National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama

You mean stimulus.

Studying drunken prostitutes in China, stuff like that.

OK sure.

Then lets just roll back government to what existed when Obama took office and then you can say that the current debt is not his fault.

 

OK Bush, supposedly, left odrama with a $1,412 trillion deficit in FY 2009. Since that budget was passed by a DEMOCRAT controlled Congress, I'm not sure how that was Bush since OUR LAW says Congress approves of and spends the money. But The deficit WAS $1,412 TRILLION and was done by Bush or the Democrats or both, before odrama took office.

Prior to the $1,412 trillion deficit, the deficit was $458 billion.

The $458 billion, previous deficit [FY 2008], had nothing to do with the following $1,412 TRILLION deficit. On 09/30 of each year the books are closed on that Fiscal Year.

So WHY was the deficit for FY 2010 $1,293.5 TRILLION, and WHY is the deficit for FY 2011 $1,600 TRILLION. At no time has the government revenue been DOWN even $400 billion due to the recession and for FY 2011 it projects to be down $85 billion from pre-recession receipts.

Sounds like wanton, irresponsible, unpatriotic spending to me.

 

Never heard of a veto?

The deficit for FY2011 is not $1.6 trillion.

If you are really concerned about the deficit as you pretend to be, write your Tea Party representatives and tell them to compromise on a tax increase to get a budget deal done.

 

No, as the graph clearly shows housing prices were relatively steady for the 5 years BEFORE Clinton changed the CRA enforcement and people like Obama started suing banks like Citicorp for not making risky loans. The bubble started in 1997 as that's when the prices started going up just like the graph shows.

Really? The government only has the constitutional authority to address individual discrimination, not that of an entire area code. The CRA sought to address Redlining. Redlining was not illegal, and is arguably not illegal today as it does not individually discriminate. Banks can choose not to invest in areas with as high murder rates as American troops lost in the Iraq war. Why should banks invest money in war zones, because Democrats say so?

Oh yes they DID! Read and learn instead of posting falsehoods, and Leftist Propaganda!

Paragraph 8 (bold for emphasis)

The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count. Where and to whom have home loans been made? Have banks invested in all neighborhoods within their assessment area? Do they operate branches in those neighborhoods?

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html​

Well get familiar with the case!

http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112

Again it was about Redlining. But the case never argued that Redlining was against the law, just argued that people were being discriminated against. The term Redlining literally means an entire area will not be considered for loans by a bank. That business decision has nothing to do with an individual, their race, or even their credit (good or bad) yet Obama and crew argued all those irrelevant points. Obama and crew did not even win, but Citibank settled out-of-court because they did not want to be called a “racist lender” in public.

Yes, and that created NEW customers in the market, and with those new customers added MUCH liquidity which blew up the balloon. Of course where is the constitutional authority for the government to make it easier for one group of people to do anything? Isn’t the government supposed to treat all equally?

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. The “Affordable Housing Goals” is a FOUR YEAR directive. Clinton greatly increased its requirements to Freddie and Fannie in 2000 as he was running out the door. Bush had no direct control over Freddie and Fannie until the 2004 Affordable Housing Goals directive which really did not take much effect until 2005, or as the housing bubble was about to collapse.

Paragraph 12 (bold for emphasis)

In 2000, Cuomo (Clinton HUD Secretary) required a quantum leap in the number of affordable, low-to-moderate-income loans that the two mortgage banks—known collectively as Government Sponsored Enterprises—would have to buy.The GSEs don't actually sell mortgages to borrowers. They buy them from banks and mortgage companies, allowing lenders to replenish their capital and make more loans. They also purchase mortgage-backed securities, which are pools of mortgages regularly acquired by the GSEs from investment firms. The government chartered these banks to pump money into the mortgage market and, while they did it, to make a strong enough profit to attract shareholders. That created a tug-of- war between their efforts to maximize shareholder value, which drove them toward high-end mortgages, and their congressionally mandated obligation to finance loans for those who needed help. The 1992 law required HUD's secretary to make sure housing goals were being met and, every four years, set new goals for Fannie and Freddie.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.radio.shortwave/2008-09/msg00944.html​

​

 

No, as the graph clearly shows, prices in 1997 were no where near a bubble. In fact, in 1997, housing prices were below historical norms.

No it doesn't. The Govt has complete authority to address discriminating practices like "redlining".

Howard Husak of the "Washington Examiner"? LOL. Even that biased source doesn't say "banks had to show REAL risky loans in REAL bad neighborhoods" as you claim.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.[8]

The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[3][4] An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.[6][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

From your source:

Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

This case has received a good deal of press and blogger attention because one of the plaintiffs' lawyers was Barack Obama, then just a couple of years out of law school.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the plaintiffs' suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank's loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties settled the case on May 12, 1998, with an agreement that provided for waiver of some fees for class members, should they reapply for a loan, and also for various procedures to ensure that Citibank followed its own loan policies in a race neutral way.


It was about discrimination. Just as I said.

There is no evidence that loans under the CRA were a cause of the housing bubble. To the contrary, credible sources that investigated it concluded that the CRA was not a factor.

You have no ideal what you are talking about. F/F was under direct oversight of the HUD. Bush appointed HUD and OFHEO heads who could do whatever they wanted, within the law.

That doesn't prove that Bush had no power over F/F. That regulation passed by Bush says the HUD set goals, not that they couldn't be changed by the new administration. Bush did nothing about it because expansion of home ownership was one of his major policy objectives.

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

 

In response to post 155 from Iriemon (just above).

What does your graph even show? Does it show NEW construction? Mine does not. New construction has no historical baseline and as such would alter the graph hiding trends.

Again you are wrong when you write

 

It shows US housing prices.

"Server not found"

Credible source as to quotas, please.

I'll decline to accept your say-so.

The CRA is not unconsitutional.

This was download from the links indicated. Because the OFHEO has been abolished and replaced with another agency, I don't think the links work now. But it outlines the supervisory authority the OFHEO had over F/F.


The agency responsible for oversight of Fannie and Freddie is the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO):

OFHEO's mission is to promote housing and a strong national housing finance system by ensuring the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation).

How is oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac divided between OFHEO and HUD? The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 created a regulatory oversight structure for the housing government-sponsored enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The regulatory oversight was divided to address two functions – their financial safety and soundness and their affordable housing mission. The financial safety and soundness regulation is vested in the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO). OFHEO implements, monitors and enforces capital standards for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's loan limits adjust every year in accordance with the results -- as determined by Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)

http://www.ofheo.gov/FAQs.aspx

The Director of the OFHEO:

James B. Lockhart, III, is the Director (CEO) and Chairman of the Oversight Board of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, regulator of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks. ... He was nominated by President Bush to that position and confirmed by the Senate in June 2006.

The agency that oversees the OFHEO:

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) carries the oversight responsibilities for the housing mission of the GSEs. Effective January 1, 2005, HUD established new and increasing affordable housing goal levels for the GSEs for the years 2005 through 2008. These goals require that a certain percentage of the mortgages purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac support financing for housing low – and moderate – income families.

http://www.ofheo.gov/FAQs.aspx

Prior to HERA, the Secretary of HUD was the mission regulator for the GSEs, with oversight authority to ensure that both GSEs complied with the public purposes set forth in their charters. HUD had general regulatory authority for oversight responsibilities, which included establishing housing goals; monitoring and enforcing compliance with housing goals; new program approval; collecting loan-level data from the GSEs on their mortgage purchase activities; making available to the public a database on non-proprietary GSE loan purchase data; and ensuring GSE compliance with fair lending requirements. An independent office of HUD, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) regulated the GSEs for safety and soundness by ensuring that they were adequately capitalized and operating their businesses in a financially sound manner.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/gse/gse.cfm

Secretary of HUD: Nominated by President Bush, affirmed by the Senate:

Jan 21, 2001-Mar 31 04: Mel Martinez
Mar. 31, 2004 - April 18, 2008: Alphonso

The OFHEO and HUD are not Congressional legislative operations but WH agencies. They are entirely under the control of the WH, within the law.

And the Democrats were certainly in no position to change the law in 2000-2006.

 

ROTFLMAO!!!!
You keep contradicting yourself! Either laws have to be passed to regulate Freddie and Fannie, or they are under direct Presidential Control! I will slice and dice your "logic" and "sound conclusions" later as time permits. There is a lota slicin' and dicing' that needs doin' as I don't want to overlook any tender little morsel!

LOL

P.S. (after edit)

Oh, and lets save a little time for later. The CRA is not unconstitutional huh? State where in the Constitution the federal government has the POWER to dictate and regulate banks on where (what areas) they must make investments. Remember, Redlining has nothing to do with INDIVIDUAL discrimination, only that of an entire area; an entire RISKY area for investment. Still waiting for you to show me some rich “white” guy living in the hood of Chicago that got a loan when others “black” guys with the same credit (living in the same redlined area) were refused loans. To “prove” your point you must provide such proof. LOL

 

Show us where in the CRA it requires banks to make risky loan. On the contrary, it banned banks from denying loans to qualified applicant based on redlining.

More of your ********** talking points.

 

Show us where odrama has spent our money wisely. Perhaps I should say China's money. Ours ran out long ago.

 

Translated: you've been owned and can't answer the question. You've never read the CRA have you?

You're outted dude. Tea Bag talking points and no facts.

 

What "slice and dice"? Congress passes laws. The President executives laws. At least that what I learned in government class. Where's the contradiction?

Show me where it was declared unconstitutional. Then you'll have a point.

 

The subject of this thread is NOT the CRA. Dozens of links to the abuses of the CRA have long since been posted. That you wish to deny that or are incapable of looking them up yourself means nothing to me.

This is about $4 trillion 'lost dollars.' Not the CRA. And I have read it, have you?

 

Tell Swamp. He brought up the CRA.

 

Yep, so why did Swamp bring it up and claim it showed how bad Obama is?

More ********** incoherency.

 

Agreed. Congress has more power over the deficit, whether it is Repub or Dem. So why is Obama being blamed?
Who held the house before 2006? When the Bush tax cuts started tearing away at the surplus.
Dennis Hastert? REpub, from 1999 until Jan 3rd 2007. The last year < ONE year of Bush, was held by the Dem's. One out of 8 years. Long after the damage had been done. Then, just like now, they are expected to clean up the mess's made in numerous years in just one or a couple of years.
The projected $1600 trillion you posted for 2011, who is holding congress now?
With high unemployment there is more going out in benefits and less coming in, in revenue from those unemployed.
Where's the jobs the Repub's made promises on to get into congress in 2010? Not one jobs bill brought forward. Now Obama is talking about coming back and working on creating more jobs, what is going to happen? Congress (Repub's) will fulfill their agenda of keeping the economy bad to unseat Obama. Party before country. It is real lives they are playing chicken with and still they play.

Do you know why a woman's mind is cleaner than a man's? She changes it more often, LOL.
I use to believe in the balance of powers so they could check each other. I now see that is the wrong approach. Rather than checking each other they are trying to destroy each other before the next election. In turn they are destroying our country.
Now if we should have only Repub's in for 4 year term, they screw it up, we vote them out. They do good for our country, we vote them back in. They had from 2001 to 2007 and screwed this country worse than it has been screwed since the great depression. Roosevelt.
Clinton first 4 DEm's in both houses. Second 4 good old Newt to worried about getting Clinton for sex scandals that Newt himself was committing than time to run the house. Total radical as still seen today from Newt.
Senate ran by Strom Thurmond who began as a Dem, turned to Repub.
Financially the Clinton years went well, very well. Better than most.

The same that would be happening now if there was not so much obstructionism on going. Not obstruction because they don't believe any of the plans presented will work but because the Repub's don't want them to work out of fear Obama will be in for another 4. Which he will anyways and this destruction of our country out of petty partisan(*)(*)(*)(*) will be for nothing.

 

It was explained already ?

Prior to legalization of these speculative instruments Banks and lending institutions made loans in hopes that the debtor would service the loan to term and they would make money on the interest. It was in the lenders interest to make sure that the debtor was credit worthy so that they could service the debt to term.

With the "liberalization" pardon the pun, Banks and lending institutions no longer had to hold the mortgage to maturity. The second the mortgage deal was inked they sold the mortgage (at a profit of course), into an Mortgage back security for example.

The lender no longer had to rely on the debter to pay over a long period of time. In fact, it did not have to rely on the debter at all because as soon as they sold the loan into the MBS they made their money and were no longer responsible for the loan.

The lender no longer had to rely on the credit worthyness of the debtor, and in fact folks with bad credit were even more desirable because the lender could charge them higher interest rates and making it more profitable when they sold the mortgage.

Anyone could now buy a house and they did. Demand skyrocketed causing housing prices to increase. As housing prices increased writing these mortages became more profitable because the loans were bigger.

Folks started thinking prices could only go up and so all kinds of regular folks started to play the housing game, flipping houses as prices rose was very profitable. If flipping one house was good, flipping 3 or 4 houses was even better and this further increased demand.

Now you know how the housing bubble formed.

Check your reading comprehension .. the housing bubble was definately part of the financial collapse.

Enter the Credit Default Swap (CDS)

This was like an insurance policy against failure of a MBS. For $1,000, and sometimes even less you could insure $100,000. If the MBS defaulted you collected the difference $99,000.

The neat thing about a CDS, unlike "fire insurance" is that you did not have to own the underlying asset. Pure, unadulterated Gambling.

Paulson made Billions, betting on his CDS positions. The wierd thing in some cases Paulson was the one who actually selected the bad paper that went into the financial instruments he was betting against.

There were all kinds of financial derivatives, hedge positions and so forth based on various collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps.

The exposure to these instruments was international. Why buy a Treasury bill yeilding 3% when you could buy into a "Triple AAA" CDO paying 6%.

This was the scam of scams. The amount of CDS positions was unlimited and there was no auditing procedures so it was also unknown.

Outfits like AIG made huge money selling these swaps and they pushed them like crazy.

For example on a MBS with an estimated value of 2 Billion .. they could sell 2 Billion worth of swaps .. or more if they wanted.

The problem is that the 2 Billion in swaps, should the MBS default, pays out 100 -1 = 200 Billion. No one had the money to pay.

This is what is meant by too big to fail. AIG and other investment firms around the globe that intertwined with AIG in this mess.

The Fed had to make sure AIG did not default.

There are more complexities that what is presented , but this gives you a good start.

When Lehman Brothers failed the commercial paper market froze. Thousands of profitable businesses rely on this market to fund operations. GE and other companies were calling the Fed telling that their businesses were in serious jeopardy due to an inability to access the commercial paper market.

They had to unfreeze the commercial paper market or things would have gotten really bad, really fast.

If you think the unemployment rate is bad now .. It would have been catastrophic if they would have not unfrozen the commercial paper and credit markets. Many analysts claim that the collapse would have been worse than the great depression.

I hope I have answered your questions.

For your info I am not a big fan of the left, untilitarian (for the common good) justifications at the expense of personal liberty and freedom doesnt wash with me.

I am a fiscal conservative with a strong belief in the Constitution: individual liberty, and keeping the government out of the business of citizens unless absolutely necessary, and that Religion has no place in politics.

These values have been forgotten by much of the GOP, and in particular the religions right.

This does not mean that the liberals are any better. Do not confuse constructive criticism with leftism or lack of patriotism. This kind of demonization only serves to inhibit "real" conservatives from returning this party to some semblence of its old self.

I we are blind to our mistakes how can we correct them ?

Demonizing conservatives who point out mistakes of the party is not going to help correct those mistakes.

 

The 2009 Budget .. proposed by Bush and passed by a Democratic Congress had an estimated deficit of 400 Billion. Revenue was estimated at 2.7 Trillion and expenditures were to be 3.1 Trillion.

Once the Budget is passed .. and in any company, the money is allocated.

Revenue collapsed to 2.15 Trillion leaving a 550 Trillion dollar shortfall

Deficit = 950 Billion .. Add in money for TARP and Stimulus and you get to 1.4 Trillion real quick.

As of the end of 2009 things had not improved much

With income at 2.15 Trillion and spending at 3.1 Trillion ( no different than Bush's budget) you are already 1 Trillion in the hole.

Cutting spending and laying off folks when unemployment is already at 9% (because of the financial collapse and housing bubble collapse) is not the best option.

What do you suggest be done ?

 

Try again! Show us where in the Constitution (The Supreme Law of the Land in case the Leftist forgot ) where the government gets to decide in what area a company MUST make an investment. If you can't cite chapter and verse in the Constitution you lose the argument!

“More of your ********** talking points?” I’m thinking your speak is more talk of Treason!

 

un·con·sti·tu·tion·al&#8194;/&#716;&#652;nk&#594;nst&#618;&#712;tu&#643;&#601;nl, -&#712;tyu-/ Show Spelled[uhn-kon-sti-too-shuh-nl, -tyoo-] Show IPA
adjective

not constitutional; unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution, as of a country.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unconstitutional?o=100084&qsrc=2871&l=dir​

I ALWAS have a "point."


Try again! Show us where in the Constitution (The Supreme Law of the Land in case the Leftist forgot ) where the government gets to decide in what area a company MUST make an investment. If you can't cite chapter and verse in the Constitution you lose the argument!

 

I gave you the spending numbers. how can you say the Republicans screwed the country worse from 2001 to 2007 than the Democrats have in the last 4 years. The Republicans WERE bad. the Democrats are much, much worse.

And the split government. It was with Republican control of Congress and Clinton in the White House that we achieved a balanced budget and a surplus. Clinton is a staunch Democrat and Gingrich [Speaker of the House then] is a staunch Republican. But both knew how to get things done and worked together and did not call the other names in every speech. Typical odrama speech is 'the dirty rotten unpatriotic Republicans must learn to compromise and do it my way.' That's the stupid ass way odrama elicits reasonableness. And yet he is surprised when they tell him to go pizz up a rope.

WHAT WE HAD WITH CLINTON AND GINGRICH WERE 2 CAPABLE MEN. Whether we have one as Speaker now, I don't know. But we certainly don't have one in the White house.

 

No it was YOU who posted a Leftist Lie!

post 147

"The Democrats did... create the housing bubble." The CRA was one aspect of that creation. Had Democrats not violated the Constitution repeatedly there would have been NO housing bubble. You still have yet to show how the government has the authority under the Constitution to FORCE or even entice banks to follow Democrate housing policy. Where in the Constitution does the government get to make housing policy or manipulate the national housing market making it easier for a favored "class" to get homes (making it HARDER for EVERYONE else)?


When someone posts a Leftist Lie like “The Democrats didn't create the housing bubble.” I will call their treachery, and post the TRUTH!

 

So you did bring up CRA and misrepresented what it was, and when I called you on it, you lied again.

CRA merely stopped redlining -- that is it required banks to make loans to QUALIFIED borrowers.

You've never read the text of CRA, have you?​

 

Stop trying to distract.

The CRA forbids redlining. Period. You've never read it, have you? You're just repeating GOP talking point gibberish.

As to the constittuionality of CRA, your rightwing talking points are noted and rejected as crank attempts at distraction. If you think CRA is unconstitutional, take it to court.

Meanwhile, it had NOTHING to do with forcing banks to make loans to unqualified persons, so stop repeating ********** lies.

 

The stimulus bill designated $800,000 to send to Africa to teach African men to was their genitals after sex. Please explain how that stimulates the U.S economy. I can't wait to hear it.

Either way, obama is spending at the fastest rate of any president in history.

Don't be silly, the burning ship was created by Bill Clinton...bush had nothing to do with the recession.