Post by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikPost by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikPost by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikPost by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikPost by Mitchell HolmanModern Conservative - someone who cares more about insurance
company profit margins than the million driven into bankruptcy
by medical bills despite the "protection" of health insurance.
You don't know a thing about business?
As compared to Bush, who drove TWO oil companies
to the brink of bankruptcy?
This is about Barack Hussein Obama. Obama has nada. Are trying to
be
when
Post by Berkeley BolshevikPost by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikPost by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley Bolshevikyou can't defend your Messiah or yourself?
Please repost for us any complaint you made about
John McCain and Sarah Palin not having any "business
experience". Ditto for Eisenhower, Nixon, or Reagan.
Another one of your Double Standards, no?
Yawn! For your information, this is about Obama. In the real world,
if
Post by Berkeley BolshevikPost by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley Bolshevika new CEO screw up we don't go to his predecessor to explain the
current CEO's failures. You still can't defend your Messiah.
So none of the candidates in 2008 had any business experience.
And your point is.........?
The point is....Are you ready for this? It's about Barack Hussein
Obama.
OK, Obama has the level of "business experience" as
Eisenhower and Reagan and McCain and Palin. What's your
point?
Isn't obvious? It shows. The economy is in the toilet. Reagan, McCain
and Palin all had management experience in one form or a another. The
issue with McCain was brought up during the elections. I do believe
you were participating in Usenet during that time. It was discussed.
You're like an old comedian in the twilight of his career. You keep on
recycling old material.
Post by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikPost by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikPost by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikPost by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikWhy do I even ask. Marxists
don't know about business.
If Republicans know so much about business why
are they always demanding federal bailouts? Do you
think AIG and GM and Citibank are havens of leftist
agitators?
Everyone in business is not a Republican. That was a ridiculous
assertion.
In that case why is "business experience" a necessary
background only when it comes to Democrats?
That's not an answer to my statement. You made the assertion that
businesses are Republican. Are you to assume Democrats are
anti-business?
I said the Obama administration is weak on having people who have
business experience in the real world. It appears he has chosen a
cabinet and administration who put their ideology first above using
real world models that work.
Bush's cabinet was full of people with business
experience. What good did THAT do?
The financial meltdown can be traced to the housing which one of the
major players was Fannie Mae. GW Bush asked Congress several times to
enact legislation to tighten regulations on Fannie Mae. Well the
dimwitted Democrats in Congress did everything they could to block
legislation to rein in the GSE. Since the president cannot make law,
Democrats had to protect their cash cow.
Bush Administration Ignored Warnings of Pending Financial Meltdown
December 01, 2008
Fox News
WASHINGTON The Bush administration backed off proposed
crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years
before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some
of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably
prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown,
according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.
"Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories,"
California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators
in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost
her a job.
Bowing to aggressive lobbying along with assurances from banks
that the troubled mortgages were OK regulators delayed action
for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late
in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and
the meltdown was under way.
"These mortgages have been considered more safe and sound for
portfolio lenders than many fixed rate mortgages," David Schneider,
home loan president of Washington Mutual, told federal regulators
in early 2006. Two years later, WaMu became the largest bank
failure in U.S. history.
The administration's blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic
of its governing philosophy, which trusted market forces and discounted
the value of government intervention in the economy. Its belief
ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention
since the 1930s.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,460044,00.html
Amazing came out in December 2008 after Obama was elected and the
story's origin was from AP. Is AP fair and balanced? I don't think so.
It was AP that assigned 11 fact checkers to Sarah Palin's book. For
Obama's book...nada.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ae3_1222100943
The White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to
reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001.
Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president's warnings:
** 2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because
"financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in
financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic
activity."
** 2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance
principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility
to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO,
5/29/02)
** 2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for
the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)
releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an
implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has
provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence,
unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial
sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,"
OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges
OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House
Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact
"legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise
the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored
enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy
requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw
explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower
the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce
systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the
regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and
minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind
down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At
The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And
Leadership, 11/6/03)
** 2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed
by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required
capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The
Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators
of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their
responsibilities, and therefore?should be replaced with a new
strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the
financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the
Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing
GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw,
Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times,
2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk
posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a
world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored
enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing
financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision
to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the
Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory
supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and
the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House
Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Testimony, 6/16/04)
** 2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform,
saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this
Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by
the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure
that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of
funding for expanding home ownership opportunities in America?
Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system."
(Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial
Services Committee," 4/13/05)
** 2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities
collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform
package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first
when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them
reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will
consider other options."
(President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in
August up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent
from the previous month the lowest level in nine years. Median sale
price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass
legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide
liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners,
and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've
called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent
regulation of the GSEs and ensures they focus on their important
housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this
year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United
States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George
W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House,
12/6/07)
** 2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in
value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of
reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is
essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public
mission successfully."
(David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee
On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move
forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to
continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing
agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their
mortgages."
(President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York,
New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed
legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are]
constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing
market to correct quickly by? helping people stay in their homes."
(President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House,
4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass
legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation
deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and
keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I
have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing
Administration that will help more families stay in their homes,
reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to
ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing
agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."
(President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in
their homes. And one way we can do that and Congress is making
progress on this is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That
reform will come with a
strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting
With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing
Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus
on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue
tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W.
Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the
President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to
address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At
Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development,
Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform
of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the
institutions are failing. In 2005-- Senator John McCain partnered with
three other Senate Republicans to reform the government¹s involvement
in lending. Democrats blocked this reform, too.
If I could I would bet the farm that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank had
a hand in blocking Congress to enact reforms.
In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control,
adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth
Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman
Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios,
and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital
requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the
current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important
piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All
the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the
Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a
speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats,
remained silent.
Now the Democrats are blaming the financial crisis on "deregulation."
Bzzzzt!!! Wrong.
Post by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikPost by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikPost by Mitchell HolmanThe Dow is up, the dollar is up, housing starts
are up, the Iraq quagmire is winding down, and the
US president is the most popular elected official on
the planet.
Unfortunately, unemployment remains stagnant and shows no signs of
lowering. Obama and the dimwit Congress' solution is to extend
unemployment benefits and assume that everyone that lost a job is
going to have catastrophic illness and Congress must pass health
insurance reform.
Modern Conservative: Someone who ignored unemployment as it
shrank under Clinton, who ignored it when it rose under Bush,
and who now suddenly pretends to care about unemployment
Underemployment was at 4.7% until 2006 when Harry Reid and Nancy
Pelosi took over Congress. Are you too blind to see a pattern?
Oh, yes, that "takeover", which gave the Democrats
49 Senators. Boy, it is hard to argue with "control" like
that. How many times did they override a Bush veto, again?
Isn't coincidental that unemployment took a steep dive and financial
markets reached it tipping point when Harry and Nancy were annointed.
The Dems had a super majority last year and they could pass
legislation that Obama ran on.
Post by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikPost by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikObama is now playing three card monty with the voters by saying he
will freeze spending. That won't didly since he increase spending in
2009 by 24% which is beyond the rate of inflation. Freezing spending
at 2006 levels would be more effective since it was 2006 was when
Congress taken over by the Democrats. Obama criticized John McCain
when McCain brought up a spending freeze in their debates.
Maybe we should return to an all-GOP government, like
the one that turned record budget surpluses into record
budget deficits.
Maybe we should.
Obama's tax policy is the only sharp break in economic policy.
President Bush reduced taxes by approximately $2 trillion; Obama has
proposed raising taxes by $1.4 trillion.
Imagine that - raising taxes to pay for things instead of
judge borrowing your way to prosperity, the Republican Way.
Obama is spending an borrowing at the same time. Doesn't look like
progress to me. Obama wants to take money paid back by the banks and
use it for other projects. The money for the bank bailouts was
borrowed. Instead of paying off the debt, he wants to use it for more
spending. How stupid is that?
Post by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikIn doing so, Obama has
rejected the most successful Bush fiscal policy.
LOL!
The "successful Bush policy", that turned record surpluses
into record deficits, that created the biggest recession in
generations, that triggered the Dow to LOSE 2000 points by the
time he left office?
Thanks for the giggle........
The Dow hit its highest point of 14,164 under GW Bush. I headed
towards its downward trend when Bonnie and Clyde...oops I mean Nancy
and Harry took over Congress.
Post by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikIn the 18 months
following the 2003 tax rate cuts, economic growth rates doubled, the
stock market surged 32 percent, and the economy created 1.8 million
jobs, followed by 5.2 million more jobs in the next 27 months. Not
until the housing bubble burst several years later did the economy
finally lose steam.
Unemployment was rising under Bush long before the
housing bubble (after shrinking EVERY year under Clinton)
The one thing that did not shrink during Clinton's tenure was the
national debt. Since it did not shrink, it would offset the surplus
myths that have been foisted upon the American People.
The average unemployment rate during the Bush years is running lower
than during the Clinton years.
Economic growth fared well under Bush. The economy grew 3.3% until
that magical year I previously mention.
Post by Mitchell HolmanYear......unemployment rate
Clinton
1993.........6.91
1994.........6.10
1995.........5.59
1996.........5.41
1997.........4.94
1998.........4.50
1999.........4.22
2000.........3.97
Unemployment rates went down when Clinton had a Republican Congress.
Post by Mitchell HolmanBush 43
2001.........4.76
2002.........5.78
2003.........5.99
2004.........5.53
2005.........5.08
The lowest rate under Clinton was 3.9%, the highest was 7.1%. The
lowest unemployment rate under Bush has been 4.2% and the highest
6.3%.
Post by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikPresident Bush ran budget deficits averaging $300 billion annually.
Why? Bush inherited a record SURPLUS. Then he cut taxes,
raised spending, cut more taxes, raised spending even more,
and conseratives act surprised there is a deficit.
Funny thing, we still had a national debt. What happened? Why didn't
Clinton aim towards reducing the debt? The reason being so he could
leave office with an artificial surplus.
Post by Mitchell HolmanPost by Berkeley BolshevikAfter harshly criticizing Bush's budget deficits, Obama proposed a
budget that would run deficits averaging $600 billion even after the
economy recovers and the troops return home from Iraq.
Post by Mitchell Holman"Deficits don't matter"
- Dick Cheney, 2004
That quote does not give Obama a pass.
#Increase spending by $1 trillion over the next decade;
# Include an additional $250 billion placeholder for another financial
bailout;
# Likely lead to a 12 percent increase in discretionary spending;
# Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of
gross domestic product (GDP) over pre-recession levels;
# Raise taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion over the next decade;
# Raise taxes for 3.2 million taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over
the next decade;
# Call for a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) law despite offering a budget that
would violate it by $3.4 trillion;
# Assume a rosy economic scenario that few economists anticipate;
# Leave permanent deficits averaging $600 billion even after the
economy recovers;
and
# Double the publicly held national debt to over $15 trillion ($12.5
trillion after inflation).
So what do you want Obama to do - continue the Bush disaster
of cutting taxes and massive borrowing? Let the banks collapse
and trigger a depression? Cut military spending?
Don't increase spending. He increase spending by 24% in 2009. That
figure doesn't even come close to the rate of inflation.
Post by Mitchell HolmanAs Obama said, if you guys have a better plan let's see it.
Now, he wants to see their plans. If Scott Brown didn't win, Obama
would ignore the Republicans this year. Brown's victory showed some
Democrats that in 2010, their office is in peril.
-
Government "help" to business is just as disastrous
as government persecution... the only way a government
can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping
its hands off.
-Ayn Rand