• 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!

Republiclowns on Fox pretending to have a mandate

thinkagain said:
I have not ignored your comments. I told you that I get different numbers than you and gave my source.

The link provided shows deficit for every Obama Budget year 2010 to 2017

1.29, 1.30, 1.09 0.68, 0.49, 0.44, 0.59, 0.50 = 6.38 Trillion

US Federal Deficit by Year - plus charts and analysis

I do not know why your number is different than what is given at USGovernmentspending.com. I have not dug into it that deeply have done a whole lot more than you have.

Either way ... 6.4 or 7.8 Trillion is way too much.

Your claim that I took the CATO Think Tanks comments out of context is demonstrably false.

The name of the article is "Don't blame Obama for Bush's 2009 Deficit"

How then is my saying " Don't blame Obama for bush's 2009 Deficit" taking the article out of context.

How is me saying .. "the money was spent/allocated prior to Obama coming into office" taking the article out of context.

CATO article https://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

What have I taken out of context .. ? Why are you accusing me of things I did not do and making up falsehoods.

I told you the money was already spent through continuing resolutions - something backed up by the "right wing" Cato institute an the other right wing (Obama hating) link.

Spare me your demonstrably false accusations. The only one you are fooling is yourself.
Click to expand...

What you want to ignore is that in fact the Cato comments are out of context just like the budget website as neither take into account when the budget was signed and the money appropriated. Had the budget been signed the spending authorization would have occurred but it wasn't signed or passed. The continuing resolutions expired on March 31, 2009 thus Obama had 6 months to correct the problem. Further what you want to ignore is basic civics in that Congress controls the spending and that Congress was under control of the Democrats who seem to know that they would get people like you blaming Bush

Money was spent, how much? The Website will give you that as it shows spending and revenue each day and if money was spent it was included in the website data. Bush did not have spending authority beyond March 31, 2009 and that is when the Continuing resolutions expired. Under no circumstances are continuing resolutions spending appropriations for the entire fiscal year. you ought to know better.

So there are two things false in that Cato argument, one there was no Bush budget approved and two TARP wasn't an expense it was a loan. it was money spent which was part of the Bush deficit HOWEVER the repayment never hit the budget, only the interest on those payments. Obama reused the money and knew people like you would blame it on Bush. That is reality. Seems rather simple to understand, now why don't you understand that?
 
Casca XV said:
You posted an article from a European Socialist Publication as proof of your point, that says it all.

.
Click to expand...

Ad Hom aside, the Mises institute is an American Libertarian Think tank.

Please specify haw good things were when Reagan took office? Aside from Democrat Propagandist, every economist I have heard from says that although different the 2008/2009 was not as bad as 1981/1982. (Google it and see).
Click to expand...

I am not doing your homework for you. Please provide "something" to back up your claim.

Today 60% to 70% when polled say were are still in economic hard times/recession. In 1984 Reagan got the largest reelection landslide in US history mostly because of how he fixed the economy. Reagan was a miracle worker and Trump appears to be mostly copying his policies.
Click to expand...

1) Reagan tripled the debt and deficit. Obama did not even have the option of tripling the deficit, 1.4 Trillion to 5.2 Trillion.

2) Regan was helped by the baby boomers moving into their high spending years. We are suffering from the reverse effect (baby boomers moving into their lower spending retirement years).

3) there are a gazillion other things that at so vastly different that anyone with any economic aptitude knows the two situations can not be directly compared.

The market was not losing jobs like crazy when Reagan stepped into office.
Reagan did not have a 12 Trillion dollar debt and a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit to content with.
There was no "financial crisis" (commercial paper markets frozen) that Reagan had to deal with for the first 2 years of his Presidency.



Reagan did spend a lot of money on the military but he created an economy that could handle it. By the way that military spending is mostly what destroyed the USSR, the greatest physical threat the US ever faced.
Click to expand...

Reagan did not create a new economy that could handle it ?? He created huge deficits.

Military spending by the US is not what destroyed the USSR and the Russia is still the greatest physical threat the US has ever faced.

Our spending was no threat to the USSR/Russia ? Under the MAD doctrine, everyone recognized that nuclear war was unwinnable by either side.

Too high military spending is a big part of what hurting US long term financial and military security.


Obama has spent so much money that he has increased the National Debt more than the previous 43 US Presidents combined. That he improved the Deficit is one of the greatest lies ever told. The Deficit is the budget short fall that creates the National Debt. Obama has made it look like Its like you maxing out your credit cards and then not paying the minimal monthly payment. Sure you have more money in your pocket after payday (a lower deficit), but its not a good thing because your debt increases until you face total collapse
Click to expand...

You have not done your homework and are spewing right wing lies. The debt was 12 Trillion when Obama took over and the deficit was 1.4 Trillion.

The debt at the end of Obama's last budget year (2017) is forecast to be roughly 18.5 Trillion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_States_federal_budget

6.5 Trillion is roughly half as much as all those who preceded him.

The deficit was 1.4 Trillion when Obama stepped into office. 8 years later that deficit is 500 Billion.

Government Spending Chart: United States 1960-2021 - Federal State Local Data

he is lowering the Deficit on paper by not paying the interest on the money he borrowed.
Click to expand...

??? This is very loopy. Of course we are paying interest on the money borrowed. Roughly 450 Billion/year last time I checked.

If we did not pay this interest we would be in default an then you would really see a global storm. (I think I know what you are trying to say but, what you have said is loopy).

Look. I can not stand Obama and would love nothing else than to have another arrow aimed his direction but, I call a spade a spade.

I am a fiscal conservative "Republican" (old style, few of which exist anymore in the GOP which is why I hate Red as much as Blue)

Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr - were not "fiscal conservative" by any stretch of the imagination. They are just as responsible for this country going down the tubes as the Dems.

It is blind partisanship that is killing this country.
 
Conservative said:
What you want to ignore is that in fact the Cato comments are out of context just like the budget website as neither take into account when the budget was signed and the money appropriated. Had the budget been signed the spending authorization would have occurred but it wasn't signed or passed. The continuing resolutions expired on March 31, 2009 thus Obama had 6 months to correct the problem. Further what you want to ignore is basic civics in that Congress controls the spending and that Congress was under control of the Democrats who seem to know that they would get people like you blaming Bush

Money was spent, how much? The Website will give you that as it shows spending and revenue each day and if money was spent it was included in the website data. Bush did not have spending authority beyond March 31, 2009 and that is when the Continuing resolutions expired. Under no circumstances are continuing resolutions spending appropriations for the entire fiscal year. you ought to know better.

So there are two things false in that Cato argument, one there was no Bush budget approved and two TARP wasn't an expense it was a loan. it was money spent which was part of the Bush deficit HOWEVER the repayment never hit the budget, only the interest on those payments. Obama reused the money and knew people like you would blame it on Bush. That is reality. Seems rather simple to understand, now why don't you understand that?
Click to expand...

You keep on repeating the same thing over and over again like a broken record and not addressing any of my comments while I have addressed all of yours.

The link provided shows deficit for every Obama Budget year 2010 to 2017

1.29, 1.30, 1.09 0.68, 0.49, 0.44, 0.59, 0.50 = 6.38 Trillion

US Federal Deficit by Year - plus charts and analysis

Either way ... 6.4 or 7.8 Trillion is way too much.

Your claim that I took the CATO Think Tanks comments out of context is demonstrably false. Your claim that when budgets were signed were not taken into account is demonstrably false. I have addressed this and so does the article.

You keep spouting falsehoods that have already been demonstrated.

The name of the article is "Don't blame Obama for Bush's 2009 Deficit"

How then is my saying " Don't blame Obama for bush's 2009 Deficit" taking the article out of context.

How is me saying .. "the money was spent/allocated prior to Obama coming into office" taking the article out of context.

CATO article https://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame...s-2009-deficit

What have I taken out of context .. ? Why are you accusing me of things I did not do and making up falsehoods.

I told you the money was already spent through continuing resolutions - something backed up by the "right wing" Cato institute an the other right wing (Obama hating) link.

Spare me your demonstrably false accusations. The only one you are fooling is yourself.
 
thinkagain said:
You keep on repeating the same thing over and over again like a broken record and not addressing any of my comments while I have addressed all of yours.

The link provided shows deficit for every Obama Budget year 2010 to 2017

1.29, 1.30, 1.09 0.68, 0.49, 0.44, 0.59, 0.50 = 6.38 Trillion

US Federal Deficit by Year - plus charts and analysis

Either way ... 6.4 or 7.8 Trillion is way too much.

Your claim that I took the CATO Think Tanks comments out of context is demonstrably false. Your claim that when budgets were signed were not taken into account is demonstrably false. I have addressed this and so does the article.

You keep spouting falsehoods that have already been demonstrated.

The name of the article is "Don't blame Obama for Bush's 2009 Deficit"

How then is my saying " Don't blame Obama for bush's 2009 Deficit" taking the article out of context.

How is me saying .. "the money was spent/allocated prior to Obama coming into office" taking the article out of context.

CATO article https://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame...s-2009-deficit

What have I taken out of context .. ? Why are you accusing me of things I did not do and making up falsehoods.

I told you the money was already spent through continuing resolutions - something backed up by the "right wing" Cato institute an the other right wing (Obama hating) link.

Spare me your demonstrably false accusations. The only one you are fooling is yourself.
Click to expand...

You ate basically quoting public debt not total debt. I gave you the Treasury data, why is that so hard for you to understand?

You don't get it and probably never will. the quote you made ASSUMES there was a Bush budget which there wasn't. Why don't you find out who signed the budget and why Obama accepting the Bush budget numbers doesn't hold him responsible for them since he could have changed them?

As for the revenue, what was the purpose of the stimulus? Figure it out and get back to me
 
Conservative said:
You ate basically quoting public debt not total debt. I gave you the Treasury data, why is that so hard for you to understand?

You don't get it and probably never will. the quote you made ASSUMES there was a Bush budget which there wasn't. Why don't you find out who signed the budget and why Obama accepting the Bush budget numbers doesn't hold him responsible for them since he could have changed them?
Click to expand...

I also gave you the treasury data. US Federal Deficit by Year - plus charts and analysis

The link provided shows deficit for every Obama Budget year 2010 to 2017

1.29, 1.30, 1.09 0.68, 0.49, 0.44, 0.59, 0.50 = 6.38 Trillion

All public debt would include debt held by States. (which is not included in the "Federal Deficit" number)

It has also been explained to you numerous time that regardless of who "signed" the budget.... the money was already spent prior to Obama coming into office.

As for the revenue, what was the purpose of the stimulus? Figure it out and get back to me
Click to expand...

The purpose of the stimulus spending was to attempt to put out the fire created by the Bush Crash.
 
thinkagain said:
I also gave you the treasury data. US Federal Deficit by Year - plus charts and analysis

The link provided shows deficit for every Obama Budget year 2010 to 2017

1.29, 1.30, 1.09 0.68, 0.49, 0.44, 0.59, 0.50 = 6.38 Trillion

All public debt would include debt held by States. (which is not included in the "Federal Deficit" number)

It has also been explained to you numerous time that regardless of who "signed" the budget.... the money was already spent prior to Obama coming into office.



The purpose of the stimulus spending was to attempt to put out the fire created by the Bush Crash.
Click to expand...

No, there are two parts to the debt, public debt and Intergovt. holdings. Please take a civics class. Bush Crash? Glad the Democrats controlling Congress and the purse strings had nothing to do with it.
 
Conservative said:
No, there are two parts to the debt, public debt and Intergovt. holdings. Please take a civics class. Bush Crash? Glad the Democrats controlling Congress and the purse strings had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

LOL so says the mathematically and civics challenged one.

Oh .. and add "logically challenged" to the list. What congress, in conjunction with President Bush (who has Veto Power .. Mr. Civics) did prior to Obama showing up is hardly Obama's fault.
 
thinkagain said:
LOL so says the mathematically and civics challenged one.

Oh .. and add "logically challenged" to the list. What congress, in conjunction with President Bush (who has Veto Power .. Mr. Civics) did prior to Obama showing up is hardly Obama's fault.
Click to expand...

Slightly conservative my ass. Please stop making a fool of yourself. What does this show

CurrentDebt Held by the PublicIntragovernmental HoldingsTotal Public Debt Outstanding
11/17/201614,406,421,117,922.465,490,729,852,964.4119,897,150,970,886.87

Budgets are signed or not signed. Bush Budgets were NOT PASSED by the Congress and when it was signed by Obama why did Obama take the Bush numbers?
 
Conservative said:
Slightly conservative my ass. Please stop making a fool of yourself. What does this show

CurrentDebt Held by the PublicIntragovernmental HoldingsTotal Public Debt Outstanding
11/17/201614,406,421,117,922.465,490,729,852,964.4119,897,150,970,886.87

Budgets are signed or not signed. Bush Budgets were NOT PASSED by the Congress and when it was signed by Obama why did Obama take the Bush numbers?
Click to expand...

We already covered that different sources give different numbers.

State debt is also "Public Debt". Either way ... the 6.5 Trillion number I used or the 7.6 Trillion number you used are not that far apart.

What is abject nonsense is your claim that the 2009 Budget was not mostly spent prior to Obama coming into office.

I gave you 2 right wing (One clearly Obama hating) links telling you that the money was spent prior to Obama coming into office. You have provided ZERO other than hot air and ignorance of how the budget get's spent.
 
thinkagain said:
We already covered that different sources give different numbers.

State debt is also "Public Debt". Either way ... the 6.5 Trillion number I used or the 7.6 Trillion number you used are not that far apart.

What is abject nonsense is your claim that the 2009 Budget was not mostly spent prior to Obama coming into office.

I gave you 2 right wing (One clearly Obama hating) links telling you that the money was spent prior to Obama coming into office. You have provided ZERO other than hot air and ignorance of how the budget get's spent.
Click to expand...

The only data that matters is the Treasury Data as that is what the taxpayers pay debt service on. As I pointed out and you ignored, Obama signed the 2009 budget in March 2009 accepting the numbers and thus responsibility, why are you blaming Bush for that entire deficit ignoring that TARP loans under Bush were repaid, ignoring that Obama recycled the loans and apparently under your belief accepted Bush's budget numbers. Obama also implemented an 842 billion dollar stimulus program that was to create new taxpayers thus the revenue required for the budget. Keep acting like a liberal and ignoring the actual data
 
Conservative said:
The only data that matters is the Treasury Data as that is what the taxpayers pay debt service on. As I pointed out and you ignored, Obama signed the 2009 budget in March 2009 accepting the numbers and thus responsibility, why are you blaming Bush for that entire deficit ignoring that TARP loans under Bush were repaid, ignoring that Obama recycled the loans and apparently under your belief accepted Bush's budget numbers. Obama also implemented an 842 billion dollar stimulus program that was to create new taxpayers thus the revenue required for the budget. Keep acting like a liberal and ignoring the actual data
Click to expand...

I went year by year using deficits from Treasury Data

The link provided shows deficit for every Obama Budget year 2010 to 2017

1.29, 1.30, 1.09 0.68, 0.49, 0.44, 0.59, 0.50 = 6.38 Trillion

The difference between my number and your number is that you do not know what your number includes. You use the term "Public Debt" - State debt is "public debt" perhaps this is in your total.

You keep on crying "Bush did not sign the Budget" but, this does not change the fact that the money was spent on his watch or change the fact that his Budget numbers (3.1 Trillion) represented expected spending for the year - and this was the amount that got spent, mostly on the items in Bush's budget.

That Obama eventually signed it had no bearing on the amount of the deficit because the money was already spent.

Then there is the glaring fact that this amount only represented 400 Billion of the 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit. The other Trillion was due to the Bush Crash .

Your partisan hatred of Obama is causing myopic blindness.
 
thinkagain said:
I went year by year using deficits from Treasury Data

The link provided shows deficit for every Obama Budget year 2010 to 2017

1.29, 1.30, 1.09 0.68, 0.49, 0.44, 0.59, 0.50 = 6.38 Trillion

The difference between my number and your number is that you do not know what your number includes. You use the term "Public Debt" - State debt is "public debt" perhaps this is in your total.

You keep on crying "Bush did not sign the Budget" but, this does not change the fact that the money was spent on his watch or change the fact that his Budget numbers (3.1 Trillion) represented expected spending for the year - and this was the amount that got spent, mostly on the items in Bush's budget.

That Obama eventually signed it had no bearing on the amount of the deficit because the money was already spent.

Then there is the glaring fact that this amount only represented 400 Billion of the 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit. The other Trillion was due to the Bush Crash .

Your partisan hatred of Obama is causing myopic blindness.
Click to expand...

Kid, you have a very serious problem in that you cannot admit you are wrong. There is no way in hell that Bush spent that much money between October 1, 2009 and march 31, 2009. That is nothing more than partisan ignorance. It has nothing to do with hatred of Obama as I don't hate Obama, I hate Obama's policies and blaming someone else for his own incompetence.

You have no understanding at all of the budget process, appropriation bills, continuing resolutions, or even the purpose of the stimulus. Like a liberal you never take responsibility for what the Democratic Party did after taking Congress in January 2007, their failure to even pass the Bush Budget, and then Obama not putting TARP back into the Treasury reducing the Deficit. he knew that his base and people like you would blame Bush. It really is sad to see someone so civics challenged and someone who buys what they read without even considering the context. Cato posted like the budget passed and the appropriation bills signed, that didn't happen and you still want to blame Bush for 2009 deficit. Sad, kid, very sad
 
thinkagain said:
I went year by year using deficits from Treasury Data

The link provided shows deficit for every Obama Budget year 2010 to 2017

1.29, 1.30, 1.09 0.68, 0.49, 0.44, 0.59, 0.50 = 6.38 Trillion

The difference between my number and your number is that you do not know what your number includes. You use the term "Public Debt" - State debt is "public debt" perhaps this is in your total.

You keep on crying "Bush did not sign the Budget" but, this does not change the fact that the money was spent on his watch or change the fact that his Budget numbers (3.1 Trillion) represented expected spending for the year - and this was the amount that got spent, mostly on the items in Bush's budget.

That Obama eventually signed it had no bearing on the amount of the deficit because the money was already spent.

Then there is the glaring fact that this amount only represented 400 Billion of the 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit. The other Trillion was due to the Bush Crash .

Your partisan hatred of Obama is causing myopic blindness.
Click to expand...

The " Bush crash " was actually the crash of the two most influential and corrupt financial agencies involved in the Subprime crisis.

Fannie and Freddie and their crash had its beginnings way back in the early and mid 90s when their CEO James Johnson committed the GSEs to 1 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases and they were given " affordable lending " quota's by Bill Clinton.
Starting at 46 %.

In 1999,Andrew Cuomo committed the GSEs to 2.4 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases.

Blaming the 2008 Financial crisis on Bush is whats myopic.
 
Conservative said:
Kid, you have a very serious problem in that you cannot admit you are wrong. There is no way in hell that Bush spent that much money between October 1, 2009 and march 31, 2009. That is nothing more than partisan ignorance. It has nothing to do with hatred of Obama as I don't hate Obama, I hate Obama's policies and blaming someone else for his own incompetence.

You have no understanding at all of the budget process, appropriation bills, continuing resolutions, or even the purpose of the stimulus. Like a liberal you never take responsibility for what the Democratic Party did after taking Congress in January 2007, their failure to even pass the Bush Budget, and then Obama not putting TARP back into the Treasury reducing the Deficit. he knew that his base and people like you would blame Bush. It really is sad to see someone so civics challenged and someone who buys what they read without even considering the context. Cato posted like the budget passed and the appropriation bills signed, that didn't happen and you still want to blame Bush for 2009 deficit. Sad, kid, very sad
Click to expand...


Do not blame me for the fact that you do not understand how the Budget process works. I gave you two "Right Wing" links telling you that the Bush 3.1 Trillion dollar Budget was already spent/allocated by the time Obama hit office.

Here is a third ! Budget deficit to hit $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009

This is a prediction from the CBO on January 7, 2009. Prior to Obama stepping into office.
Budget deficit to hit $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009 | Reuters

And a fourth !

Obama was essentially correct when he said he inherited a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. Though the budget deficit for 2008 was a then-record $458.6 billion, the CBO issued a projection in January 2009, just days before Obama took office that the budget deficit would reach $1.2 trillion that year, before the cost of any new stimulus plan or other legislation was taken into account.
Click to expand...
https://ourfuture.org/20100217/huge-2009-budget-deficit-just-one-more-conservative-failure


You on the other hand have given no links to support your nonsensical claims and somehow "Obama" was responsible for a Budget process which started in Feb 2008 that had already budgeted for and allocated 3.1 Trillion in spending.
 
Fenton said:
The " Bush crash " was actually the crash of the two most influential and corrupt financial agencies involved in the Subprime crisis.

Fannie and Freddie and their crash had its beginnings way back in the early and mid 90s when their CEO James Johnson committed the GSEs to 1 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases and they were given " affordable lending " quota's by Bill Clinton.
Starting at 46 %.

In 1999,Andrew Cuomo committed the GSEs to 2.4 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases.

Blaming the 2008 Financial crisis on Bush is whats myopic.
Click to expand...

Yours is a very simplistic effort. Despite this I would agree that lending requirements had its beginnings in the Clinton era.

It is also true that while subprime happened prior to Bush ... it ramped up significantly under Bush.


In 2004, the administration of President George W. Bush began a conscious plan of trying to increase levels of homeownership as part of its "Ownership Society," raising affordable housing targets for Fannie and Freddie. I opposed this policy because I thought people could end up with mortgages they could not afford. Wallison also omits Democratic efforts to pass legislation to reduce predatory lending -- this was blocked on direct orders by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. He also conveniently ignores the fact that my Democratic colleagues and I worked with moderate House Republicans to try to pass legislation to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- this was killed by the Bush administration, which according to Republican Chairman Mike Oxley, "gave us the one-finger salute
Click to expand...
Who Is Really Responsible for the Housing Crisis? - The Atlantic

Freddy and Fanny however, did not cause the collapse of Lehman Bro's and the AIG catastrophe. These policies had nothing to do with retail banks selling mortgages into Mortgage Backed Securities or the fact that these, and various derivatives were getting out of control.

F&F had nothing to do with AIG selling Trillions of dollars worth of Credit Default Swaps (insurance on MBS's) or the Regulators giving Triple AAA ratings to garbage.

The ramping up of Subprime and the factors which lead to the near collapse of the entire financial system happened under Bush.

Bush was probably too stupid to understand the details but his Administration was warned numerous times by numerous people.

The Crash was an "Inside Job" - I recommend the Documentary.

Anyone who was remotely connected to worlds larges Ponzi Scheme knew what was going on. During the JP Morgan hearings you had emails from Brokers laughing as they put money into funds they called (Sht). The mortgage brokers writing NINJA loans NO Income, NO JOB ... No Assets No Credit ... they all knew. The retail banks selling these loans prior to the ink on the paper drying knew. The ratings agencies knew.

The Fed Heads - who were wandering around pretending to be stupid - knew what was going on as did the Bush Administration.
 
thinkagain said:
Yours is a very simplistic effort. Despite this I would agree that lending requirements had its beginnings in the Clinton era.

It is also true that while subprime happened prior to Bush ... it ramped up significantly under Bush.


Who Is Really Responsible for the Housing Crisis? - The Atlantic

Freddy and Fanny however, did not cause the collapse of Lehman Bro's and the AIG catastrophe. These policies had nothing to do with retail banks selling mortgages into Mortgage Backed Securities or the fact that these, and various derivatives were getting out of control.

F&F had nothing to do with AIG selling Trillions of dollars worth of Credit Default Swaps (insurance on MBS's) or the Regulators giving Triple AAA ratings to garbage.

The ramping up of Subprime and the factors which lead to the near collapse of the entire financial system happened under Bush.

Bush was probably too stupid to understand the details but his Administration was warned numerous times by numerous people.

The Crash was an "Inside Job" - I recommend the Documentary.

Anyone who was remotely connected to worlds larges Ponzi Scheme knew what was going on. During the JP Morgan hearings you had emails from Brokers laughing as they put money into funds they called (Sht). The mortgage brokers writing NINJA loans NO Income, NO JOB ... No Assets No Credit ... they all knew. The retail banks selling these loans prior to the ink on the paper drying knew. The ratings agencies knew.

The Fed Heads - who were wandering around pretending to be stupid - knew what was going on as did the Bush Administration.
Click to expand...

Lol ! No, yours is the simplistic effort. You have no idea what you're talking about

First, Bush was smart enough to issue warnings as early as 2001...
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

Second, NO most of the Subprime trash was created under Clinton and ONLY GSE MBSs were given a " AAA " rating and thats because Treasuries had a AAA rating ar thr time

Homeownership rate in 1993 was 63 %
Homeownership rate in 2000 was 68 %

5 % increase under Clinton

Homeownership rate in 2008 was 69 %
A 1 % increase under Bush

Here , 1999 Franklin Raines Celebrates Fannie Mae reaching its 1 Trillion dollar goal early
Fannie Mae to Meet $1 Trillion Goal Early; CEO Raines Launches Ten-Year $2 Trillion ?American Dream


Finally, in 2008 F and F were declared insolvent holding over 5 Trillion dollars in debt, most of it garbage. They purchased Subprime loans from originators like Countrywide, bundled them intoBSs that were given AAA ratings and sold them off the investment banks and capital markets all over the word.

They were alos the primary consumer of lower tranche MBSs. THEY created and perpetuated demand for a toxic product.
 
thinkagain said:
Do not blame me for the fact that you do not understand how the Budget process works. I gave you two "Right Wing" links telling you that the Bush 3.1 Trillion dollar Budget was already spent/allocated by the time Obama hit office.

Here is a third ! Budget deficit to hit $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009

This is a prediction from the CBO on January 7, 2009. Prior to Obama stepping into office.
Budget deficit to hit $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009 | Reuters

And a fourth !

https://ourfuture.org/20100217/huge-2009-budget-deficit-just-one-more-conservative-failure


You on the other hand have given no links to support your nonsensical claims and somehow "Obama" was responsible for a Budget process which started in Feb 2008 that had already budgeted for and allocated 3.1 Trillion in spending.
Click to expand...

Sorry, kid, but you don't understand basic civics nor do you understand how appropriations work. You want to blame Bush for creating a deficit of 1.2 trillion dollars for fiscal year 2009 from October 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009. I have no idea how to get you to realize how wrong you are. What you are ignoring is that Obama inherited a PROJECTED deficit IF THE BUSH BUDGET PASSED AND WAS SPENT. He knew and was right that people like you would blame Bush even though he signed the budget and spent most of the money through the Congress. There was NO BUDGET UNTIL OBAMA SIGNED it in March 2009. Bush and Congress operated under continuing resolutions so the most Bush can be blamed for is October 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009. Also did you notice that TARP was included in that projection? Since TARP was repaid why wasn't the projection reduced?

You want links? Why? You ignore them because you want to believe what the left tells you and take conservative links out of context or ignore the context completely. What links do you want, the link showing that Obama signed the 2009 budget? The link on continuing resolutions and their duration? Did Bush fund the Afghanistan surge supplemental? Did Bush fund the take over of Chrysler/GM? Did Bush fund the Stimulus. Did Bush fund the bailout of Freddie and Fannie, all occurring in 2009?? I sure wish you would think instead of feeling and stop letting the left indoctrinate you ignoring basic civics. How on earth did Bush create a total year deficit in 6 months when is spending authority ran out on March 31, 2009?
 
thinkagain said:
Ad Hom aside, the Mises institute is an American Libertarian Think tank.



I am not doing your homework for you. Please provide "something" to back up your claim.



1) Reagan tripled the debt and deficit. Obama did not even have the option of tripling the deficit, 1.4 Trillion to 5.2 Trillion.

2) Regan was helped by the baby boomers moving into their high spending years. We are suffering from the reverse effect (baby boomers moving into their lower spending retirement years).

3) there are a gazillion other things that at so vastly different that anyone with any economic aptitude knows the two situations can not be directly compared.

The market was not losing jobs like crazy when Reagan stepped into office.
Reagan did not have a 12 Trillion dollar debt and a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit to content with.
There was no "financial crisis" (commercial paper markets frozen) that Reagan had to deal with for the first 2 years of his Presidency.





Reagan did not create a new economy that could handle it ?? He created huge deficits.

Military spending by the US is not what destroyed the USSR and the Russia is still the greatest physical threat the US has ever faced.

Our spending was no threat to the USSR/Russia ? Under the MAD doctrine, everyone recognized that nuclear war was unwinnable by either side.

Too high military spending is a big part of what hurting US long term financial and military security.




You have not done your homework and are spewing right wing lies. The debt was 12 Trillion when Obama took over and the deficit was 1.4 Trillion.

The debt at the end of Obama's last budget year (2017) is forecast to be roughly 18.5 Trillion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_States_federal_budget

6.5 Trillion is roughly half as much as all those who preceded him.

The deficit was 1.4 Trillion when Obama stepped into office. 8 years later that deficit is 500 Billion.

Government Spending Chart: United States 1960-2021 - Federal State Local Data



??? This is very loopy. Of course we are paying interest on the money borrowed. Roughly 450 Billion/year last time I checked.

If we did not pay this interest we would be in default an then you would really see a global storm. (I think I know what you are trying to say but, what you have said is loopy).

Look. I can not stand Obama and would love nothing else than to have another arrow aimed his direction but, I call a spade a spade.

I am a fiscal conservative "Republican" (old style, few of which exist anymore in the GOP which is why I hate Red as much as Blue)

Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr - were not "fiscal conservative" by any stretch of the imagination. They are just as responsible for this country going down the tubes as the Dems.

It is blind partisanship that is killing this country.
Click to expand...

What do you get out of lying? The national debt was $10.6 trillion the day Obama entered office, It is $19.89 trillion right now and is expected to top $20 trillion before 2017.

The national debt was $5.8 trillion day W. entered office. Even with his extreme spending Obama has doubled it.

Reagan and Clinton each increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Interesting considering Reagan was building up the military and Clinton was slashing it.

Debt are concrete numbers. Deficite is the budget short fall that creats the Debt. Deficite is malible and easy to distort, that is why political propagandist like to use it while ignoring the Debt numbers.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...QGT6UeW6ldt21bgsA&sig2=e-xSviwR3qUqSuNM5DjVlg
 
thinkagain said:
Yours is a very simplistic effort. Despite this I would agree that lending requirements had its beginnings in the Clinton era.

It is also true that while subprime happened prior to Bush ... it ramped up significantly under Bush.


Who Is Really Responsible for the Housing Crisis? - The Atlantic

Freddy and Fanny however, did not cause the collapse of Lehman Bro's and the AIG catastrophe. These policies had nothing to do with retail banks selling mortgages into Mortgage Backed Securities or the fact that these, and various derivatives were getting out of control.

F&F had nothing to do with AIG selling Trillions of dollars worth of Credit Default Swaps (insurance on MBS's) or the Regulators giving Triple AAA ratings to garbage.

The ramping up of Subprime and the factors which lead to the near collapse of the entire financial system happened under Bush.

Bush was probably too stupid to understand the details but his Administration was warned numerous times by numerous people.

The Crash was an "Inside Job" - I recommend the Documentary.

Anyone who was remotely connected to worlds larges Ponzi Scheme knew what was going on. During the JP Morgan hearings you had emails from Brokers laughing as they put money into funds they called (Sht). The mortgage brokers writing NINJA loans NO Income, NO JOB ... No Assets No Credit ... they all knew. The retail banks selling these loans prior to the ink on the paper drying knew. The ratings agencies knew.

The Fed Heads - who were wandering around pretending to be stupid - knew what was going on as did the Bush Administration.
Click to expand...

I am sorry to say that I am not surprised that you ignored posts 316 and 317 as apparently you are not capable of admitting you are wrong, how liberal of you!! Guess you are trying to find some rightwing op ed piece to take out of context to blame Bush for spending all the money during the Obama Administration and for funding the stimulus, the Afghanistan surge, the bailout of Freddie and Fannie, AIG, and Chrysler/GM Take over. Let me know when you come up with something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom