The Fiscal Cliff talks

[3rdnlng]

Yes, if $2 trillion is your definition of "not too far off....."

 

This is from your earlier post #107 here in this thread:

 

 

"Take your blinders off man. $4.4 trillion in debt was added over Bush's 8 years, and half of that came from lower revenues due to his tax cuts."

 

What is this, the new math? Suddenly 4.4-3.5=2.0 now? I've noticed that you tend to mix in projected figures with actual ones, whatever fits your argument the best.

 

 

[TPS]

This is from your earlier post #107 here in this thread:

 

 

"Take your blinders off man. $4.4 trillion in debt was added over Bush's 8 years, and half of that came from lower revenues due to his tax cuts."

 

What is this, the new math? Suddenly 4.4-3.5=2.0 now? I've noticed that you tend to mix in projected figures with actual ones, whatever fits your argument the best.

You are correct. I had the 5.6 figure in my head and worked off of that. You've hung me out to dry. I admit it, Bush's deficits were good, Obama's bad.

[/dev/null]

You are correct. I had the 5.6 figure in my head and worked off of that. You've hung me out to dry. I admit it, Bush's deficits were goodbad, Obama's badworse.

 

Corrected

 

But to be fair, Bush had 8 years to fail. So it's only fair that we give Obama 8 years to rise to the same level of suckitude

Forward!

[Duck_dodgers007]

Have the Republicans stated the deep cuts to health care and social security they want?

[keepthefaith]

Corrected

 

But to be fair, Bush had 8 years to fail. So it's only fair that we give Obama 8 years to rise to the same level of suckitude

Forward!

 

Think about the bag of crap that Obama stands to leave for the next President.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Think about the bag of crap that Obama stands to leave for the next President.

 

He's expecting to be the next President, and the one after that and..........

[B-Man]

Good news (possibly) for U.S. Citizens.............................................bad for professional politicians and media.............

 

 

Big Mo for putting C-SPAN cameras on ‘fiscal cliff’ talks.

 

 

Transparency...............right ?

 

 

.

[B-Large]

Good news (possibly) for U.S. Citizens.............................................bad for professional politicians and media.............

 

 

Big Mo for putting C-SPAN cameras on ‘fiscal cliff’ talks.

 

 

Transparency...............right ?

 

 

.

 

They love being infront of Cameras, I honestly can't understand the reluctance... lol

[CosmicBills]

Bush also had that whole 9/11 thingie to deal with.

 

Let's look at how Bush dealt with that "whole 9/11 thingy". Or shall I say fumbled it completely.

 

1. He took a rare moment of national unity and !@#$ing destroyed it by launching a war under blatantly false pretenses that sent over 3,000 young men and women to die finishing the job his father never did.

 

2. Worse, he didn't even try to pay for either of his wars, instead he put it off until after his term was up.

 

3. Even worse, the neo-con king and his cronies raped their own fiscal philosophy by creating the DHS -- an absolute albatross and sink hole of federal spending that has virtually no ability to fight a "war" on terror.

 

4. And continuing down the path of idiocy and dishonesty, Bush further deregulated the economy to the point where he pushed the entire economy into a the worst recession since WWII and dumped it on the next administration's lap.

 

5. But the coup de gras, he created the Patriot Act which destroyed personal freedom and liberty on a scale like no other president in history has done before.

 

Yeah. Bush handled 9/11 swell. There are some men born to lead and others born to screw up. He's clearly in the later category. You can pretend all you want that Obama is entirely responsible for the mess we face now, but that would be as foolish as betting on the Bills to win the super bowl.

 

Get your game up.

[3rdnlng]

 

Let's look at how Bush dealt with that "whole 9/11 thingy". Or shall I say fumbled it completely.

 

1. He took a rare moment of national unity and !@#$ing destroyed it by launching a war under blatantly false pretenses that sent over 3,000 young men and women to die finishing the job his father never did.

 

2. Worse, he didn't even try to pay for either of his wars, instead he put it off until after his term was up.

 

3. Even worse, the neo-con king and his cronies raped their own fiscal philosophy by creating the DHS -- an absolute albatross and sink hole of federal spending that has virtually no ability to fight a "war" on terror.

 

4. And continuing down the path of idiocy and dishonesty, Bush further deregulated the economy to the point where he pushed the entire economy into a the worst recession since WWII and dumped it on the next administration's lap.

 

5. But the coup de gras, he created the Patriot Act which destroyed personal freedom and liberty on a scale like no other president in history has done before.

 

Yeah. Bush handled 9/11 swell. There are some men born to lead and others born to screw up. He's clearly in the later category. You can pretend all you want that Obama is entirely responsible for the mess we face now, but that would be as foolish as betting on the Bills to win the super bowl.

 

Get your game up.

 

I agree with some of your post but #4 is all wrong. The CRA, started under Carter and amended under Clinton started regulated poor lending practices creating the housing bubble and subsequent crash. Other things certainly contributed, but the phucking House Committee on Financial Services members fought tooth and nail to protect their donors. Bush attempted legislation 21 separate times to regulate Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. See what resistance he got below. Funny how they just skewered the regulator for their own purposes.

 

 

 

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Democratic%20Coverup%20for%20Fannie%20and%20Freddie.html

 

 

 

 

Democratic Coverup for Fannie and Freddie Led to 2008 Meltdown

By Ross Kaminsky (more by this author)

Posted 09/30/2008 ET

Updated 09/30/2008 ET

 

 

If anyone wants to find the people responsible for the current financial meltdown, they need to look no farther than the Democrats -- Maxine Waters, Barney Frank and their Fannie Mae pal Franklin Raines -- to indentify the culprits.

 

 

Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100 percent loans. -- Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) in a September, 2003, hearing of the House Committee on Financial Services.

 

The above quote from Waters was in a hearing convened by then-committee Chairman Michael Oxley (R-OH) to discuss “the oversight of the housing government-sponsored enterprises.”

 

The hearing came about because two Bush Administration cabinet secretaries had presented the committee with a “proposal to improve regulatory oversight for the GSEs” with an opening statement, including: “There is a broad agreement that the current regulatory structure for the GSEs is not operating as effectively as it should. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight is underfunded, understaffed and unable to fully oversee the operations of these sophisticated enterprises.

 

“This was reflected in the surprise management reorganization by Freddie Mac and by Wall Street reports stating that GSE oversight is viewed with skepticism because OFHEO is largely seen as a weak regulator. A strengthened regulator will send a signal to the markets that these entities have solid management and are engaging in safe and sound activities.”

 

Yet the response by the Democrats on the committee, who had turned what should have been an issue of protecting public trust and money into a partisan divide so that they could buy votes with their “affordable housing” social engineering scheme, was uniformly against improving oversight of GSEs.

 

Democrat Barney Frank (D-MA), who was the ranking Democratic committee member at the time (and is its chairman today), said, “I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger… Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country.”

 

Representative Waters continued her contribution to the discussion by making clear the Democrats’ true mission for Fannie and Freddie, namely to find a way to get minorities into houses even if they would not meet the qualifications for standard loans, such as in having the ability to bring a down payment to the transaction.

 

Waters seemed particularly proud to say “since the inception of goals from 1993 to 2002, loans to African-Americans increased 219 percent and loans to Hispanics increased 244 percent, while loans to non-minorities increased 62 percent. Additionally, in 2001, 43.1 percent of Fannie Mae's single-family business served low-and moderate-income borrowers…” She then said “the GSEs are working” and reiterated her opposition to more oversight.

 

The next panel at that hearing included George Gould, a long-time Freddie Mac board member and former Under Secretary for Finance at the Department of the Treasury, who discussed Freddie’s view of the situation. He testified that:

 

• “Freddie Mac's franchise is rock solid. Our exposure to both credit risk and interest rate risk remains extremely low.”

• “These are strong incentives for the GSEs to meet the goals year after year, to say nothing of the reputational penalties of failing to meet a goal.” (This is important when we turn to Franklin Raines in a moment.)

• “Considering that we have consistently met the permanent affordable housing goals, additional enforcement authority seems unnecessary. Therefore, we would respectfully suggest that no additional authority is needed.”

 

This last statement reinforces the position taken by Maxine Waters that the mission of the GSEs is primarily to increase “affordable housing” regardless of how that gets done.

 

Next up was Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae. Raines made millions in bonuses when Fannie Mae manipulated earnings to meet the highest profit and “affordable housing” targets. He settled with the SEC in a sweetheart deal that cost him little or nothing out of his own pocket, even though Fannie Mae was slapped with the biggest fine in SEC history for overstating Fannie Mae’s profits by $6.3 billion over several years.

 

Raines went through the standard litany such as “provid(ing) $2 trillion for 18 million underserved families” but did not oppose modernizing GSE oversight. Indeed, Raines admitted that “you can imagine our trying to get into some area that could cause a safety and soundness issue.”

 

During the hearing Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) said “I am just pissed off at OFHEO because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think we’d have to be here in the first place.”

 

The head of OFHEO, the under-funded regulator of Fannie and Freddie, did not take that lying down: “Congressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. OFHEO did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency's engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac.”

 

Though this 2003 hearing (which is widely being reported on the Internet has having happened in 2004, in part because of this otherwise-excellent video showing some of the highlights), it is only a small part of the consistent support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by Democrats regardless of the risk caused by or fraud perpetrated by those organizations.

 

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT), the largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie in the past decade, also turned a blind eye to the risks posed by the GSE’s.

 

In an article earlier this month, the Washington Post (no friend to the Bush administration), offered this: “Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has the gall to ask in a Bloomberg Television interview: I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years’” before explaining that “Dodd -- who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 -- actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.”

 

The corruption of Fannie Mae was not simply partisan, but it was also racist in its own way. Just as Fannie and Freddie threatened to harm “racist” banks which didn’t loan money to (unqualified) minorities, the leadership of the GSEs was clearly just as afraid of being called racist by minority (by race, not political party) members of Congress. In this remarkable 2005 video of the swearing-in ceremony of the Congressional Black Caucus (with an applauding Michelle Obama prominently featured), Fannie Mae interim CEO Daniel Mudd, cozies up to the CBC: “I humbly ask you to help us and help me… If there areas where we could do better, we’d like to hear it from our friends, and I’d be so bold as to say our family, first.” Mudd was afraid of the CBC. And who wouldn’t be, in a society where the an unfounded charge of racism can destroy fortunes and careers?

 

What lessons can we learn about confusing social programs with the proper functions of government, about the inherent conflict between believing that a cause is worth any price and protecting citizens’ money from waste and corruption? (Indeed can we not ask the same question about the conflict inherent in Paulson’s bailout proposal?)

 

Democrats have taken the wrong side in this conflict for years, right up until the bitter and expensive end of Fannie and Freddie as independent institutions, including their multi-billion dollar tax-payer bailout .

 

In fact, over the years, their actions to protect Fannie and Freddie from Congressional prying are nothing short of a coverup.

 

Sens. Dodd and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wanted to expand Fannie and Freddie as recently as a year ago, while John McCain was one of just 4 sponsors of a 2005 measure to rein in these financial Frankensteins. McCain offered support of the bill with this statement: “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

 

But when even Bill Clinton has to admit the truth, you know it’s not just a matter of parsing words: “The responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more with resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

 

Part of the reason the Democrats are so angry about the Paulson bailout proposal failing is that it allows the public that much longer to figure out who is primarily responsible for the current debt market turmoil.

 

The villains in this story are primarily Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, with conspirators throughout the Democratic Party, the Congressional Black Caucus, and corrupt leftist organizations like ACORN, which not only received Fannie Mae money despite repeated convictions for voter fraud, but which was slated by the Democrats to share in any future potential profits from the bailout.

 

To use the words of House Republican Leader John Boehner, the bailout bill was a “crap sandwich”. But what beside such a meal should we have expected given the disgusting history of fraud by GSEs and neglect and stonewalling by their Democratic defenders in Congress?

 

 

 

Ross Kaminsky blogs at Rossputin.com.

 

Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions

Copyright © 2008 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

[CosmicBills]

I agree with some of your post but #4 is all wrong. The CRA, started under Carter and amended under Clinton started regulated poor lending practices creating the housing bubble and subsequent crash.

(snip for space)

No, you're correct that it wasn't entirely W's fault. Glass-Steagall was all Clinton. The deregulation began with Dems and was accelerated by Bush both knowingly (paying for two wars on credit) and unknowingly.

 

Without his absolute abortion of a job handling the post 9/11 world, W didn't start the fire, he just threw gallons and gallons of gasoline on it.

[3rdnlng]

 

No, you're correct that it wasn't entirely W's fault. Glass-Steagall was all Clinton. The deregulation began with Dems and was accelerated by Bush both knowingly (paying for two wars on credit) and unknowingly.

 

Without his absolute abortion of a job handling the post 9/11 world, W didn't start the fire, he just threw gallons and gallons of gasoline on it.

 

Obviously you didn't read what I quoted. The housing crisis is at the very bottom of our financial crisis today. Don't tell me it "wasn't entirely W's fault". The vast majority of the fault for the housing crisis falls squarely on the dems shoulders. They fought tooth and nail against controlling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[CosmicBills]

Obviously you didn't read what I quoted. The housing crisis is at the very bottom of our financial crisis today. Don't tell me it "wasn't entirely W's fault". The vast majority of the fault for the housing crisis falls squarely on the dems shoulders. They fought tooth and nail against controlling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

If it makes you feel better to reinvent history and blame one side rather than the system itself, that's fine. It's not true, but it's fine.

[3rdnlng]

 

If it makes you feel better to reinvent history and blame one side rather than the system itself, that's fine. It's not true, but it's fine.

 

System, my ass. That's something you say when you can't make a stand.

[TakeYouToTasker]

System, my ass. That's something you say when you can't make a stand.

If it makes you feel better to reinvent history and blame one side rather than the system itself, that's fine. It's not true, but it's fine.

Actually, you're both right (and wrong).

 

tgreg99 is absolute correct in saying that our sytem is broken, and is what caused our problem in a meta sense. The system incentivizes mal-investment, bailouts, run-away spending, perverse incentive, escalated inflation, social engineering, corporate-government cronyism, political-economics, subsiditation, and nationalization; and as such both tils the fields and plants the seeds from which spring it's own demise.

 

3rdnlng is equally right in that the modern American Democratic Party has come to embody most of the above-listed traits, and was the major positive actor, becoming the strangling vine the system made so easy to grow.

 

The system loaded the gun and released the saftey, and the Democratic Party pulled the trigger.

Edited December 8, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[CosmicBills]

System, my ass. That's something you say when you can't make a stand.

I may not be able to stand right now but that's because it's Friday!

[3rdnlng]

 

Actually, you're both right (and wrong).

 

tgreg99 is absolute correct in saying that our sytem is broken, and is what caused our problem in a meta sense. The system incentivizes mal-investment, bailouts, run-away spending, perverse incentive, escalated inflation, social engineering, corporate-government cronyism, political-economics, subsiditation, and nationalization; and as such both tils the fields and plants the seeds from which spring it's own demise.

 

3rdnlng is equally right in that the modern American Democratic Party has come to embody most of the above-listed traits, and was the major positive actor, becoming the strangling vine the system made so easy to grow.

 

The system loaded the gun and released the saftey, and the Democratic Party pulled the trigger.

 

 

I was focused on the more narrow but far reaching consequences of the CRA and the dems protection of Fannie & Freddie.

[UConn James]

Of the $1.6T in new taxes Obama is seeking, $1.2T would be going to new spending.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/75-percent-obamas-proposed-tax-hikes-go-toward-new-spending_666067.html

 

NO cuts are on the table.

 

Tax and spend.... Tax and spend....

[IDBillzFan]

Of the $1.6T in new taxes Obama is seeking, $1.2T would be going to new spending.

 

http://www.weeklysta...ing_666067.html

 

NO cuts are on the table.

 

Tax and spend.... Tax and spend....

 

I say we take that money and invest it in grape genetics and solar panel makers. Let's get America growing again with the kind of kickstart this economy needs...thriving industries with partners who will take our tax dollars and really put it to work for them...I mean us.

Edited December 11, 2012 by LABillzFan

[3rdnlng]

Party On!

 

 

http://www.washingto...p-parties-golf/

 

 

Obama schedules photo-ops, parties, golf as ‘cliff’ nears

 

Since returning from a trip to southeast Asia on Nov. 21, President Obama has managed to play three rounds of golf but has met face-to-face only once with Speaker John A. Boehner, the man with whom he is trying to strike a deal on taxes and spending that could prevent another recession.

With the deadline for going over the “fiscal cliff” less than three weeks away, the president’s schedule this week is exceptionally light. It does not include any time on the links with Mr. Boehner, Ohio Republican, who is also an avid golfer.

On Monday, Mr. Obama’s only public event was a trip to Detroit, where he held a campaign-style rally with union auto workers that was ostensibly a push for middle-class tax cuts but mainly showcased Mr. Obama’s criticism of Michigan’s new “right-to-work” labor law.

“It seems to me, that time would have been better spent here in Washington, D.C., working on the fiscal cliff, but he was in Michigan,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican.

On Tuesday, Mr. Obama had lunch with Vice President Joseph R. Biden and spoke to Mr. Boehner by phone late in the day. The president spent much of his evening with first lady Michelle Obama posing for photographs with members of the White House press corps and their guests at a holiday party. (Mr. Obama actually has performed this function twice in the past week; there was another media holiday party at the White House on Dec. 5).

On Wednesday, the president held a meeting and conference call with mayors of both parties from around the country, seeking support for his proposal to raise taxes on families earning more than $250,000 per year. It was his only scheduled event of the day, aside from the president’s routine daily briefing.

White House press secretary Jay Carney defended the president’s schedule Wednesday, saying he is working hard to reach a deal with Republicans. He said part of that effort includes marshaling public support for the president’s fiscal position with events like the one in Michigan.

“I think you’ve seen the president actively engaged in moving the process forward,” Mr. Carney said. “The president has made clear his willingness to negotiate and compromise.”

Mr. Obama has spoken to Mr. Boehner by phone several times, conversations that have been described as everything from “curt” to “cordial.” Nobody on either side has ventured to describe them as “productive.”

When he’s not speaking to the speaker, the president has been hosting more holiday parties, an obligatory part of any president’s role at this time of year. An administration official said the White House is hosting more than 25 holiday parties this month; a White House spokesman wouldn’t confirm that number but said the president and first lady are hosting parties for “volunteers, members of Congress, White House staff, Secret Service personnel, White House reporters and Americans from across the country.” In all, about 14,000 people will attend a White House party or reception this holiday season.

 

Read more: http://www.washingto.../#ixzz2EshWKllu

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Edited December 12, 2012 by 3rdnlng