The historical ignorance of Barack Obama

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


You might as well title this thread "The historical ignorance of the left." They've been trying to rewrite history for two centuries.

/TOA

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman

 

Most people make under $100,000 a year and hold down a $300,000 home so this is completely redundant and irrelevant.

So to acc to you no one if they don't make at least $250,000 a year should not ever own a home right? Good way to disinfranchise people. My mom when she was working was making far less then $80,000 a year and was and still is able to hold down our $350,000 home completely shoots that claim to Hell.They got forced into taking the ARMS using deceptive business practices.

Quick to blame the people instead of where the blame should lie with and that is the banks.

Yep, nothing like pitching to people the idea that if they want it, the Govt will make others give it to them,.

They got forced? Really, so there was arm twisting and a gun to the head?
Give me a break.

Ok, so it was stupid people like .... say Representative Joe Walsh, taking out liars loans who caused it.
So how did some guy taking out a liars loan

* Force the 5 big banks to buy them
* Force them to bundle them
* Force them to double tranch them
* Force Countrywide to fire Eileen Foster, VP in charge of Fraud and
* Force Citigroup to fire Richard Bowen, Senior Vice President and Chief Underwriter in the Consumer Lending division, after he reported that 60% of their mortgages are defective
* Force S&P Fitch and Moodys to AAA rate them
* Force AIG to go into 1:11 Leverage (And only AIG, none of the other insurers where Stupid ermmm... Greedy ermm .... ermmm "forced" enough)

I really have a problem making a connection between people taking out bad loans and .... well the stuff in the few select points above.

Originally posted by narwahl


Ok, so it was stupid people like .... say Representative Joe Walsh, taking out liars loans who caused it.

That caused the housing collapse? Not in its own, but it helped.

Originally posted by narwahl
So how did some guy taking out a liars loan

* Force the big 5 big banks to buy them

Federal Govt forced Banks to loan to people that should not have it in the first place
Banks, being a company, wrote the loan in a way that provided them with the path to write the loan and profit from it.

Originally posted by narwahl
* Force them to bundle them

Can you say Freddie and Fannie?

Originally posted by narwahl
* Force them to double tranch them

Not up to speed with what you mean.

Originally posted by narwahl
* Force Countrywide to fire Eileen Foster, VP in charge of Fraud and
* Force Citigroup to fire Richard Bowen, Senior Vice President and Chief Underwriter in the Consumer Lending division, after he reported that 60% of their mortgages are defective
* Force S&P Fitch and Moodys to AAA rate them
* Force AIG to go into 1:11 Leverage (And only AIG, none of the other insurers where Stupid ermmm... Greedy ermm .... ermmm "forced" enough)

I really have a problem making a connection between people taking out bad loans and .... well the stuff in the few select points above.

edit on 19-12-2011 by narwahl because: (no reason given)

The rest is the outcome of failed economic policies by his lord highness 0bama, that brought on unemployment, that brought on home foreclosures that brought on the rest.

The person making the choice to get the 5yr interest only ARM loan on the house that they could not afford is not the sole cause, but a very large piece to the puzzle.

Looks like the Govt got the ball rolling nicely.
So, yeah for bigger Govt and more control.

reply to post by macman


How does Subprime loans existing force the big 5s to buy them?

Fannie & Freddie too did bundeling. yes. So did the big 5. The difference is that Fannie & Freddie issued the loans, they didn't buy them. So what exactly forced the big 5 to buy the loans in the first place?

Double Tranching: A funny trick: you take a CDO bundle. You slice them into 3 tranches: Top, Bottom and Middle. That's tranching. You can sell the top and the bottom(The top, because it's rated AAA compared to the bottom, and the bottom to people who want to bet on them)
Then you take the middle tranch, and do the same thing again, and get 2 more slices of AAA and C. Thats the double tranche.

You have no explanation why only AIG was forced into 11:1 leverage, while all other insurers in the market stayed at 3:1 or 4:1?

The short of it: They wanted subprime loans, because they have high interest and had found a way to AAA rate them. The Lender had no incentive to make sure the loans where sound, since he would sell them the moment he signed them. The big 5 had no incentive, because they too would sell them the moment they get them.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Highly reduced in your opinion is to kill social programs...

Boy, you really enjoy a good fit of hysteria.

No, overhaul them as they are no longer viable and will only become more of an issue as human life expectancy increases with medical and technological advances.

...privatize the military...

No need, this is one of the powers innumerated to the federal government by the Constitution.

...privatize the post office...

The post office has become an anachronism in this highly technical and digital world. It needs to change and adapt or it will go the way of other mail carrying means: the Pony Express and Rail Post Offices.

...privatize toll collection...

Because the government does such a great job as it is? Look at New Jersey's Turnpike and Parkway, both were supposed to have been free by now and both will see a toll increase after the holidays.

...keep private control over our money is your bright idea which will not work.

I am not following you here, you need to be more specific.

As former banking professional, the ideas to OP are stating are a little short sighted and an easy way to promote trickle down economics as the end-all/be-all of economic ideas. TD is far from that now. Within a global economy to believe that measures taken to benefit the top first and that will feed the lower is equal to believing in the Easter Bunny.

If anything, the past shows that TD is great for a short term bump if there is lax regulation where "creative" measures can be made so that "junk" profits are generated. A simple review of the 80s under Reagan and then again as the century closed shows that is the case, but for long term growth it simply doesn't work.

I'll repeat it again, it simply doesn't work.

Derek

Originally posted by Indigo5
GDP had returned to pre depression levels BEFORE WW2 started in Europe as well as BEFORE the USA entered the war. By any interpretation, your claim is false.

They returned to the 1924 level for a brief period and slipped back into recession shortly after. If you read my statement a bit more closely you would have seen were I said they did not reach the highs of the 20's until gearing up for World War II but this was due to ultra-massive deficit spending. I was quite specific.

And Joe next door doesn't have a problem feeding his family because he lost his Job, he has a problem feeding his family because he spends too much on food?

That is a poor analogy as Joe has no job. The government spends more whether tax revenue increases or not, the United States government (and almost all of the States) have a spending problem.

Binary fallacy. It is not either or. We got into trouble because Pres. GW Bush BOTH engaged us in two unfunded expensive wars while at the same time reducing revenues in the form of tax breaks that favored the wealthiest Americans. Toss in mass deregulation of the financial markets and we were on a steady course for disaster.

Tax revenue increased. He had lousy fiscal control and spending increase by a higher proportion. The key is to limit the amount that government spends. Either tying it to a percentage of gross domestic product or mandating a balanced budget (and having a balanced budget is common sense for Christ's sake) will eventually alleviate the problem.

What war was Ronald Reagan spending on?

I do not appreciate when you try to parse my words. I said the United States typically ran, past tense, as in the past and sadly, it is the distant past.

But if it makes you feel better about Reagan there was this little thing called the Cold War.

Reducing Revenues while at the same time increasing spending is a recipe for crisis and you don't need to be an economist to understand that.

Agreed. However, expenses were trending downward at the time of the cuts, it was the cost of both lengthy wars that blew the budget in the previous decade. I am not a fan of Bush's overall fiscal policy, I feel we spent far too much on programs and escapades that would have been better left unfunded. It should be noted however that the current policy makes his look like amateur hour.

We had privatized gains for a very thin slice of the wealthiest Americans and socialized losses in the form of taxpayer bailouts

That is not capitalism, that is plutocracey.

I am not in favor of bailouts for anyone at anytime. The Citizenry of the United States should not be the guaranteurs of imbecilic corporate (and government) policy. If your business is going to go out of business that is what we have the bankruptcy laws for.

I have no issue reducing spending. Lets start with the unfunded wars rather than our childrens education or food stamps.

I feel the Afghanistan War was necessary but not to the extent or time in which we were involved. We played too much pussy-foot with Pakistan when everyone and their mother knew where you-know-who ways.

Let's also return the tax rate to previous levels on those who can afford it. Anyone who believes that those folks are "Job Creators" after the pastt five years has taken Frank Lutz a little too seriously.

I disagree. I would prefer to returnt them to the pre-Depression levels so we will have a tax code and rate that makes us more competitive than the countries that are stealing our lunch at the moment.

Jobs are driven by Consumer Demand...no one hires folks because they have extra money, they hire folks when the middle class is buying their products and there is DEMAND.

When are no longer just manufacturing for ourselves. There is a global market that we can either tap or someone with more entrepreneurial drive will tap it before us. We need to make goods that we can not only use at home but profitably export to other markets and drive revenue in this manner.

Capitalism rocks, but it has to be a level playing field. What we have is a government that does everything it can to help the wealthy at the expense of the other 99%. Tax Breaks, Lobbyists bills, deregulation, tax payer bailouts when they lose. Plutocracey.

Tax breaks are good when everyone gets them. I am not a fan of lobbying or crony capitalism.

Originally posted by Viesczy
As former banking professional, the ideas to OP are stating are a little short sighted and an easy way to promote trickle down economics as the end-all/be-all of economic ideas.

If you read the rest of my posts in this thread you will see that I think tax cuts for citizens and businesses, coupled with less government spending (read: balanced budget) leads to higher prosperity. The issue is that our politicians feel the need to spend every penny and then some in both good times and bad.

How do you expect us to attract and keep businesses if our tax rates are the highest on the planet? You yourself said this is a global economy, it is much easier to pack up shop and move elsewhere if the clime is not suitable to remain.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I am under a gag order that prevents me from saying much. I may've already said too much!

well i guess that explains everything now

was that gag order from a court?
are ya sure it's not a peace bond?

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

How do you expect us to attract and keep businesses if our tax rates are the highest on the planet? You yourself said this is a global economy, it is much easier to pack up shop and move elsewhere if the clime is not suitable to remain.

Watch...We need tax reform, not lower rates...someplace will always...always offer a better rate.

Either way this video shows both sides of that debate

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

Every piece of legislation that he's tried to get through to begin to prop up a new endavour gets steamrolled by The GOP because it doesn't benefit the rich.

Highly reduced in your opinion is to kill social programs, privatize the military, privatize the post office, privatize toll collection, keep private control over our money is your bright idea which will not work.

Name a few that would have been good for the majority if they would have passed.

SLObama has been POTUS with the 111th and 112th Congress.

Name some that passed that did NOT benefit the rich.

Surely your gag order will allow you to disclose this.

details and logic are ok here, we can understand ( I think )

Originally posted by Indigo5
Watch...We need tax reform, not lower rates...someplace will always...always offer a better rate.

Either way this video shows both sides of that debate.

My point was not that we need to be lower than everyone, just lower than the markets that we directly compete with which is a major part of any overall tax reform. I will watch your video but I asked for your specific opinion, not another Youtube video.

Edit to add: Congressmen Dogget's idea sounds great in practice but will only chase more business from the United States. The reason those companies fled is the oppresive tax rate as evidence by Transocean and Weatherford moving from Zug to Geneva just by the threat of his pointless bill. Last time I checked both Zug and Geneva are not in the United States.

Instead of making tax lwas that can be gamed lower the rate so that it entices businesses to stay or move to the United States. I can hardly blame them, I would do the same thing and so would any sane person. Our tax rate is insane and not conducive to growing business and jobs. Given the choice I think they would prefer to remain here in the United States than move elsewhere. It clearly demonstrated, right from the executives mouths, that they were creating jobs in other countries. They asked for what I am advocating, not matching the lowest rates but making them competitive. That would be somewhere in the 20% range, give or take.

Even if all of these businesses returned to the United States the federal government still has a massive spending problem that still remains unaddressed.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by Alxandro

 

This is the facts ;

What he was referring to was the systematic deregulation of the entire financial market that occurred between 1918 - 1929 that allowed and set the stage and allowed for the October 1929 stock market crash. Exactly like what occurred between 1998 - 2008 that set the stage and allowed the October 2008 crash to occur!

That 57 breaks down into 50 states and 7 territories and can bet without looking anywhere on the web that you can't name them. A bomb did fall on Pearl Harbor, many bombs so that is true!

The reason why they are outsourcing is because of the lax laws in places like India and China whereas the workers have little to no rights and protections and work for $100 a month. Cheap labour coupled with the ability to exploit them is the sole reason for outsourcing.

Care to try again?

edit on 17-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Ok Mr Obama apologist, I noticed you didn't address his Intercontinental Railroad gaffe.

If he meant to say territories then why didn't he just say it? 
He probably meant to say kamikaze pilots (plural) and not bomb (singular) too, but he didn't.

Any other political figure would be attacked and ridiculed over these gaffes but of course not Obama.
Maybe they are afraid they might be called racist, but whatever the case his brown nosing apologists do not dare say the Emperor has no clothes.

Btw, common sense tells us that going after big corporations and taxing them to death will only make them take advantage of the "laxed laws" in the countries you mentioned.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


You are correct.. but it's not just tax cuts for the wealthy that lead to increases in the economy, tax cuts for everyone especially the Middle Class spur economic growth.

Obama is a tool ..

reply to post by macman


I do not answer to you and have nothing to prove to you as in your world the US would be a figment of the past. You've already stated this in not too many words.

You only know of what tv news orders you!

reply to post by macman


There are more millionaires and 1 billionaire in Congress then in the general populous by comparison so that is who is holding us up.

An ABC report from last month that says 47% of Congress are millionaires:
abcnews.go.com...

Either drop the ideology or be labeled Anti American, there is no third option here.

reply to post by Alxandro


I am in no way an Obama apologist stated the facts as the facts continue to speak loud and clear and this is not just some other half brained opinion.

reply to post by xuenchen


Financial Reform, Liddy Ledbetter Act, Matthew Sheppard Act, SCHIP!

The only ignorance being personified and exercised is that of the right and history as the facts and history continues to speak for itself and this is not another braindead opinion but continues to remain as facts!

Those ignorant to the facts can't see the rug that's being pulled over their heads as well as the inability to identify to stop being against ones own screwing.

I'm seriously beginning to no longer blame the SCUM for all of our problems today but will place the blame directly and squarely at the feet of the root of the problem, braindead Americans who in reality need to be told what's good for them as with the slightest provocation will defend their ideology to the death all while not being competent, proficient or intelligent enough to realize that the very ideology that they are defending is detrimental to The US as a whole but God forbid the taxes on the rich go up, that's grounds for a war but to remain absolutely silent on things like the PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act all because their party was in charge.

Start promoting and endorsing strictly American values and ideals as ideology is amongst the root of all political evil along with corporate money in our political process.

Noe if Obama said tomorrow that he'd look to end the Corporate Welfare state and the end of corporate money into our political process I wonder how many of the morons here would be defending the ideology over what's best for our nation!

You either stand with the nation or you stand with The SCUM, there is no third option. For any plan to erase The SCUM's influence over our nation we must first and above all else unite to kick them to the curb.because if we do not we might as well concede the fact that the US is dead and was killed by the defense of ideology over nation.

Every time you turn against the nation you are supporting The SCUM's plan for world conquest!

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Financial Reform, Liddy Ledbetter Act, Matthew Sheppard Act, SCHIP!

You need to be specific.

Who benefits

Who pays

The majority benefits how?

Do the administrators get rich?

Who pays for failures?