jaws, with no substance behind anything you say.

I'll try to break this down for you in simple terms, Conservative doesn't “believe” that there have been 3.5 million jobs created by the stimulus, and neither does anyone else that has half a brain. What he is saying is that “IF” you believe that 3.5 million jobs were saved, the cost of saving those jobs was $228,000 each.

Yes, you made that claim. You claimed that the 787 billion dollar stimulus cost $228,000 per job. At $228,000 per job, that equates to almost 3.5 million jobs being created or saved. And as was proved by the link you provided for the CBO report you claim to have gotten that number from, the CBO never said anything about each job costing $228,000
Click to expand...

Maybe in your jaded thinking, the CBO didn't give this number, but they did, ask any 5th grader the question “ if you created or saved 3.5 million jobs, and spent $787 billion to save or create those jobs how much did each job cost"?

If you can't understand where that number came from, then by all means, don't go on the show -Are you smarter then a 5th grader,- because you aren't!

When President Bush announced his Minority Homeownership plans last week in Atlanta, his top priorities were new federal programs: a $2.4 billion tax credit to facilitate home purchases by lower-income first-time buyers, and a $200 million national downpayment grant fund.

But none of the new federal programs--if passed by Congress--will come even close to achieving the 5.5 million-household increase in minority homeownership the President set as his target.
Click to expand...

While Bush may have been wrong for wanting to pass bills that would have allowed this, I'm not certain that he ever “did” get anything passed. At least I have found nothing stating that any of what you are stating ever did get passed. So while you are busy again blaming Bush for something, you seem intent on neglecting things like the Community Reinvestment Act and repeal of Glass Steagall in 2000? Both of which loosened restrictions on mortgage lending practices that were passed by Clinton, which was the beginning of the downfall of the crash of 2008. You also ignore that twice since 2003 bills to look closer into Fanny and Freddie, were filibustered by Democrats, or that as late as 2006 Barney Frank and Obama was backing him, that there was no need to look closely into what Fannie and Freddie were doing. In spite of all this, you far left liberals insist, that it's all Bush's fault.



Originally Posted by pbrauer

You asked: "What economic policy did GW Bush implement that caused the financial crisis?" His policy was to look the other way when the banks were screwing their customers.

The CRA has nothing to do with the financial crisis; it never forced banks to make risky loans, just lower rates. And it only involved community banks.

You know damn well Bush wanted to offer no down payment loans
Click to expand...

First off what Bush “may or may not” have wanted to do, has nothing to do with what he was able to do.

Next when you say the CRA has nothing to do with the financial crisis you are stretching the truth, *The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group”

Such groups include Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America. Who boosted to the*New York Times*that they had "won" loan commitments totaling $3.8*billion*from Bank of America, First Union Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group. And that is just one "community group" operating in one city — Boston.

Other groups like ACORN"community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give*them*millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.

Now maybe in your liberal thinking, this isn't forcing a bank to make questionable loans, but when you can halt a banks expansion plans simply by forming a protest, if you don't agree to make these very same questionable loans, it can be considered "forcing" in the minds of those that think reasonably.
The CRA most certainly can have some of the blame put upon them, for some of the lending practices that the banks adopted to keep any community group from protesting them.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
You claimed that the 787 billion dollar stimulus cost $228,000 per job.
Click to expand...

well, no matter what your little adversary (LOL!) claimed, the RECOVERY ACT (the president doesn't call it a stim, anymore, nor does he refer to jobs "created or saved") was a LOSER

Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME

Just don't call it a 'stimulus' - Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41867.html

remember in october when barack hussein admitted to the world that he'd only just learned THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SHOVEL READY JOB?

Obama: "No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Projects" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

LOL!

not real bright, huh?

have you noticed how he never anymore talks about OBAMACARE?

or his #2 domestic "achievement," REG REFORM, which flies off its course to EXCLUDE the infamous f's, fannie and fred?

why do you think that is?

his opponents, in crying contrast, are EAGER to discuss em

seeya at the polls, progressives
 
The Prof said:
or his #2 domestic "achievement," REG REFORM, which flies off its course to EXCLUDE the infamous f's, fannie and fred?

why do you think that is?

his opponents, in crying contrast, are EAGER to discuss em

seeya at the polls, progressives
Click to expand...

"Congress created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decades ago as private-sector companies with an important public mission: to help ensure that lenders always have money available for home buyers. These government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) have proven hugely successful in providing liquidity and innovation to the mortgage market. -- Jack Kemp

So you want to advocate an economic plan that causes the mortgage market to collapse all the way...I think progressives can't wait to see you at the polls in that case!
 
The Barbarian said:
I've even questioned Conservative a time or two when I disagreed with him. But in this case you are just flapping your jaws, to be flapping your jaws, with no substance behind anything you say.

I'll try to break this down for you in simple terms, Conservative doesn't “believe” that there have been 3.5 million jobs created by the stimulus, and neither does anyone else that has half a brain. What he is saying is that “IF” you believe that 3.5 million jobs were saved, the cost of saving those jobs was $228,000 each.



Maybe in your jaded thinking, the CBO didn't give this number, but they did, ask any 5th grader the question “ if you created or saved 3.5 million jobs, and spent $787 billion to save or create those jobs how much did each job cost"?

If you can't understand where that number came from, then by all means, don't go on the show -Are you smarter then a 5th grader,- because you aren't!



While Bush may have been wrong for wanting to pass bills that would have allowed this, I'm not certain that he ever “did” get anything passed. At least I have found nothing stating that any of what you are stating ever did get passed. So while you are busy again blaming Bush for something, you seem intent on neglecting things like the Community Reinvestment Act and repeal of Glass Steagall in 2000? Both of which loosened restrictions on mortgage lending practices that were passed by Clinton, which was the beginning of the downfall of the crash of 2008. You also ignore that twice since 2003 bills to look closer into Fanny and Freddie, were filibustered by Democrats, or that as late as 2006 Barney Frank and Obama was backing him, that there was no need to look closely into what Fannie and Freddie were doing. In spite of all this, you far left liberals insist, that it's all Bush's fault.





First off what Bush “may or may not” have wanted to do, has nothing to do with what he was able to do.

Next when you say the CRA has nothing to do with the financial crisis you are stretching the truth, *The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group”

Such groups include Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America. Who boosted to the*New York Times*that they had "won" loan commitments totaling $3.8*billion*from Bank of America, First Union Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group. And that is just one "community group" operating in one city — Boston.

Other groups like ACORN"community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give*them*millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.

Now maybe in your liberal thinking, this isn't forcing a bank to make questionable loans, but when you can halt a banks expansion plans simply by forming a protest, if you don't agree to make these very same questionable loans, it can be considered "forcing" in the minds of those that think reasonably.
The CRA most certainly can have some of the blame put upon them, for some of the lending practices that the banks adopted to keep any community group from protesting them.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much, outstanding post but probably will get ignored
 
rocket88 said:
These government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) have proven hugely successful in providing liquidity and innovation to the mortgage market
Click to expand...

f & f have proved hugely successful?

LOL!

have fun running on that

you can quote mr kemp, may he rip

why doesn't OBAMA ever talk about his REG REFORM, let alone his stimu... err, RECOVERY ACT?

or OBAMACARE?

why does ANTHONY WEINER wanna WAIVER?

why are the president's "supporters" so STUCK on george-w-what's-his-name, completely unable it appears to discuss barack hussein's RECORD?

either way, more power to you

WE'LL talk
 
Conservative said:
One thing for sure you will never be called an economic genius let alone a credible poster who ignores anything that contradicts your point of view. Like all liberals you place blame but never accept responsibility. What economic policy did GW Bush implement that caused the financial crisis? Did he implement the Community Reinvestment Act? Did he weaken oversight in 1993? Did he sign the repeal of Glass Steagall in 2000? So I await another brilliant response from my friend from the bankrupt state of California
Click to expand...

I rest my case....more deflection....more denials......thank you for proving my point.....LOL....
 
Moderator's Warning:
Guys, the name calling and personal comments need to end, and end now.
 
Jetboogieman said:
You know its funny, I have never, ever heard Obama say the words since he's been president that it's Bushs fault, can someone please link that to me. Cheers.
Click to expand...

You gotta be ****ing kidding! When Obama said he, "inherited this mess", who the hell do you think he was referring to? Grow up!
 
you know what's odd?

obama LAUNCHED his reelection campaign ON THE SAME DAY his administration declared it would leave GITMO exactly as it is and try KSM in a TRIBUNAL there

LOL!

what else has been going on recently, simultaneous with barack hussein's fine foray?

bernanke was forced to disclose via FREEDOM OF INFORMATION requests which he successfully STONEWALLED for two years that multi TRILLIONS of TARP went to FOREIGN entities

the dhs INSPECTOR GENERAL reported that the dept's POLITICAL SCREENING of foia app's was UNPRECEDENTED and WRONG

barack hussein was awared a TRANSPARENCY award in the white house and the PRESS AND PUBLIC WERE EXCLUDED

his BUDGET TALKS with the opposition are in COLLAPSE

his budget PROPOSAL is all PUNT

in stark contrast to the gop budget chair's BOLD bid

and don't forget, it was only a few months ago he SURRENDERED just days before they were set to expire the BUSH TAX CUTS

FOR THE RICH!

his TIMING could hardly be more EXQUISITE, you must admit

good luck in your campaign against FORUMS MEMBERS

and HERBERT HOOVER

i mean that

LOL!
 
The Barbarian said:
First off what Bush “may or may not” have wanted to do, has nothing to do with what he was able to do.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Next when you say the CRA has nothing to do with the financial crisis you are stretching the truth, *The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group”

Such groups include Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America. Who boosted to the*New York Times*that they had "won" loan commitments totaling $3.8*billion*from Bank of America, First Union Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group. And that is just one "community group" operating in one city — Boston.

Other groups like ACORN"community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give*them*millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.

Now maybe in your liberal thinking, this isn't forcing a bank to make questionable loans, but when you can halt a banks expansion plans simply by forming a protest, if you don't agree to make these very same questionable loans, it can be considered "forcing" in the minds of those that think reasonably.
The CRA most certainly can have some of the blame put upon them, for some of the lending practices that the banks adopted to keep any community group from protesting them.
Click to expand...
I see, according to you, banks did anything the community groups wanted them to do. That thinking is a divorce from reality, seriously you think the actions of low income people are going to change the policies of the powerful banking industry? :lamo
 
The Prof said:
f & f have proved hugely successful?

LOL!

have fun running on that

you can quote mr kemp, may he rip
Click to expand...

It's interesting when so-called Conservatives can't even identify what Jack Kemp believed in. Talk about a short memory.

The point was Obama was not the only friend Fannie and Freddie had. They had plenty on the right, also. Luckily for the GOP, the American public's memory is as short as theirs. Those who can't remember history....
 
short memory?

LOL!

i remember jack kemp when he was the championship qb of the 64 and 65 bills

heck, i remember when sid gillman tried to sneak him thru waivers cuzza the broken right middle finger dole's veep candidate had to have fused in the permanent position of holding a ball

short memory---LOL!

anyway, good luck running on kemp's mantra that the flat, failed f's are a...

what was it again?

oh, yeah---proven success
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It's true, I'm not in the top bracket, but based on your belief that Obama's plan was to increase [tax on] dividend income to 40% or so leads me to believe a) you're not either; b) you don't know as much as you purport; and c) you fall easily for rightwing talking points.

Tax Policy Center

B. SENATOR OBAMA’S PLAN

Partial extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Senator Obama has called for extending the tax cuts affecting the middle class while eliminating those benefitting the wealthiest Americans. According to the campaign, Obama would extend the child credit expansions; the changes to marriage bonuses and penalties; and the 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent income tax rates, as well as the lower tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends for taxpayers in those four tax brackets. He would restore the 36 and 39.6 percent rates and increase the rate on capital gains and dividends for taxpayers in those brackets. To match the campaign’s stated revenue targets, we assumed a rate of 25 percent for capital gains and qualified dividends. 3 Obama would also restore the phaseouts of personal exemptions and itemized deductions, but set the income threshold at $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. As under current law, the thresholds for the phaseout of personal exemptions would be lower for singles and heads of households, but those for the phaseout of itemized deductions would not vary with filing status. The thresholds would be indexed for inflation as they are under current law. Senator Obama would also extend several smaller expiring tax cuts, including the adoption credit and the simplifications to the earned income tax credit. Certain other provisions would be modified, as described below.

_____________________
3 Under current law, the top tax rate on capital gains would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent in 2011 and qualified dividends would face ordinary income tax rates as high as 39.6 percent. Obama’s plan would thus increase the maximum tax rate on gains from 20 percent to 25 percent and reduce that on qualified dividends from 39.6 percent to 25 percent.​
Click to expand...

this was when? the dem plan which he supported (before electoral reality bitch slapped him in the face on November, 2010) was treating dividends the same as other income(even though it is often taxed twice) btw still a massive hike
 
Capital Gain and Dividend Tax Rates Poised to Rise

But the real change will be the increase in taxes paid on dividends. The maximum tax rate on dividends will head up to 39.6%. Even those in the lower tax brackets will pay 15% or 28% on dividends. For those folks, the change from 0% will be a pretty hard hit on real returns.
 
The Prof said:
short memory?

anyway, good luck running on kemp's mantra that the flat, failed f's are a...

what was it again?

oh, yeah---proven success
Click to expand...

Kemp supported them. So have many on the right, some of whom are still in Congress. Obama did not come up with them, nor was he their only supporter.

Or just keep pretending that Republicans are absolutely perfect in every way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom