National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama

Oh good, someone who knows about economics...

Ok, explain to us all how CDS, derivatives, and MBSs have ANY effect on the price of housing, or whether people can pay their mortgage...?

All those "investments" DEPEND on the housing market, or DEPEND on people paying their mortgages. Please explain to us all how the financial collapse could have occurred if the housing market HAD NOT collapsed...?

See, us economic illiterates believe that since the underlining investments DEPEND on that which underlines them (the housing market) they would not have collapsed unless their foundation collapsed (again the housing market Democrats inflated and destroyed). If you can't answer my questions please apologize to this board for spreading Leftist Propaganda and Lies...

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related"]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg&playnext=1&list=PL5ABE2262ACE614E5"]Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Democrats are Clueless on Freddie Mac Fannie Mae and the financial credit crisis. - YouTube[/ame]

Watch and learn.

 

Its amazing that Obama said he would have cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. He is currently out spending Bush by March of 2012 and has made ZERO attempts to stop spending or offer any real ways to raise revenues. Are the troops home from Iraq? No. Are the troops home from Afgan? No. Did we start ANOTHER war and increase spending? Yes.

Liberal math, HALF means to DOUBLE.

 

Obama is “Unpatriotic.”

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q&feature=player_embedded"]Obama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic. - YouTube[/ame]

 

Indeed

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvtvcBKgIQ&feature=player_embedded"]Home Ownership and President Bush - YouTube[/ame]

The Bush administration's response to HR 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which was the *only* bill to regulate F/F to ever be passed (in 2005) by a chamber of the Republican controlled Congress.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851

"the Administration opposes the bill"

 

Does being the first president in many decades to actually cut spending in his first full fiscal year count?

Or didn't they tell you that in the conservative propaganda you get for information?

 

These are facts:

01/23/2001 5,732,723,749,861.27
01/23/2009 10,620,397,126,433.52

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

And prove the fact you are wrong.

 

What are you talking about? His first fiscal year after the ramped up spending in 2009? Bush's budget was $600 billion for 2009. It was doubled by Obama and the spend happy dems to $1.2 trillion. So I guess you can call that "cutting spending", still hasn't reached the levels of spending under Bush. I guess making thing so bad and then giving and inch from the mile of disaster you caused is giving in...if you fall for it.

$3.1 trillion signed by Bush for 2009.

$3.55 trillion signed by Obama for 2010.

Total requested spending is $3.83 trillion for 2011 BTW.

Seems like there was a lot of "cuts" in spending alright.

 

Heh heh -- The first time spending has actually been cut in decades, and you never heard a peep about it from your friends in the Murdoch propaganda media, did you?

I wonder why?

Year - outlays
2009 3,518.2
2010 3,455.8

Source: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf

Maybe, if you are interested in truth and an informed view, you'll consider getting your information from more objective sources.

 

So, you ignore what BUSH signed for the budget and add in all that Obama added to make it look like Bush's last Budget is higher? Why bother arguing with you. You really like cherry picking anything to make it look the way you want it too.

$3.1 trillion is the budget Bush signed for 2009

$3.55 trillion is the budget Obama signed for in 2010.

$3.8 trillion is what Obama asked for in 2011 till it was laughed out of the House by BOTH sides.

 

You truly are a master parrot of idiot DNC talking points.

But I can understand this when you voted for and support Obama and the Democrats agenda who have been such a massive failure that even the Carter years are looking better right now.

 

There you go again, spewing lies from the idiot DNC talking points you so desperately parrot.

 

Yet your dude has spent us into a $1.6 trillion deficit and added $3 trillion to the debt in 2 1/2 years and you think Bush was bad?

Good lord, nothing defines lunatic better than idiot DNC talking points and the non-thinking dullards who would parrot them.

 

There you go again with the unadulterated BS, idiot DNC talking points and selective data.

Here is a link for everyone to look at that shows the history of deficits from 1940 to now and we can see who the biggest deficit spenders were.

Mind you that even with tax increases and tax decreases the trend was always there, Congress would historically spend much more than it took in.

In addition, let's also keep in mind that CONGRESS is the only entity that can tax and spend, Presidents can only offer up their agendas and argue for them to be implemented.

What you will find from the data is the FACT that the only 12 years in this history has government run a surplus. Seven of those twelve years Republicans were in charge and four other times a Republican President kept Democrats from spending too much with their veto pen.

Now run along and spin your tall tale to those too stupid to comprehend facts; Liberals.

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

But no history would be complete without also looking at revenues which increased consistently over the years regardless of tax reductions and in most cases helped to increase revenues more dramatically than any time taxes were increased.

This web site shows that over time revenues have consistently increased regardless of tax policy thereby proving the false assertions and idiot DNC talking point suggesting that Bush's tax cuts caused the deficits as being nothing more than lunatic and false rhetoric:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

 

Good Grief!

First off, if Democrats did not unconstitutionally create Freddie and Fannie to manipulate the housing market in the first place I guess there would NEVER be a reason to regulate them at all, right?

The Bush speech you posted was in 2002. The housing bubble STARTED in 1997 about the time Clinton changed the CRA enforcement rules (making banks make REAL risky loans in REAL bad neighborhoods), and about the time people like Obama started suing banks like Citicorp for not making risky loans. By the time 2002 rolled around the bubble was well under way as the graph at the end often post shows. By 2005 the bubble was out-of-control, and DRASTIC heavy handed reform of unconstitutionally Democrat created Freddie and Fannie was needed; thus the Bush opposition to weak legislation.

 

Which specific fact did I state that you claim was a lie?

Or is this the typical unadulterated BS we get from you?

 

That's just my point. Mr. "Ownership Society" was pushing making owning a home more easy even as the bubble was taking off.

But Mr. "Ownership Society" was not a Democrat.

 

F/F existed for decades with a speculative housing bubble.

But tThat's just my point. Mr. "Ownership Society" was pushing making owning a home even more easy even as the bubble was getting out of control.

But Mr. "Ownership Society" was not a Democrat.

 

What is your point? Freddie and Fannie were unconstitutionally created by Democrats to manipulate the housing market. It matters little that they were around for "decades" without creating a "speculative housing bubble." The unconstitutionally Democrat created tools were not so abused as to cause such a "speculative housing bubble" before, They were used to artificially add liquidity to the housing market which created never ending escalating housing prices; a SLOW "speculative housing bubble."

I don't condone what Bush said or did in this matter, but WHATEVER Bush did amounted to drops of water dripping into an already overflowing bucket compared to what Democrats did to create the housing bubble. Had Democrats ONLY (really, is THAT too much to ask?) followed the Constitution none of it would have occurred.

 

No they're not.

The Democrats didn't create the housing bubble. Unless you want to prove it was the Democrats making millions in fees and bonuses pushing and packaging crappy mortgages.

 

Why did the housing bubble start in 1997 under Clinton?

Why the need for the CRA in the first place? Was it because banks were not making risky loans?

Why did Clinton change the CRA enforcement in 1995 so banks had to show REAL risky loans in REAL bad neighborhoods to government auditors? Was it because banks STILL weren’t making risky loans, or in fact WERE acting responsibly?

Why did Omama assist in suing Citicorp, was it because Citicorp was not making risky loans?

Why did Clinton order Freddie and Fannie to greatly expand their low to moderate mortgage holdings in the 2000 "Affordable Housing Goals" directive? The Four year directive by law gives Freddie and Fannie their political marching orders. Bush had no control over Freddie and Fannie until 2004, or after the housing bubble so inflated that a crash was unavoidable.

 

It didn't. Housing prices in 1997 were well within historical norms. Lower, actually.

Discrimination.

They didn't.

Discrimination, I suppose. I'm not intimately familiar with the case.

Help poorer people be able to buy a home.

Mr. "Onwership Society" had as much control over F/F as Clinton did during his term.

 

Much of that debt was made trying to correct Bush's mistakes with the economy. The lost jobs. Lack of reg's that caused the 2008 fiasco. Payments on interest. If we did not have such low employment, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in the Bush era, we would not be paying so much to those who lost those jobs.
People cry about welfare, unemployment benefits, food stamps. Much higher amounts than what we would have had to of paid if the economy had not busted in 2008 and lost jobs before that.
The Government caused much of this suffering of the unfortunate, they need to help them to get back on their feet.
WHERE'S THE JOBS BOHNER?
The jobs the GOP ran on in 2010 and have not produced one jobs bill since they got into office. Not one! To worried about OBAMA getting re-elected to worry about the country. Party before country. Corp's before hard working people. The Recorpican party.