# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  so you obama people

## RA

Having buyers remorse yet?

*Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion* (Update1) 





By Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry
March 31 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the longest recession since the 1930s. 
New pledges from the Fed, the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. include $1 trillion for the Public-Private Investment Program, designed to help investors buy distressed loans and other assets from U.S. banks. The money works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. and 14 times the $899.8 billion of currency in circulation. The nations gross domestic product was $14.2 trillion in 2008. 
President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner met with the chief executives of the nations 12 biggest banks on March 27 at the White House to enlist their support to thaw a 20-month freeze in bank lending. 
The president and Treasury Secretary Geithner have said they will do what it takes, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein said after the meeting. If it is enough, that will be great. If it is not enough, they will have to do more. 
Commitments include a $500 billion line of credit to the FDIC from the governments coffers that will enable the agency to guarantee as much as $2 trillion worth of debt for participants in the Term Asset-Backed Lending Facility and the Public-Private Investment Program. FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair warned that the insurance fund to protect customer deposits at U.S. banks could dry up because of bank failures. 
Within an Eyelash 
The combined commitment has increased by 73 percent since November, when Bloomberg first estimated the funding, loans and guarantees at $7.4 trillion. 
The comparison to GDP serves the useful purpose of underscoring how extraordinary the efforts have been to stabilize the credit markets, said Dana Johnson, chief economist for Comerica Bank in Dallas. 
Everything the Fed, the FDIC and the Treasury do doesnt always work out right but back in October we came within an eyelash of having a truly horrible collapse of our financial system, said Johnson, a former Fed senior economist. They used their creativity to help the worst-case scenario from unfolding and Im awfully glad they did it. 
Federal Reserve officials project the economy will keep shrinking until at least mid-year, which would mark the longest U.S. recession since the Great Depression. 
The following table details how the Fed and the government have committed the money on behalf of American taxpayers over the past 20 months, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. 


================================================== ========= --- Amounts (Billions)--- Limit Current=========================================== ================Total $12,798.14 $4,169.71----------------------------------------------------------- Federal Reserve Total $7,765.64 $1,678.71 Primary Credit Discount $110.74 $61.31 Secondary Credit $0.19 $1.00 Primary dealer and others $147.00 $20.18 ABCP Liquidity $152.11 $6.85 AIG Credit $60.00 $43.19 Net Portfolio CP Funding $1,800.00 $241.31 Maiden Lane (Bear Stearns) $29.50 $28.82 Maiden Lane II (AIG) $22.50 $18.54 Maiden Lane III (AIG) $30.00 $24.04 Term Securities Lending $250.00 $88.55 Term Auction Facility $900.00 $468.59 Securities lending overnight $10.00 $4.41 Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility $900.00 $4.71 Currency Swaps/Other Assets $606.00 $377.87 MMIFF $540.00 $0.00 GSE Debt Purchases $600.00 $50.39 GSE Mortgage-Backed Securities $1,000.00 $236.16 Citigroup Bailout Fed Portion $220.40 $0.00 Bank of America Bailout $87.20 $0.00 Commitment to Buy Treasuries $300.00 $7.50----------------------------------------------------------- FDIC Total $2,038.50 $357.50 Public-Private Investment* $500.00 0.00 FDIC Liquidity Guarantees $1,400.00 $316.50 GE $126.00 $41.00 Citigroup Bailout FDIC $10.00 $0.00 Bank of America Bailout FDIC $2.50 $0.00----------------------------------------------------------- Treasury Total $2,694.00 $1,833.50 TARP $700.00 $599.50 Tax Break for Banks $29.00 $29.00 Stimulus Package (Bush) $168.00 $168.00 Stimulus II (Obama) $787.00 $787.00 Treasury Exchange Stabilization $50.00 $50.00 Student Loan Purchases $60.00 $0.00 Support for Fannie/Freddie $400.00 $200.00 Line of Credit for FDIC* $500.00 $0.00-----------------------------------------------------------HUD Total $300.00 $300.00 Hope for Homeowners FHA $300.00 $300.00-----------------------------------------------------------he FDICs commitment to guarantee lending under theLegacy Loan Program and the Legacy Asset Program includes a $500billion line of credit from the U.S. Treasury.

----------


## RA

He a socialist pos thats running this country into the ground. The chinese are more fiscally conservative than obama. No one cared before the election that he was left of hilary because we are a country of sheep.

----------


## Kratos

I think the headline is misleading roidattack. That's the expected national debt at the end of the year, correct? Not the amount of the rescue plan. He may add near two trillion to the national debt this year, 4-5x the highest deficit in history. But, the rescue plan itself is not 12.8 trillion, even though it's ridiculous.

I'm not an Obama people, so I was forced to buy something I didn't want.

----------


## RA

No not the exepected national debt..if you add up his pledges he would double the national debt. See the bottom half for the calculations.

With his spending proposals we are going to have to borrow appox 9.3 trillion over the next 10 years. Very scary shit. People that thought the national debt was a problem before have proabably chewed their nails off. 

The only way we can stem the tide now is to elect as many rep's as possible in 2 years. Not panty waist rinos but real fiscally conservative republicans. The reason is most of his spending does not begin until after that and they could put a stop to it.

----------


## xlxBigSexyxlx

Yes we can!

 :1laugh:

----------


## xlxBigSexyxlx

I don't know when people will wake up... :Hmmmm:

----------


## Kratos

> No not the exepected national debt..if you add up his pledges he would double the national debt. See the bottom half for the calculations.
> 
> With his spending proposals we are going to have to borrow appox 9.3 trillion over the next 10 years. Very scary shit. People that thought the national debt was a problem before have proabably chewed their nails off. 
> 
> The only way we can stem the tide now is to elect as many rep's as possible in 2 years. Not panty waist rinos but real fiscally conservative republicans. The reason is most of his spending does not begin until after that and they could put a stop to it.


Oh, gottcha...I didn't read the whole thing. Yeah I know he plans to run a pretty sweet deficit all the years he's in office. With this year being the highest, but every year being the highest in history if you didn't include the previous years of Obama. Like I think next year is going to be 1.2-1.4 tillion expected or something like that. 

It's going to end poorly for us. Makes you wonder who's stupid enough to loan us money. When was the last time we balanced a budget and actually paid some back...it was like post WWII I think.

----------


## Kratos

It's like paying your mortgage with your credit card after a certain point.

Yes we can...bankrupt a nation

----------


## Kratos

At least once everyone works for the gvmt, we won't have business cycles anymore. Means no more economic downturns. We'll just be poor all the time, awesome.

----------


## RA

Well communist chinese (who owns most of our debt) are now starting to talk about not loaning us more money because of obamas reckless spending...its a sad day when the chinese are truly more conservative than our president. :Chairshot: 





> Oh, gottcha...I didn't read the whole thing. Yeah I know he plans to run a pretty sweet deficit all the years he's in office. With this year being the highest, but every year being the highest in history if you didn't include the previous years of Obama. Like I think next year is going to be 1.2-1.4 tillion expected or something like that. 
> 
> It's going to end poorly for us. *Makes you wonder who's stupid enough to loan us money*. When was the last time we balanced a budget and actually paid some back...it was like post WWII I think.

----------


## RA

I think there is a backlash building but what is difficult is the media will never tell you the truth. 




> I don't know when people will wake up...

----------


## D7M

> Yes we can!


lmao. 

you say that on every Obama post, everywhere.

----------


## xlxBigSexyxlx

> I think there is a backlash building but what is difficult is the media will never tell you the truth.


True




> lmao. 
> 
> you say that on every Obama post, everywhere.


LOL. I can't help myself!

----------


## sloth9

This sums it up!





Obama :0beatoff:

----------


## RA

Roflmfao!!





> this sums it up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obama

----------


## RA

So no responses from our Democrat bros? I do hope this teaches everyone a lesson about actually looking at someones agenda and background rather than voting for him because he can deliver a good speech....(so could hitler)

----------


## Tock

Well, it would be one thing if Bush and the Republicans had lived up to their reputations as fiscal conservatives. But they didn't. 

Bush didn't include the $$$ spent and pledged for the war in his budget in his figures; kept all that info off the books.
O'Bama includes everything. 

Add to that the crazy lending practices that the banks were doing, thanks to the federal regulators not having the foggiest idea what the bankers were doing. And you can thank the Republicans making sure that banking experts were hired to oversee them; instead, all the Bush administration hired were lawyers. 

On Bush's watch, the banks screwed up multi-Trillions of $$$ in mortgage loans. Plus his administration (most notably the VP) lied about what Saddam Hussain was up to, and since Bush was too stupid to know what was really going on, he authorized a needless war, which got thousands of Americans needlessly killed, and plunged America even further into debt. 

----

Even after all that, the American people still don't have a clue about how to vote.

----------


## RA

lol...bush huh?

While I do agree that Bush was far too liberal..ie the farm bill/the education bill(and is education better because we threw more money at it?) bill after bill he didnt veto BUT

He kept calling for regulation of fanny and freddie but it was the Dems who blocked it every time..specifically Barney Frank. The legislation that took us under started under carter..strengthend by clinton..protected by frank who said "These companies are viable and if anything should be lending MORE money" Bush is not responsible at all for the housing crisis...

I know you like to blame reps for everything tock but the facts dont support your argument. Right now we need very fiscally conservative reps elected to the legislature...otherwise were going in the socialism toilet.




> Well, it would be one thing if Bush and the Republicans had lived up to their reputations as fiscal conservatives. But they didn't. 
> 
> Bush didn't include the $$$ spent and pledged for the war in his budget in his figures; kept all that info off the books.
> O'Bama includes everything. 
> 
> Add to that the crazy lending practices that the banks were doing, thanks to the federal regulators not having the foggiest idea what the bankers were doing. And you can thank the Republicans making sure that banking experts were hired to oversee them; instead, all the Bush administration hired were lawyers. 
> 
> On Bush's watch, the banks screwed up multi-Trillions of $$$ in mortgage loans. Plus his administration (most notably the VP) lied about what Saddam Hussain was up to, and since Bush was too stupid to know what was really going on, he authorized a needless war, which got thousands of Americans needlessly killed, and plunged America even further into debt. 
> 
> ...

----------


## SMCengineer

> The only way we can stem the tide now is to elect as many rep's as possible in 2 years. Not panty waist rinos but real fiscally conservative republicans. The reason is most of his spending does not begin until after that and they could put a stop to it.


Right, cause republicans didn't control the congress for 12 years, and both the legislative and executive for 6. They had their chance and they failed miserably. I'm not sure what's worse, having republicans who campaign as libertarians and govern as dems or having dems who campaign as liberals and follow through on their word. Sure, republican rhetoric is terrific now, but they always sound better when they're not in power cause they have less to risk. 




> This sums it up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama


Best picture ever.



> So no responses from our Democrat bros? I do hope this teaches everyone a lesson about actually looking at someones agenda and background rather than voting for him because he can deliver a good speech....(so could hitler)


On major policies, Mccain was no different than Obama nor were his supporters.



> Well, it would be one thing if Bush and the Republicans had lived up to their reputations as fiscal conservatives. But they didn't.


They actually campaigned as "compasionate converservatives," which is simply a euphemism for neoconservative. Of course, it isn't nearly as pleasant sounding.




> lol...bush huh?
> 
> While I do agree that Bush was far too liberal..ie the farm bill/the education bill(and is education better because we threw more money at it?) bill after bill he didnt veto BUT
> 
> He kept calling for regulation of fanny and freddie but it was the Dems who blocked it every time..specifically Barney Frank. The legislation that took us under started under carter..strengthend by clinton..protected by frank who said "These companies a viable and if anything should be lending MORE money" *Bush is not responsible at all for the housing crisis*...
> 
> I know you like to blame reps for everything tock but the facts dont support your argument. Right now we need very fiscally conservative reps elected to the legislature...otherwise were going in the socialism toilet.


I'm pretty sure it was under Bushs watch that interest rates dropped to their lowest levels in history (prior to today) and every fire needs fuel. Although those horrible policies were enacted, the catalyst was the interest rates. Everything else was just symptoms. Republicans and democrats alike are to blame not solely because of the policies they enacted, but because there's not a damn difference between the two.

----------


## Kratos

> Well, it would be one thing if Bush and the Republicans had lived up to their reputations as fiscal conservatives. But they didn't. 
> 
> Bush didn't include the $$$ spent and pledged for the war in his budget in his figures; kept all that info off the books.
> O'Bama includes everything. 
> 
> Add to that the crazy lending practices that the banks were doing, thanks to the federal regulators not having the foggiest idea what the bankers were doing. And you can thank the Republicans making sure that banking experts were hired to oversee them; instead, all the Bush administration hired were lawyers. 
> 
> On Bush's watch, the banks screwed up multi-Trillions of $$$ in mortgage loans. Plus his administration (most notably the VP) lied about what Saddam Hussain was up to, and since Bush was too stupid to know what was really going on, he authorized a needless war, which got thousands of Americans needlessly killed, and plunged America even further into debt. 
> 
> ...



I was thinking to myself "wtf, why hasn't tock blamed Bush yet?" ie typical dem response "Bush created a mess and it's an expensive fix."

Thank-you the world is round once again.

----------


## RA

> Right, cause republicans didn't control the congress for 12 years, and both the legislative and executive for 6. They had their chance and they failed miserably. I'm not sure what's worse, having republicans who campaign as libertarians and govern as dems or having dems who campaign as liberals and follow through on their word. Sure, republican rhetoric is terrific now, but they always sound better when they're not in power cause they have less to risk. 
> 
> 
> 
> Best picture ever.
> 
> 
> On major policies, Mccain was no different than Obama nor were his supporters.
> 
> ...


Like I said no rino Republicans. Someone like Bobby Jindal for example would be a good one. I think part of the problem was Bush wasnt a true conservative. He cut taxes but he wouldnt veto any spending bill...and the wimps in the legislature were too weak to stand up to him. 

McCain is also liberal but far far less than Obama. Im not sure how you can draw a comparison between the two. Obama had the most liberal voting record in the senate...left of Hilary. 

The Carter plan was to give money to people to buy homes. Like I said it didnt have much traction until Clinton forced banks to loan money to people who couldnt pay it back. Thats the backbone. Low interest rates didnt help but we wouldnt be in this mess if that legislation was never enacted. 

Like I said several times Bush called for regulation and it was always blocked. Bawney Fwank is hugely responsible as well.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Like I said no rino Republicans. Someone like Bobby Jindal for example would be a good one. I think part of the problem was Bush wasnt a true conservative. He cut taxes but he wouldnt veto any spending bill...and the wimps in the legislature were too weak to stand up to him.


Bobby Jindal is just like all the other so called republicans trying to take the mantle of conservatism. He's the same as Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Jim Deminth, Jon Huntsman, Mike Pence and all the other hacks. They're all horrible. I have no idea how the GOP doesn't learn from it's mistakes. Jindal's voting record is horrendous (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...?can_id=35481#). Take a look at all the Yes votes for appropriations and fiscal bills. That's fiscal conservatism? Not to mention he has no regard for the constitution. He voted Yes on the Patriot Act, Yes on a constitutional amendmet banning flag burning and Yes on the Real ID Act! All unconstitutional, socialistic, liberal and expansive to the executive. 
Just because he vetoed some earmarks in the state budget and opposed the stimulus money that makes him a fiscal conservative? No, that makes him a political grandstander and inconsistent.
The only governor who has any credibility is Mark Sandford and after his interview on Fox where he agreed with Newt Gingrich that we should take preemptive action against North Korea, I'm rethinking that.




> McCain is also liberal but far far less than Obama. Im not sure how you can draw a comparison between the two. Obama had the most liberal voting record in the senate...left of Hilary.


On *major* policies, they are identical. Foreign policy, Monetary Policy, War on Drugs, Federal Reserve, Bailouts, etc. 




> The Carter plan was to give money to people to buy homes. Like I said it didnt have much traction until Clinton forced banks to loan money to people who couldnt pay it back. Thats the backbone. Low interest rates didnt help but we wouldnt be in this mess if that legislation was never enacted. 
> 
> Like I said several times Bush called for regulation and it was always blocked. Bawney Fwank is hugely responsible as well.


No, that's not the backbone. You have to understand the business cycle to understand how and when bubbles are formed. Bubbles (malinvestments) are always caused by expansion of the monetary supply. All the piss poor legislation in the world couldn't bring about the ridiculous investments that were made in the last 10 years without the existence of easy credit. Yes, the reduction of risk provided by the government greatly contributed to the mess, but without the fed and subsequently Bushs/Greenspans low interest rate policy the problem wouldn't be half as bad.

----------


## RA

> Bobby Jindal is just like all the other so called republicans trying to take the mantle of conservatism. He's the same as Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Jim Deminth, Jon Huntsman, Mike Pence and all the other hacks. They're all horrible. I have no idea how the GOP doesn't learn from it's mistakes. Jindal's voting record is horrendous (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...?can_id=35481#). Take a look at all the Yes votes for appropriations and fiscal bills. That's fiscal conservatism? Not to mention he has no regard for the constitution. He voted Yes on the Patriot Act, Yes on a constitutional amendmet banning flag burning and Yes on the Real ID Act! All unconstitutional, socialistic, liberal and expansive to the executive. 
> Just because he vetoed some earmarks in the state budget and opposed the stimulus money that makes him a fiscal conservative? No, that makes him a political grandstander and inconsistent.
> The only governor who has any credibility is Mark Sandford and after his interview on Fox where he agreed with Newt Gingrich that we should take preemptive action against North Korea, I'm rethinking that.
> 
> 
> On *major* policies, they are identical. Foreign policy, Monetary Policy, War on Drugs, Federal Reserve, Bailouts, etc. 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not the backbone. You have to understand the business cycle to understand how and when bubbles are formed. Bubbles (malinvestments) are always caused by expansion of the monetary supply. All the piss poor legislation in the world couldn't bring about the ridiculous investments that were made in the last 10 years without the existence of easy credit. Yes, the reduction of risk provided by the government greatly contributed to the mess, but without the fed and subsequently Bushs/Greenspans low interest rate policy the problem wouldn't be half as bad.


You mentioned some good Republicans in there. Maybe not as conservative as I would like but light years ahead of whats currently in there. Im not sure what exactly you expect??

McCain is not in agreement with Obama on bailouts, foreign policy, and the fed..maybe war on drugs but they arent that similar.

Of course it was the backbone. The banks were forced( by the govt ) to give millions of loans to people who shouldnt have them. Im not sure where your missing the boat on that one.

----------


## BgMc31

Bobby Jindall is a quack!! Anyone who participates in an excorcism (sp?) shouldn't be a candidate to lead any political party, much less the leader of the free world. He's indicative of what's wrong with the Republican party. The Republican party laudes someone who is quick to assimilate to what they think an 'American' should be. IMO (I can't speak for anyone but myself), the Republican party isn't a party of diversity and has a narrow minded view of Americana. That is why they will not regain power anytime soon. Beyond the economic issues facing this country, people are tired of the devisiveness of the Republican party.

----------


## RA

The divisiveness...ROFLMAO

Bush came to Washington to try that. His "new tone" what did he get in return. Demonized by the dems...attack after attack after attack..no whats going to work is a take no prisoners ultra conservative...

I must say I hadnt heard that about Jindall. Link?

How would the Republican party make itself more "diverse"





> Bobby Jindall is a quack!! Anyone who participates in an excorcism (sp?) shouldn't be a candidate to lead any political party, much less the leader of the free world. He's indicative of what's wrong with the Republican party. The Republican party laudes someone who is quick to assimilate to what they think an 'American' should be. IMO (I can't speak for anyone but myself), the Republican party isn't a party of diversity and has a narrow minded view of Americana. That is why they will not regain power anytime soon. Beyond the economic issues facing this country, people are tired of the devisiveness of the Republican party.

----------


## BgMc31

Here's some links about Bobby Jindal's exorcism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_106716.html

Since I know the Huffingtonpost is a clearly liberal blog, I'm attaching another link. Here is a link from a more mainstream publication:

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008...dals_exorcism/

As far as what the Republican party can do to become more diverse. Probably the obvious is to stop villifying those who are of different faiths to start. While the Republican party has a few token minorities it can boast, the Republican party is pretty much all Christian. Even Mr. Jindal and his wife in a ABC News interview admitted that have little to do with their Indian heritage and admitted that they are now American. To me that implies that one cannot be American without being Christian. 

To avoid this deteriorating into a race thread, I won't go into the problems the Republican party has with racial minorities. But clearly they have never been proponents of diversity in the past. Now I know Lincoln was a Republican but if one knows their history, the parties have flipped flopped allegiencies on civil rights a number of times throughout history. Currently and for the last 40yrs, the Republican party has been known as the party of white, christian, men. And until they do something to change that perception, they will never return to power.

----------


## SMCengineer

> You mentioned some good Republicans in there. Maybe not as conservative as I would like but light years ahead of whats currently in there. Im not sure what exactly you expect??


Principled conservatives. None of which I mentioned. Particularly Mitt Romney who literally tried to out liberal Ted Kennedy in 1994: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI. 




> McCain is not in agreement with Obama on bailouts, foreign policy, and the fed..maybe war on drugs but they arent that similar.


Check their voting records. They're identical. On bailouts they're different? That's odd cause I could've sworn Mccain voted for the Tarp and every other bailout pre-Obama. There's a slight, and I mean slight difference, on foreign policy, but the only difference is that Obama wants to draw down the troops from Iraq and place them in Afghanistan. By draw down, that means leave several tousand troops in Iraq and claim that he ended the war, which he won't. However, the basis is an interventionist foreign policy, which doesn't change from one administration to the next. Where do they differ on the Fed? When do they even talk about the Fed?




> Of course it was the backbone. The banks were forced( by the govt ) to give millions of loans to people who shouldnt have them. Im not sure where your missing the boat on that one.


Missing the boat? How can loans be made without credit?

----------


## BgMc31

Blome, why do you always gotta come into threads and ruin them with your intelligent banter... LOL!!!

----------


## xlxBigSexyxlx

> Blome, why do you always gotta come into threads and ruin them with your intelligent banter... LOL!!!


lol, its quite amazing isn't it?

----------


## Kratos

blome has a zero tolerance policy for liberalness of any kind

----------


## Kratos

2 party politics is just the real life version of yankee's vs the red sox...fans are so busy complaining about the other team, nobody wins.

----------


## RA

> Here's some links about Bobby Jindal's exorcism:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_106716.html
> 
> Since I know the Huffingtonpost is a clearly liberal blog, I'm attaching another link. Here is a link from a more mainstream publication:
> 
> http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008...dals_exorcism/
> 
> As far as what the Republican party can do to become more diverse. Probably the obvious is to stop villifying those who are of different faiths to start. While the Republican party has a few token minorities it can boast, the Republican party is pretty much all Christian. Even Mr. Jindal and his wife in a ABC News interview admitted that have little to do with their Indian heritage and admitted that they are now American. To me that implies that one cannot be American without being Christian. 
> ...


 
Thats interesting..I had never heard that about Jindal. Im not sure it stops me from considering him a good candidate but it does give me pause.

See your talking about perception, not issues. I vote based on issues and my original post that started this thread shows how Obama is flushing this country down the toilet.

----------


## RA

> Principled conservatives. None of which I mentioned. Particularly Mitt Romney who literally tried to out liberal Ted Kennedy in 1994: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI. 
> 
> 
> Check their voting records. They're identical. On bailouts they're different? That's odd cause I could've sworn Mccain voted for the Tarp and every other bailout pre-Obama. There's a slight, and I mean slight difference, on foreign policy, but the only difference is that Obama wants to draw down the troops from Iraq and place them in Afghanistan. By draw down, that means leave several tousand troops in Iraq and claim that he ended the war, which he won't. However, the basis is an interventionist foreign policy, which doesn't change from one administration to the next. Where do they differ on the Fed? When do they even talk about the Fed?
> 
> 
> Missing the boat? How can loans be made without credit?


 
I totally agree. I would like principled conservative leaders. Do you hold the liberal leaders in Washington to the same standard? Because every single one would fail if thats the case.

McCain would not be going after Wall Street like obama has...McCain would not be talking universal health care..McCain would stay as long as we needed to in Iraq and not set some arbitrary deadline. McCain would not be going around the world apologizing to everyone and calling us arrogant. McCain would not be trying to take over all the banks and wanting to set the salaries of ceos that didnt even take tarp money...huge differences 

Interest rates are an issue but if your loaning the money to people who can pay it back then there isnt a problem.

----------


## SMCengineer

> I totally agree. I would like principled conservative leaders. Do you hold the liberal leaders in Washington to the same standard? Because every single one would fail if thats the case.


Principled liberals? Pointless to even consider it. 




> McCain would not be going after Wall Street like obama has...McCain would not be talking universal health care..McCain would stay as long as we needed to in Iraq and not set some arbitrary deadline. McCain would not be going around the world apologizing to everyone and calling us arrogant. McCain would not be trying to take over all the banks and wanting to set the salaries of ceos that didnt even take tarp money...huge differences


Mccains healthcare platform presented no plan to get the goverment out of the insurance business. He presented no plan of rescinding the HMO act and Erisa Act. His plan was only superficially different than Obama's. Obama has no arbitrary deadline of leaving Iraq. In fact, he's not leaving Iraq. The *occupation will not end.* It's all political rhetoric. 

Both of them voted for the TARP funds. We wouldn't even be in a position of owning banks if it weren't for that. Maybe he wouldn't be capping salaries like you say, but he sure would be buying up toxic mortgages: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/1...surgence-plan/. Which leads me to believe that he would be doing a lot more intervining in the economy and a lot less cutting of any large departments of government to slash spending, again the same. Not to mention his stimulus plans were essentially the same as Obamas. Open your eyes. It's not two seperate teams. It's coke and pepsi. They're the same! I won't even touch on the apologizing thing cause it's a ridiculous and jingoistic arguement.

By the way, I said major issues, Monetary Policy, Federal Reserve, Interventionism vs Non-interventionism, Immigration, war on drugs, welfare state, etc. They don't differ on these and therefore we'd be in the same position. 




> Interest rates are an issue but if your loaning the money to people who can pay it back then there isnt a problem.


So are you blaming greed? That would be equivilant to putting the cart before the horse or blaming a plane crash on gravity.

All factors combined, Fannie and Freddie, CRA, political manipulation, deregulation (an absolutely ridiculous notion), wall street greed, *would never* have enough liquidity to cause a housing bubble. There had to be an institution that operated outside of free market forces that enabled credit expansion on such an unprecedented level. Simply, if it weren't for the fed manipulating interest rates, business cycles would be very seldom. Loose monetary policy and low interest rates _always induce booms_. *It can never be brought about by any other means.* 

This is what I mean by having a difference in Monetary Policy.

----------


## RA

> Principled liberals? Pointless to even consider it. 
> 
> 
> 
> Mccains healthcare platform presented no plan to get the goverment out of the insurance business. He presented no plan of rescinding the HMO act and Erisa Act. His plan was only superficially different than Obama's. Obama has no arbitrary deadline of leaving Iraq. In fact, he's not leaving Iraq. The *occupation will not end.* It's all political rhetoric. 
> 
> Both of them voted for the TARP funds. We wouldn't even be in a position of owning banks if it weren't for that. Maybe he wouldn't be capping salaries like you say, but he sure would be buying up toxic mortgages: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/1...surgence-plan/. Which leads me to believe that he would be doing a lot more intervining in the economy and a lot less cutting of any large departments of government to slash spending, again the same. Not to mention his stimulus plans were essentially the same as Obamas. Open your eyes. It's not two seperate teams. It's coke and pepsi. They're the same! I won't even touch on the apologizing thing cause it's a ridiculous and jingoistic arguement.
> 
> By the way, I said major issues, Monetary Policy, Federal Reserve, Interventionism vs Non-interventionism, Immigration, war on drugs, welfare state, etc. They don't differ on these and therefore we'd be in the same position. 
> ...


 
LMAO on the principled libs...

So you dont think were pulling out in 18 months like he said?

I do agree that they are similar. I was never a big McCain fan. Far too lib for me. I just think obamas main goal is socialism and being more part of the "one world community" than keeping us intact as a country than McCain.

So you think loaning money to people who have shitty credit is a good idea and didnt have any effect on the housing bubble?

----------


## SMCengineer

> So you dont think were pulling out in 18 months like he said?


Absolutely not, he can't for political reasons and won't for the same reasons. His words are doublespeak. He's pulling out "combat troops," but leaving 50,000 "support troops." That means nothing. Iraqis still see it as an occupation. They don't care if we change the name from "combat" to "support."

It's funny that Bush used the same rhetoric and was lambasted for it, but when Obama uses it he's praised.



> So you think loaning money to people who have shitty credit is a good idea and didnt have any effect on the housing bubble?


No, of course not. And, no, the banks shouldn't have been forced to take on risky loans. And, yes, it contributed to the bubble, but it's not the cause of the bubble. It's merely a symptom. *Bubbles only form from expansive monetary policy.* No other way. That can be traced back to tulip mania in the early 1600's.

----------


## BuffedGuy

Ron Paul 2012.

----------


## sloth9

> Ron Paul 2012.


Stay out of Missouri you will be deemed a violent political activist, lol I am right there with you on my truck I have 
Europeans call it socialism
Americans call it welfare 
Obama calls it change

Thankyou President Bush for keeping us safe.

I guess it was easier to vote for Obama than to get a job 

on my car I have 

Obama is an AssClown 


One
Big 
Ass 
Mistake
America

F*ck Obama! ( there is a star in place of U)

I get so many people asking me where they can get bumper stickers like that, I love it.yeah its alot, but until I repaint my t-bird I wont take them off, I just put a ram air hood, and body kit on it, and I am still having problems with the lambo doors lining up correctly with some body trim, so that stuff keeps peoples eyes caught then they see the stickers.

Yeah! all on my cars hell yeah. I also dare some one to stop me to say I am an idiot cause I will beat them down, I just recently got out of some charges for throwing a guy on his car in the mall parking lot cause he pulled out in front of me and slowed down, I just honked at him and he got out of his car so I obliged him in his quest for getting his ass beat. lol 

Any way I do think Bush did alot for the safety of America, but this is my opinion and truly time will tell. He was liberal but not as bad as his dad and Obama. The republican congress screwed us bad, but it isnt going to be half as bad as these Democrats if they keep going this way, Time will tell, but I am against them.

Clinton was the one who got the screwed up banking started, see Clinton was decent in the past but after the Monica thing he was impeached, but the dems made a deal, if he would support them he could stay president (basically) Clinton was the start and Bush let it roll too long, and by the time he saw the damage it was creating, he couldnt do damage control because the Dems held him back. 

Truthfully Obama is bad, but he is a puppet. We need barney franks, Nancy pelosi and reed gone asap, along with gietner. Obama could go too, I would like that alot but our real problems are within congress and the senate, when we the people vote in some honest people in here it will help, that is a contradiction in itself an honest government official, lol. We did not vote Obama in it was super delegates, remember that. I think Newt Gingrich should be president next he is one of the sharpest people out there when it comes to Government.

----------


## BuffedGuy

> Absolutely not, he can't for political reasons and won't for the same reasons. His words are doublespeak. He's pulling out "combat troops," but leaving 50,000 "support troops." That means nothing. Iraqis still see it as an occupation. They don't care if we change the name from "combat" to "support."
> 
> It's funny that Bush used the same rhetoric and was lambasted for it, but when Obama uses it he's praised.


You are absolutely correct. It's just doublespeak, as you said. You can call them whatever you want, but the matter is still the same.

----------


## spywizard

> Well, it would be one thing if Bush and the Republicans had lived up to their reputations as fiscal conservatives. But they didn't. 
> 
> Bush didn't include the $$$ spent and pledged for the war in his budget in his figures; kept all that info off the books.
> O'Bama includes everything. 
> 
> Add to that the crazy lending practices that the banks were doing, thanks to the federal regulators not having the foggiest idea what the bankers were doing. And you can thank the Republicans making sure that banking experts were hired to oversee them; instead, all the Bush administration hired were lawyers. 
> 
> On Bush's watch, the banks screwed up multi-Trillions of $$$ in mortgage loans. Plus his administration (most notably the VP) lied about what Saddam Hussain was up to, and since Bush was too stupid to know what was really going on, he authorized a needless war, which got thousands of Americans needlessly killed, and plunged America even further into debt. 
> 
> ...


ummm.. no, those lending requirement were put in place to allow minorities and poor people (democrats) to qualify for a home mortgage.. If i have to go find the published data to back that up i'll make it a more prominent thread

----------


## Kratos

> Ron Paul 2012.


I'll take a wild guess that you support Ron Paul because he wants to end US support for Israel.

----------


## tyward

Well, I support Ron Paul because he wants to end support for everybody. Perhaps they can support themselves while we work our way out of this crisis. T

----------


## RuhlFreak55

> I was thinking to myself "wtf, why hasn't tock blamed Bush yet?" ie typical dem response "Bush created a mess and it's an expensive fix."
> 
> Thank-you the world is round once again.


that's ridiculous though because most of the policies that eventually led to the end of housing were enacted under clinton.....not saying bush is without fault...i don't like him much either....but clinton started the "american dream for everyone bullshit"

----------


## Kratos

> Well, I support Ron Paul because he wants to end support for everybody. Perhaps they can support themselves while we work our way out of this crisis. T


I was just expressing my thoughts on buffedguy's motives, cause he cares little about America, his religion is always the agenda for his politics.

----------


## BuffedGuy

> I'll take a wild guess that you support Ron Paul because he wants to end US support for Israel.


Peace be unto you, Kratos.

It is not just about Israel. Israel is just one part. It is the entire philosophy of non-interventionism. I believe that this is what America was founded upon, and I find that my religious belief jives well with that. I also like his economic policy, although admittedly I am a novice when it comes to the economy. (His economic policy also conforms to my religious beliefs...at least what I know of it.)




> I was just expressing my thoughts on buffedguy's motives, cause he cares little about America, his religion is always the agenda for his politics.


Caring for the welfare of the people in the land I live in is a part of my religion. We warn our people, just like Moses warned Pharaoh, how Lot warned the people of Sodom, and all of the prophets warned their peoples. 

When America wages senseless wars, then those involved earn sin on their hands and harm their *own* souls. So my religion instructs me to try to save my people from that fate, that of Pharaoh--who also oppressed the believers in the land. Pharaoh oppressed the Children of Israel, so Prophet Moses [as] advised him to stop from that. This is because of care and concern not only for the oppressed, but also for the oppressor. Prophet Muhammad [s] advised us to help the oppressed AND the oppressor. The people asked him: "we understand why we should help the oppressed, but how do we help the oppressor???" The Prophet [s] replied by saying: "By stopping him from oppressing." The reason is that he is harming his own soul by oppressing.

So EVEN when we warn our people (the American people) against oppressing in the land, it is for their benefit. As the Quran instructs us to pray: "Our Lord! Make us not a test and trial for the disbelievers." (Quran, 60:5) What this means is that let not the oppressors from amongst the disbelievers have power over us, because this will be a test and trial for them (the disbelievers) and they will then fail and harm their own souls. So to allow an oppressor to oppress harms not only the oppressed but also the oppressor himself. The oppressed is a trial and test for the oppressor, and vice/versa.

America does NOT benefit when it occupies foreign countries. Rather, it brings about much harm to itself, not only in the eyes of God, but even in this worldly sense, i.e. it makes Americans less safe by creating hatred towards Americans, which fuels extremism abroad.

What I am trying to say to you is that my religious orientation does not at all clash with my American identity; rather, I believe that they reconcile with each other quite well. There is no contradiction.

----------


## mho

> Well, it would be one thing if Bush and the Republicans had lived up to their reputations as fiscal conservatives. But they didn't. 
> 
> Bush didn't include the $$$ spent and pledged for the war in his budget in his figures; kept all that info off the books.
> O'Bama includes everything. 
> 
> Add to that the crazy lending practices that the banks were doing, thanks to the federal regulators not having the foggiest idea what the bankers were doing. And you can thank the Republicans making sure that banking experts were hired to oversee them; instead, all the Bush administration hired were lawyers. 
> 
> On Bush's watch, the banks screwed up multi-Trillions of $$$ in mortgage loans. Plus his administration (most notably the VP) lied about what Saddam Hussain was up to, and since Bush was too stupid to know what was really going on, he authorized a needless war, which got thousands of Americans needlessly killed, and plunged America even further into debt. 
> 
> ...



You can thank Jimmy Carter for the Community Reinvestment Act and thank Bill Clinton for repealing the Glass-Steagal Act.

----------


## tyward

I read something today that seemed to ring true. It was about how I am expected to believe that poor people, who could not make their house payments, brought down the banking system of the most powerful nation on earth. Somehow I don't think so...

----------


## mho

> I read something today that seemed to ring true. It was about how I am expected to believe that poor people, who could not make their house payments, brought down the banking system of the most powerful nation on earth. Somehow I don't think so...


Then you need to do some more research on the subject. I wouldn't fault homeowners as much as I would the government for forcing banks out of the business of redlining. Government regulations do have a place in businesses, but regulations that promote unsound and high risk practices with other people's money are unacceptable, imo.

----------


## tyward

Actually, I see the problem as industry specific deregulation. Although there were many regulations set up in the early 1930's to help prevent the systemic breakdown of the American (and worldwide) financial markets, many of those regulations were gutted during the past eight years. The most problematic change, which I wrote about in 2004, was the raising of the leverage percentages, allowing banks and other financial institutions to increase the spread on the money that they actually held in different types of escrow. Profits were great while house prices, as well as other asset valuations where high. The problems began when things began to fall and the multiples began to build. The truth is that subprime borrowers are a fractionally small part of the problem; wait until commercial paper and credit card debt hit the fan...

----------


## SMCengineer

> Actually, I see the problem as industry specific deregulation. Although there were many regulations set up in the early 1930's to help prevent the systemic breakdown of the American (and worldwide) financial markets, many of those regulations were gutted during the past eight years. The most problematic change, which I wrote about in 2004, was the raising of the leverage percentages, allowing banks and other financial institutions to increase the spread on the money that they actually held in different types of escrow. Profits were great while house prices, as well as other asset valuations where high. The problems began when things began to fall and the multiples began to build. The truth is that subprime borrowers are a fractionally small part of the problem; wait until commercial paper and credit card debt hit the fan...


Unfortunately, the reasoning that "deregulation" caused this financial crisis is merely a platitude. In no way can anyone economically explain how "deregulation" caused a speculative bubble of this magnitutde. Over-leveraging is not a result of deregulation. That is, unless the deregulation you're referring to is artificial manipulation of interests rates, in which you would be correct.

Oh, and I would add commercial real estate onto the list you mentioned.

----------


## Kratos

That was my point buffguy, you see America as an opressor of Muslim countries and that's as far as your political thought process goes.

----------


## tyward

Platitude indeed...I'm referring to specific legislation giving financial institutions the ability to increase their investment leverage primarily through the use of off book derivaitives trades that, and I'm sure you must be at least somewhat aware of the reinsurance industry, were based on complex formulas usually hinging on multiples of the LIBOR longer term and the LIBOR O/N. Because of the complexity and hidden nature of these investments, which were given the highest ratings through another reinsurance process, were marketed throughout the world. I supported the legislation at the time because American banking was losing business to London. If they were platitudes that I was investing in, then then the millions I made in the derivatives industry, while I was working a regular job, certainly come as a shock to me. Yuo don't believe me? Good, stay poor forever, and no, I never need other peoples money to invest...
BTW, you might want to read my post, I did mention the commercial market...

----------


## SMCengineer

> Platitude indeed...I'm referring to specific legislation giving financial institutions the ability to increase their investment leverage primarily through the use of off book derivaitives trades that, and I'm sure you must be at least somewhat aware of the reinsurance industry, were based on complex formulas usually hinging on multiples of the LIBOR longer term and the LIBOR O/N. Because of the complexity and hidden nature of these investments, which were given the highest ratings through another reinsurance process, were marketed throughout the world. I supported the legislation at the time because American banking was losing business to London. If they were platitudes that I was investing in, then then the millions I made in the derivatives industry, while I was working a regular job, certainly come as a shock to me. Yuo don't believe me? Good, stay poor forever, and no, I never need other peoples money to invest...
> BTW, you might want to read my post, I did mention the commercial market...


I'm not sure I ever said you invested in platitudes primarily because I don't know what that means. How can you invest in a platitude? What I said, was the arguement that deregulation caused a financial panic is just a generic explanation. Your arguement doesn't address my question on how deregulation caused a massive speculative bubble. I understand that you're esposing the view that the unregulated derivatives market is what caused over-leveraging, but it's simply not possible on it's own merit. Credit expansion is what fueled the derivatives market. It's akin to blaming the Great Depression on the stock market crash of 1929. 

You making millions during this period is great and I should definitely get some investing tips from you, but it's irrelevant to this conversation. Also, I said commercial real estate not credit cards or commercial paper. This was not to disagree with or contradict either of those, but simply to add to your list which you seem to be offended by for some reason. I meant nothing by it.

----------

