"the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion"

[Vern]

“If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion”

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

wait! what?!? 642 billion? That is less than half of Bush's 1.4 trillion dollar budget deficit. So the pubs are threatening to destroy the economy with default not to reduce the deficit but to reduce it faster? But deficit reduction was their back up excuse to destroy the economy with default. Their first excuse to destroy the economy with default was to defund Obamacare. Well I guess Obamacare cant be that bad if they had to go to their back up excuse.

So, President Obama has reduced the deficit every year and maintained positive GDP and pubs are not happy? mmmm, that just doesn't make any sense. Lets look at Bush's last budget with President Obama's first four as a % of GDP.

Fiscal year_______2009___2010___2011___2012___ 2013(est)
Total Revenues___ 15.1____15.1___ 15.4___ 15.8___16.9
Total Outlays_____ 25.2____24.1___ 24.1___ 22.8___22.2

Can someone explain why those numbers are worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? remembering of course that President Obama maintained positive GDP which greatly helped with reducing the Bush Deficits.

 

[CanadaJohn]

“If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion”

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

wait! what?!? 642 billion? That is less than half of Bush's 1.4 trillion dollar budget deficit. So the pubs are threatening to destroy the economy with default not to reduce the deficit but to reduce it faster? But deficit reduction was their back up excuse to destroy the economy with default. Their first excuse to destroy the economy with default was to defund Obamacare. Well I guess Obamacare cant be that bad if they had to go to their back up excuse.

So, President Obama has reduced the deficit every year and maintained positive GDP and pubs are not happy? mmmm, that just doesn't make any sense. Lets look at Bush's last budget with President Obama's first four as a % of GDP.

Fiscal year_______2009___2010___2011___2012___ 2013(est)
Total Revenues___ 15.1____15.1___ 15.4___ 15.8___16.9
Total Outlays_____ 25.2____24.1___ 24.1___ 22.8___22.2

Can someone explain why those numbers are worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? remembering of course that President Obama maintained positive GDP which greatly helped with reducing the Bush Deficits.

Who do you think is responsible for the reduction in the in-year deficit? Is it Obama?

Do you believe the sequestor that the Republican House insisted remain in place had anything to do with reductions in the deficit even though Obama took his campaign bus around the country claiming that the sky would fall if the sequestor legislation was allowed to become law?

Are you aware that the Democrats and Obama want to eliminate the sequestor reductions in spending as part of their "budget" and as a requirement for their support of the debt ceiling increase and refunding of the federal government going forward?

 

[clownboy]

“If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion”

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

wait! what?!? 642 billion? That is less than half of Bush's 1.4 trillion dollar budget deficit. So the pubs are threatening to destroy the economy with default not to reduce the deficit but to reduce it faster? But deficit reduction was their back up excuse to destroy the economy with default. Their first excuse to destroy the economy with default was to defund Obamacare. Well I guess Obamacare cant be that bad if they had to go to their back up excuse.

So, President Obama has reduced the deficit every year and maintained positive GDP and pubs are not happy? mmmm, that just doesn't make any sense. Lets look at Bush's last budget with President Obama's first four as a % of GDP.

Fiscal year_______2009___2010___2011___2012___ 2013(est)
Total Revenues___ 15.1____15.1___ 15.4___ 15.8___16.9
Total Outlays_____ 25.2____24.1___ 24.1___ 22.8___22.2

Can someone explain why those numbers are worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? remembering of course that President Obama maintained positive GDP which greatly helped with reducing the Bush Deficits.

Reminds me of when my ex and I were in a very tight financial spot but she went mall shopping anyway. Her answer is much like yours, "But, but, it was all ON SALE". :lamo

If the budget deficit is anything more than zero we're still taking on debt.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The Sequester is the reason for the reduction in the deficit.

Now, if Obama wants to take credit for coming up with the idea, as he did, then he can take credit for the reduction in the deficit. But that would go against his and the Democrats rhetoric of the "big bad and hurtful" sequester (like that will happen).

Obama suggested the sequester because half, HALF, the cuts came from defense and he thought the Republicans would never let it happen (woops).

 

[azgreg]

“If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion”

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

wait! what?!? 642 billion? That is less than half of Bush's 1.4 trillion dollar budget deficit. So the pubs are threatening to destroy the economy with default not to reduce the deficit but to reduce it faster? But deficit reduction was their back up excuse to destroy the economy with default. Their first excuse to destroy the economy with default was to defund Obamacare. Well I guess Obamacare cant be that bad if they had to go to their back up excuse.

So, President Obama has reduced the deficit every year and maintained positive GDP and pubs are not happy? mmmm, that just doesn't make any sense. Lets look at Bush's last budget with President Obama's first four as a % of GDP.

Fiscal year_______2009___2010___2011___2012___ 2013(est)
Total Revenues___ 15.1____15.1___ 15.4___ 15.8___16.9
Total Outlays_____ 25.2____24.1___ 24.1___ 22.8___22.2

Can someone explain why those numbers are worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? remembering of course that President Obama maintained positive GDP which greatly helped with reducing the Bush Deficits.

So, your level of success is the deficit is lower than Bush's. That's like cheering that you have breast cancer and not a brain tumor.

 

[specklebang]

Reducing the costs of wars created to enrich your buddies is a huge savings.

 

[Vern]

Who do you think is responsible for the reduction in the in-year deficit? Is it Obama?

Do you believe the sequestor that the Republican House insisted remain in place had anything to do with reductions in the deficit even though Obama took his campaign bus around the country claiming that the sky would fall if the sequestor legislation was allowed to become law?

Are you aware that the Democrats and Obama want to eliminate the sequestor reductions in spending as part of their "budget" and as a requirement for their support of the debt ceiling increase and refunding of the federal government going forward?

er uh John, I've always given republicans credit for the sequester. My opinion doesn't change just because its safe to take credit for it. Of course, republicans weren't trying to take credit for it before the sequester. But lets give them full credit for the 85 billion in spending cuts for this year. That still leaves about 670 billion in President Obama's column as well as the previous years. But enough with your deflection. what about my question (and the point of the thread)?

Can someone explain why those reducing the deficit faster is worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? remembering of course that deficit reduction wasn't their original reason for pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default?

Reducing the costs of wars created to enrich your buddies is a huge savings.

speckle, long time no hear. Yes, reducing war costs did add to the deficit reduction but don't forget, President Obama added it to the budget. so any response to my actual question?

And don't forget, President Obama reduced the deficits while maintaining positive GDP. It was close a couple of times which goes to prove he did it at just the right pace. Just think how much pubs would have cheered and hurt consumer confidence if we dipped into negative territory.

 

[CanadaJohn]

er uh John, I've always given republicans credit for the sequester. My opinion doesn't change just because its safe to take credit for it. Of course, republicans weren't trying to take credit for it before the sequester. But lets give them full credit for the 85 billion in spending cuts for this year. That still leaves about 670 billion in President Obama's column as well as the previous years. But enough with your deflection. what about my question (and the point of the thread)?

Can someone explain why those reducing the deficit faster is worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? remembering of course that deficit reduction wasn't their original reason for pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default?



speckle, long time no hear. Yes, reducing war costs did add to the deficit reduction but don't forget, President Obama added it to the budget. so any response to my actual question?

And don't forget, President Obama reduced the deficits while maintaining positive GDP. It was close a couple of times which goes to prove he did it at just the right pace. Just think how much pubs would have cheered and hurt consumer confidence if we dipped into negative territory.

Please provide your source that proves that Obama had a budget that was adopted and that Obama reduced deficits. Since all spending, by constitutional rule, must be initiated in the House, wouldn't that make any reduction in year to year deficits the accomplishment of the Republican House?

 

[WhyNotWhyNot]

Thank you for pointing this thread to a thorough, politically neutral, analysis made by true professionals. Perhaps the posters to follow might study it and give it thoughtful consideration even if the OP didn’t because he was so bent on President Obama idolatry and opposition bashing. I see little evidence that either side of this feud, Dems or Repubs, are interested in sober analysis and formulating logical, responsible, financial policy from it. That would be good governance, which somehow is no longer good election strategy. Did you miss the following in the report:

“However, budget shortfalls are projected to increase later in the coming decade reaching 3.5% of GDP in 2023, because of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt”

“For the 2014-2023 period, deficits in the CBO’s baseline projections total $6.3 trillion. With such deficits federal debt held by the public is projected to remain above 70% of GDP – far higher than the 39 percent average over the last four decades. … Under current law the debt is projected to decline from about 76 percent of GDP in 2014 to slightly under 71 percent in 2018, but then start to rise again”

“The increase in debt, along with an anticipated substantial rise in interest rates as the economy strengthens is expected to sharply boost interest payments. CBO estimates that, under current law, the government’s net interest spending will more than double as a share of GDP in the coming decade”

These conclusions should alarm liberals as well as conservatives. Consider that our mandatory spending priorities are 1) debt service, 2) Social Security, 3) Medicare, 4) veterans services and military pensions,…and finally discretionary governance spending which includes popular social service programs. The CBO says 1) will double. 2), 3) and 4) will all increase substantially. Hence the governance spending that we are so passionate about will be squeezed out.

The question is how do we get past this inter-party feud and get on with rationally negotiating and passing authorization bills and adjusting laws so that this scenario is mitigated.

 

[Vern]

Please provide your source that proves that Obama had a budget that was adopted and that Obama reduced deficits. Since all spending, by constitutional rule, must be initiated in the House, wouldn't that make any reduction in year to year deficits the accomplishment of the Republican House?

ah, more deflection. I cant say I'm surprised. Cons don't like to engage in intelligent conversation. Anyhoo, by your juvenile and convenient narrative, the republicans are responsible for the trillion dollar deficits the previous years. Just like the sequester narrative, cons seem to lay in the weeds (or under a rock) until its safe to slither out and take credit. Sorry John, I didn't start this thread to listen to cons parrot simpleton republican narratives. Feel free to come back when you want to post an intelligent response.

My question still stands

Can someone explain why those reducing the deficit faster is worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? remembering of course that deficit reduction wasn't their original reason for pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default?

 

[a351]

The Sequester is the reason for the reduction in the deficit.

Not quite. The cumulative projected dip in spending for FY13 is all of 82 billion dollars, leaving the credit with a year over year increase in revenues of over 360 billion dollars.

 

[Fenton]

This thread reminds me of when VERN started a thread bragging about Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's "profits".....lol !

Well over a TRILLION in worthless securities and loans ( well thats what they currently admit ) but somehow they've made a " profit ".

And Obama's "positive" GDP numbers ( 1.4- 2.1 % Avg ) with continuous Trillion dollar deficits seems to prove one thing.

Government spending does not grow economies.

 

[CanadaJohn]

ah, more deflection. I cant say I'm surprised. Cons don't like to engage in intelligent conversation. Anyhoo, by your juvenile and convenient narrative, the republicans are responsible for the trillion dollar deficits the previous years. Just like the sequester narrative, cons seem to lay in the weeds (or under a rock) until its safe to slither out and take credit. Sorry John, I didn't start this thread to listen to cons parrot simpleton republican narratives. Feel free to come back when you want to post an intelligent response.

My question still stands

Can someone explain why those reducing the deficit faster is worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? remembering of course that deficit reduction wasn't their original reason for pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default?

1. You prove you're simply talking out of your ass since you can't supply any documented proof of your contention.

2. The two reasons the deficit is lowering is because the Iraq war is over and the Afghan war is winding down - the end of the Iraq war was a Bush administration construct that Obama fell into - and the sequestor law. The sequestor law has a significant deficit reduction impact that takes effect on January 1, 2014 and Obama and the Democrats want those cuts to end.

3. In case you don't realize it, the sequestor, that reduces government spending, was cobbled together back in 2011 when the "pubs" demanded spending and deficit action during the last funding and debt ceiling battle.

So to answer your nonsense question, if the "pubs" want the deficit to continue to fall, they have to continue to hold Democrats' feet to the fire and demand additional action on spending and the debt.

Your lame attempt to claim that House Republicans are standing in the way of some grand plan that Obama has devised to reduce the debt and deficits is laughingly inane.

 

[Vern]

1. You prove you're simply talking out of your ass since you can't supply any documented proof of your contention.
.

I don’t know why you felt the need to tell me all the silly things you believe. Again, if by your standard that President Obama is not responsible for the deficit reduction because you believe the silly “budget” narrative you’ve been spoon fed, then by your standard, he’s not responsible for the trillion dollar deficits either. thanks.

Anyhoo, when I wade through your post, I think you answered the question. Let me paraphrase

“yes, its okay for the pubs to threaten to destroy the economy with default to decrease the default faster”. (remembering of course their original excuse of threatening to destroy the economy with default was about Obamacare)

Can you explain why reducing it faster is necessary? especially considering if pubs destroy the economy with default the deficit will actually get bigger. the deficit sure shot up like rocket when Bush destroyed the economy.

 

[cpwill]

“If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion”

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

wait! what?!? 642 billion? That is less than half of Bush's 1.4 trillion dollar budget deficit

Full Stop. The deficit of 2008 (Bush's last full year) was about 537 Billion. In FY 2009, TARP was added to the deficit, which has reduced deficits under Obama, as he has been able to count the return payments as "revenues". Additionally, the "Stimulus" was passed in 2009. That 1.4 Trillion deficit? The majority of it belongs to the current President. Who then did his best to lock that "temporary, emergency" level of spending in permanently.

 

[Perotista]

“If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion”

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

wait! what?!? 642 billion? That is less than half of Bush's 1.4 trillion dollar budget deficit. So the pubs are threatening to destroy the economy with default not to reduce the deficit but to reduce it faster? But deficit reduction was their back up excuse to destroy the economy with default. Their first excuse to destroy the economy with default was to defund Obamacare. Well I guess Obamacare cant be that bad if they had to go to their back up excuse.

So, President Obama has reduced the deficit every year and maintained positive GDP and pubs are not happy? mmmm, that just doesn't make any sense. Lets look at Bush's last budget with President Obama's first four as a % of GDP.

Fiscal year_______2009___2010___2011___2012___ 2013(est)
Total Revenues___ 15.1____15.1___ 15.4___ 15.8___16.9
Total Outlays_____ 25.2____24.1___ 24.1___ 22.8___22.2

Can someone explain why those numbers are worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? remembering of course that President Obama maintained positive GDP which greatly helped with reducing the Bush Deficits.

Placing all the blame on a president for the deficits isn't quite true. I do believe any president shares the bulk of the responsibility as he usually requests spending levels and he has the power to either veto or sign the legislation coming from congress. But the president does have the bully pulpit and he is president, congress usually shies away from an out right fight even though they control the purse strings and have to write the legislation and pass it before any president can sign it into law.

The fact is during Bush's last two years congress was controlled by the Democrats, in the house where Pelosi was Speaker they had a 233 to 198 advantage so Pelosi deserves as much credit or blame for the deficits numbers in 2007 & 2008 as Bush II does along with the Democratic Senate. both Pelosi and Reid readily went along with TARP and spending and actually encourage it. the vote in the house passing TARP, which came close to adding a trillion dollar to the debt and a large portion of the 1.4 trillion deficit you mention was democrats 172 yea 63 Nay, as for Republicans 91 yea 108 Nay. Actually the Republicans in the house voted no, the Democrats yes as it passed 263 to 171.

SO blaming Bush II is fine because he signed it into law. but the democratic congress also is to blame. I suppose the republicans in congress are probably responsible for 400 billion of that 1.4 trillion deficit and the democrats in congress responsible for 1 trillion of it mainly because the republicans voted against it, the democrats for it. It was a Democratic piece of legislation signed by a Republican president.

But what happened in 2008 can't be changed. What happens in 2013 can be. We have no control over the past, we can however have some control over today and the future.

 

[Vern]

Full Stop. The deficit of 2008 (Bush's last full year) was about 537 Billion. In FY 2009, TARP was added to the deficit, which has reduced deficits under Obama, as he has been able to count the return payments as "revenues". Additionally, the "Stimulus" was passed in 2009. That 1.4 Trillion deficit? The majority of it belongs to the current President. Who then did his best to lock that "temporary, emergency" level of spending in permanently.

Yes 2008 was Bush’s last full year as president. FY 2009 was bush’s last budget. He asked for a 3.1 trillion dollar budget. that’s 200 billion more than his 2008 request. Revenues were estimated to be 2.8 trillion. But that was before we knew we were in a recession. By fall we knew were in a recession. When Bush let lehman fail, it spooked the market and the economy fell off a cliff. GDP was -8.9 % in Q4. He made the recession the Great Recession.

In Jan, the CBO revised the spending and revenue estimates. Before President Obama took over, the CBO revised spending up 450 billion and revenues down 450 billion. Recessions cost money and hurt revenues. worst recessions since the depression more so. so before President Obama took over, Bush’s 300 billion deficit because a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit. That included TARP, GSE bailout and higher unemployment costs and all the other costs that go up in a recession. Lets look at the actuals.

_____________1/7/09____actuals
Total Revenues__ 2,357__ 2,105
Total Outlays__ _ 3,543__ _ 3,518

Do you see how spending came in under the estimate but revenue crashed another 250 billion. The 2009 budget deficit came in at 1.4 trillion. It went up 1.1 trillion over the original 300 billion deficit estimate. 700 billion of that 1.1 trillion was revenue collapse. (remember when you were told “its only a spending proble”?).

the biggest cause of the current deficits is revenue collapse. President Obama has keep spending flat and that’s in spite of the fact that he put war costs on budget. President Obama’s budgets as a % of GDP are in my first post. Lets look at them on a nominal basis

Fiscal year_______2010____2011____2012____2013 est
Total Revenues___ 2,162___ 2,302___ 2449_____2,708
Total Outlays____ 3,456___ 3,598___ 3,538_____3,553

Yep, I see flat spending on a nominal basis and declining spending on a % of GDP basis. and % of GDP is how you measure spending and revenue.

But none of this has anything to do with my question

Can someone explain why those reducing the deficit faster is worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? remembering of course that deficit reduction wasn't their original reason for pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default?

 

[Vern]

Placing all the blame on a president for the deficits isn't quite true. I do believe any president shares the bulk of the responsibility as he usually requests spending levels and he has the power to either veto or sign the legislation coming from congress. But the president does have the bully pulpit and he is president, congress usually shies away from an out right fight even though they control the purse strings and have to write the legislation and pass it before any president can sign it into law.
.

Bush signing budgets didnt cause the Great Recession and the subsequent trillion dollar deficits. Bush's housing policies caused the recession. Bush's policy of letting Lehman fail made it the Great Recession.

"Lehman's collapse was a seminal event that greatly intensified the 2008 crisis and contributed to the erosion of close to $10 trillion in market capitalization from global equity markets in October 2008, the biggest monthly decline on record at the time. "

Case Study: The Collapse of Lehman Brothers


“During the first 8 months of the year, job losses were relatively mild, averaging 137,000 per month; then, in September and October, losses accelerated to an average of 351,000 per month. A further acceleration took place during November and December, to an average of 639,000 jobs lost per month.”

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/03/art2full.pdf

 

[Perotista]

Bush signing budgets didnt cause the Great Recession and the subsequent trillion dollar deficits. Bush's housing policies caused the recession. Bush's policy of letting Lehman fail made it the Great Recession.

"Lehman's collapse was a seminal event that greatly intensified the 2008 crisis and contributed to the erosion of close to $10 trillion in market capitalization from global equity markets in October 2008, the biggest monthly decline on record at the time. "

Case Study: The Collapse of Lehman Brothers


“During the first 8 months of the year, job losses were relatively mild, averaging 137,000 per month; then, in September and October, losses accelerated to an average of 351,000 per month. A further acceleration took place during November and December, to an average of 639,000 jobs lost per month.”

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/03/art2full.pdf

There are those who believe if Bush/Pelosi and company just stayed out of it, the recession would have bottomed out in a year or two and we would have been on the road to a booming economy many years ago. Saving inept CEO's who run their companies into the ground does nothing but encourage more ineptness, so they say.

Bush had warned about the housing very early on in his presidency, but congress choose to ignore him. He warned about banks giving all these loads to people unqualified to obtain them, about people buying more house than they could afford because the banking industry way of doing ARM's and other shenanigans. That the laws of banking changed during Clinton to ensure more poor and minorities were able to buy houses would lead to the housing downfall. All ignored.

In reality, presidents have little to do with the economy. Sure they can play at the fringes, but the economy is like the weather. All talk and no control. If governments, presidents, congress's could control the economy, we would have no down turns, just up turns and booming economies all the time. Did TARP and the Stimulus really help or hurt, who the heck knows since it is a theory. The only way to find out is to go back in time and change history where those two packages were never passed and see what happens.

I don't think Bush II was a good president, of course I don't think Obama is either. I think both will end up in the bottom third of presidents when historians look back at this era. But that is my opinion and everyone has them. I actually would put both Obama and Bush Ii at the bottom of my list of presidents I have experienced personally and that goes back to Eisenhower. I was a live during Truman, but too young to know what he was or wasn't doing. But again as one grows older, the more cynical one may become and past presidents may always look better than the present one. Who knows.

 

[Fenton]

There are those who believe if Bush/Pelosi
and company just stayed out of it, the recession would have bottomed out in a year or two and we would have been on the road to a booming economy many years ago. Saving inept CEO's who run their companies into the ground does nothing but encourage more ineptness, so they say.

Bush had warned about the housing very early on in his presidency, but congress choose to ignore him. He warned about banks giving all these loads to people unqualified to obtain them, about people buying more house than they could afford because the banking industry way of doing ARM's and other shenanigans. That the laws of banking changed during Clinton to ensure more poor and minorities were able to buy houses would lead to the housing downfall. All ignored.

In reality, presidents have little to do with the economy. Sure they can play at the fringes, but the economy is like the weather. All talk and no control. If governments, presidents, congress's could control the economy, we would have no down turns, just up turns and booming economies all the time. Did TARP and the Stimulus really help or hurt, who the heck knows since it is a theory. The only way to find out is to go back in time and change history where those two packages were never passed and see what happens.

I don't think Bush II was a good president, of course I don't think Obama is either. I think both will end up in the bottom third of presidents when historians look back at this era. But that is my opinion and everyone has them. I actually would put both Obama and Bush Ii at the bottom of my list of presidents I have experienced personally and that goes back to Eisenhower. I was a live during Truman, but too young to know what he was or wasn't doing. But again as one grows older, the more cynical one may become and past presidents may always look better than the present one. Who knows.

Excellent post.

Bush's warning and attempts to regulate the two GSEs were absolutley ignored.

Throughout Bush's presidency the Democrats fought off attempt after attempt to regulate those extremely corrupt entities.

Fannie and Freddie wound up with the vast majority of those low quality loans and securities backed by low quality loans and after 2008 six of their executives were charged and convicted of securities fraud.

 

[Vern]

There are those who believe if Bush/Pelosi and company just stayed out of it, the recession would have bottomed out in a year or two and we would have been on the road to a booming economy many years ago.

And you shouldn’t listen to those people. The economy was in free fall (-8.9% for Q4) and UE was skyrocketing . And the blurb about Lehman failing should help show you that ‘those’ people were incompetent or lying.

Bush had warned about the housing very early on in his presidency, but congress choose to ignore him. He warned about banks giving all these loads to people unqualified to obtain them, about people buying more house than they could afford because the banking industry way of doing ARM's and other shenanigans. That the laws of banking changed during Clinton to ensure more poor and minorities were able to buy houses would lead to the housing downfall. All ignored.

And you’re in luck. I’m the resident expert on the Bush Mortgage Bubble and nothing you said is even close to true. As Fenton points out, the correct narrative is “bush warned about Freddie and fannie”. Its still a false narrative but at least he worded it correctly. If you really want to believe Bush ‘warned us’ and congress stopped him then please note that it was the Republican congress that stopped him.

But you cant even blame congress because Bush’s policies were the cause. And not only did Bush never warn about loans to unqualified buyers, his policies encouraged, funded and protected banks giving loans to unqualified buyers. No Doc loans (not checking people’s income is how you give a loan to an unqualified buyer) went from 4.3% of all loans in 2004 to over 50 % of all loans in 2006. Yes, 50 % of all loans in 2006 were No Docs. And those dates line up perfectly with the Bush Mortgage Bubble.

for a thorough examination of the Bush housing policies with solid factual links, please click on the link to my Bush Mortgage bubble FAQ thread. At least read it to the second page to see Bush’s policy of preempting all state laws against predatory lending for the explicitly stated purpose of increasing subprime loans. the most toxic of his housing policies.

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdf

 

[Fenton]

Bwahahaha.....the Bush Mortgage Bubble...

Couldn't help yourself from posting that drek again could you VERN ?

 

[Perotista]

Excellent post.

Bush's warning and attempts to regulate the two GSEs were absolutley ignored.

Throughout Bush's presidency the Democrats fought off attempt after attempt to regulate those extremely corrupt entities.

Fannie and Freddie wound up with the vast majority of those low quality loans and securities backed by low quality loans and after 2008 six of their executives were charged and convicted of securities fraud.

The fact he tried to warn and do something about it gets ignored in the political mix of party politics and party blame games. But that is to e expected and each side does it. I remember Ollie North warning congress and the U.S. about UBL and his capabilities during the Iran/Contra hearings and he was ignored and we all know what happened later.

 

[Vern]

The fact he tried to warn and do something about it gets ignored in the political mix of party politics and party blame games. But that is to e expected and each side does it. I remember Ollie North warning congress and the U.S. about UBL and his capabilities during the Iran/Contra hearings and he was ignored and we all know what happened later.

sorry Perotista, the "Ollie warning about UBL" is completely false and you lose all credibility. At least you can blame the conservative entertainment complex for your garbled version of the false narrative that "bush tried to warn us" but you can only blame yourself for claiming you saw something that doesn't exist. You can easily google that "Ollie warning about UBL" is a complete falsehood. But since you chose not to click on my FAQ thread to see that Bush is responsible for the Bush Mortgage Bubble, I doubt you'll go to the trouble to google anything.

here's Bush telling Barney Frank that there is nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie.

Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSEs

“
Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
“

- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

if you feel like clicking on the FAQ link you would see after that testimony Bush killed the GSE bill, forced GSEs to buy more low income home loans, 'encouraged' the GSEs to buy 440 billion dollars worth of mortgage securities, reversed the Clinton rule that restricted Freddie and Fannies ability to buy subprime and No Doc loans and said there was no housing bubble. And I don't have to use editorials, chain emails and imagination to prove my points.

anyhoo, my question still stands

Can someone explain why those reducing the deficit faster is worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? remembering of course that deficit reduction wasn't their original reason for pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default?

 

[Perotista]

sorry Perotista, the "Ollie warning about UBL" is completely false and you lose all credibility. At least you can blame the conservative entertainment complex for your garbled version of the false narrative that "bush tried to warn us" but you can only blame yourself for claiming you saw something that doesn't exist. You can easily google that "Ollie warning about UBL" is a complete falsehood. But since you chose not to click on my FAQ thread to see that Bush is responsible for the Bush Mortgage Bubble, I doubt you'll go to the trouble to google anything.

here's Bush telling Barney Frank that there is nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie.

Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSEs

“
Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
“

- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

if you feel like clicking on the FAQ link you would see after that testimony Bush killed the GSE bill, forced GSEs to buy more low income home loans, 'encouraged' the GSEs to buy 440 billion dollars worth of mortgage securities, reversed the Clinton rule that restricted Freddie and Fannies ability to buy subprime and No Doc loans and said there was no housing bubble. And I don't have to use editorials, chain emails and imagination to prove my points.

anyhoo, my question still stands

Can someone explain why those reducing the deficit faster is worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? remembering of course that deficit reduction wasn't their original reason for pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default?

Just because I do not spout the rhetoric of the DNC per verbatim with all its slogans, word of the day, etc. I have no credibility. That's fine as I do not spout or trust the same from the RNC either.

I will say this, if I had my way there would be a freeze on all spending at the current 3.7 trillion or whatever it is for ever how many years it takes this country to reach a 200 billion surplus.