I agree, somebody owes me $30,000 with interest if he starts forgiving loans

Obama "We can't Wait"

Unless I have a vacation scheduled, or a fundraiser, or a golf game...........

White Collar Auto

Don't you think he meant we can't wait for the Grover Norquist Zombies on the right to start doing something other than saying NO to everything even their own proposals Obama is for?

Very lame PEN-24.

Population growth has gone down during the recession, as is always the case in poor economic times. Crime rates correlate more to unwanted birth than to any other variable. Since the pill was made available in the 1960s and abortion was made legal, there have far less unwanted babies born to poor single mothers who would grow up to commit crime.

With that said, the teacher to student ratio, the response time when you call 911, of course these services will be affected if tax dollars are not devoted to maintaining it.

TP,

Not sure of your point. My tax dollars have allways been used here locally to maintain these services.

Too bad your argument fails because Dems voted for Bush's actions too. At least Bush went to Congress for authorization which is more than Obama does!

Leona.

Bush did go to congress.

However. Your whining is just sour grapes.

It kills you wingers to see this president schooling the GOP on foreign policy.

Just kills you.

LOL!!!

LEONA, you misquoted yourself, it should be Cheney/Bush lied to congress to get authorization. To bad your argument fails because they lied to America.

Mo,

You need to get off the "they lied" bandwagon. We know they all had the same intel, everybody said the same thing. Years of trying to get the UN on board and giving Iraq had plenty of time to get those weapons out of the country.

MRSWR... are you saying there were weapons of mass destruction? I hope that is not what you are suggesting.

Akeem,

All the intel said there was. All the intel. Everybody got the same intel. I believe there were WMD's in Iraq.

Akeem - you are not suggesting that saddam didn't use WMD's in the iraq-iranian war are you? How about his using WMD's on his own kurdish countrymen?

Then we have saddams continued threats to use them on anyone who may perchance invade Iraq. Let's not forget all those iraqi delays in allowing inspectors to come in and look. The smart money says to plan as if they STILL EXIST.

Of course we all know that with all saddams saber waving and invasion of kuwait he was such a nice fellow. Heck obama was fomenting at the mouth to get mubareck and kaddafy out of power.

Times change and combat technologies change. We also don't know what saddams neighbors wnated done with saddam. I do find it interesting that the arab coalition that existed in the gulf war of the early 90's didn't want to see saddam overthrown at that time. Less than 10 years latter it was time for saddam to go.

Rob.

The debt in this country is not as much the fault of this president as cable news has led you to believe.

The policies of this administration are responsible for less then $2T of the debt, and most of that was put toward helping the economy.

The vast majority of the debt since 2009 is from lost federal revenue and increased manditory outlays due to the recession. Another good chunk is from leftover policies from the last adminstration and the GOP (wars, tax cuts, Medicare D).

I do realize that the simple minded generally only look at the timeline, and not the policies...especially when looking to justify what they already want to believe.

But....I will give you a chance to back up what you were apparently fed.

Please post the policies, and their costs, that add up to more then $2T. Good luck, jr.

Please post your 2T ?

MRWSR.

Perhaps you could help the delusional poster.

I was asking for the policies and the cost of those policies, from this administration, that add up to all the spending the right wing consistently, and ignorantly, accuses this President of doing.

The policies of this administration have added less then $2T to the debt so far. Yet, many on the right are ignorant to this fact.

I merely asked the poster to back up what he/she apparently repeated.

I understand what you were asking, what I am asking you is to show your numbers, please.

For what? I am not claiming the administration's policies are more then $2T.

The ARRA and the Lame Duck Stimulus make up the bulk of it.

The policies of this administration have added less then $2T to the debt so far. Yet, many on the right are ignorant to this fact.

Please provide facts for this statement.

repooplicants, why not answer the question? Is it that hard?

MRWSR.

Ok.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter1.shtml#1096708

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_FY2011Outlook.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday

(The last source shows what the policies from this administration will cost over through 2017. This is the cost of the policies initiated under each adminstration. The higher estimates that I have indicated, attribute the cost of policies extended.)

I do find it cute, however, that you guys are requesting I do half of your work for you.

So, now it is your turn.

Please provide facts to show this administration is responsible for more then around $2T. (Or is it too hard?)

american.

The question is not that he administration didn't spend anything. There policies did initiate new spending.

However, those policies do not add up to more then $2T.

If you think they do, then post the policies, and their costs....or is that too hard?

Not cute, just wanted to see your basis. Thank you for your post.

You're welcome.

Repub,

The Treasury Department has the third largest expense in the federal budget. Only Defense and income redistribution (The Departments of Health and Human Services, HUD, and Agriculture (food stamps)) is higher. As the debt increases, so does the interest payment. Social spending is the largest item in our federal budget

Total for the Fiscal Year 2011, the Treasury Department spent$454 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt. Compare that to NASA at $6 Billion, Department of Education at $31 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $26 Billion; for the entire Fiscal Year!
When you buy something, all the companies involved in producing and delivering it, were charged a wide range of taxes, and those costs are part of the price of everything you buy. The price of everything you buy will go up to cover any business tax increases. You are paying those corporate taxes! Read more about the proposed Energy Tax increases. So don't forget that the price of fuel is in the cost of everything

The "Economic Stimulus" is shifting us from an "economic crisis" to a debt crisis! Consider this; if businesses could print their own money and give it away to customers so they could buy the products, many folks would be happy for a while; but the businesses would go bankrupt. Well, that's what our government is currently doing, printing and giving away money.

These are part of his administration, right.

MRWSR.

Policies started by this administration do not include interest on the debt from policies from other adminstrations.

The economic stimulus is a fraction of our overall debt. The debt crisis is not the result of the economic stimulus.

It is amusing, however, how you are attempting to obfuscate the issue.

But in doing so, you actually make my point. Part of the increase in the debt the right attributes to Obama is from the interest we pay on previous debt...

Debt, BTW, that was supposed to be non-existent around this time. Unfortunately, the GOP went on a spending spree. Now they (and you apperently) are on a desperate quest to blame it on the this president.

To put it in perspective, consider these facts. When President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009, the national debt totaled $10.6 trillion, a figure that was already unacceptably high. But by the end of Obama’s first term, the national debt is projected to be approximately $17 trillion. By the end of his second term, the national debt is projected to soar to approximately $24 trillion. And these are using the administration’s own projections, which many experts believe are overly optimistic

MRWSR.

LOL!!!

You were unable to post the policies from this administration that make up the debt you attribute to this president. You were unable to do so because the policies from this administration did not contribute nearly as much as your spoon fed delusion told you.

So....instead of admitting you were mis-informed, you doubled down on your ignorant, simple minded view of the debt and where it came from.

You simply looked at the dates because the dates told you what you so very desperately want to believe.

Unfortunately, the policies that make up the debt tell a very different story then the one you were fed.

Sorry, jr. Try again. LOL!!!

This is why, MRWSR, I asked the previous poster to post the policies from this adminstration that made up the debt he/she was attributing to this administration.

Can you do so?

Can you support your delusion?

(That was rhetorical. I realize you cannot. If you could, you would not have posted the simple minded copy and paste you did.)

Will say obama is responsible for 2- 3 trillion of the dept.

MRWSR.

Will say obama is responsible for 2- 3 trillion of the dept.

Not quite.

However, now is your chance.

Please post the policies, along with the cost of those policies, that total the $2-3 trillion.

Good luck.

www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html

The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion.

The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms. The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama's fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That's more than 100 percent of the value of the nation's economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job.

Mr. Obama frequently lays blame for soaring federal deficits on his predecessor.

"By the time I got into office we already had a $1.3 trillion deficit and we had exploded the national debt," he said last month during one of his backyard chats with Americans.

Just last Friday, the Treasury Department portrayed it as good news when it reported that the federal deficit in the fiscal year that ended September 30th was $1.294 trillion. That's less than the $1.416 trillion deficit accrued in 2009 - the largest federal deficit ever recorded. It was also less than the $1.556 trillion that had been initially projected for 2010.

We've all noticed there's vary little you do understand LEONA.

Mo,

TOO BAD FOR YOU and your comments, MOST PEOPLE AGREE WITH ME.

The kool aid must be strong today.

Leona, you have not provided anything of value in your smear against Obama... I am sorry your life has caused you to be this bitter and I do pray that your condition improves.

Hey Akeem,

don't speak for me since YOU are the one who is on the losing side of the argument (check Obama's poll numbers).

The only thing I'm "bitter" ( your word) about is the state of our economy and the future of American kids who can't find jobs. I have the facts (not lies) about Obama. Democrats have made up arguments in order for Obama to try to win in 2012.

Unfortunately, you can't lie your way out of 9.1% unemployment and $15 trillion debt.

Under "OBAMA'S" tyranic socialist government I graduated college with an accounting degree and got a job working for a great company along with many of my peers. Please don't educate me about the plight of my generation.

I always find it amusing when neophyte wingers, unable to support the crap they are fed, go to the kool-aid and poll number argument.

LOL!!

yep, repoblocants you kool aid drink of choice has shown us all on how you think. Bet you just love to live off of strawman type arguments.

BTW - got those numbers and links yet?

Akeem: "Under "OBAMA'S" tyranic socialist government I graduated college with an accounting degree and got a job working for a great company along with many of my peers."

All this in only 3 years?? LOL RIGHT.

Truth is you did it under BUSH. LOL

Strawman type arguments...

Oh, like pointing to poll numbers?

LOL!!!

And yes, jr. I do.

However, I would like to point out, that it is not really my responsibility to prove your delusion wrong. It is your responsibility to show the spending that you and others attribute to this president.

You cannot, I realize that. Delusions are generally not easy to factually defend.

Leona your argument based on your two responses are ridiculous. I was obviously being sarcastic saying Obama's presidency had much of anything to do with my current employment. I did it with my own determination alligned with the way I was raised.

However you suggest because I DID get a job I got it under Bush, but had I not gotten one I would be included under one of the "American kids who cannot find jobs" during President Obama's term.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Akeem: "I was obviously being sarcastic saying Obama's presidency had much of anything to do with my current employment. I did it with my own determination...."

You got a degree and a job before Obama was President, CONGRATS.

You brought Obama into your personal story. I didn't.

So, what's your point???????????

We can't do it by stimulus money agian.

MRSWSR.

Why not? Because cable news told you it was bad?

According to the economic analysis, the stimulus worked. Sure, it didn't bring us completely out of the worse recession since the Great Depression, but it did help.

And if it helped, why should we not do more? Especially since we know from history (not right wing revisionist history) that government spending can and does help a down economy. Does a doctor toss medicine aside if it is working, but one does didn't completely fix the problem?

-------------------

But if you don't believe me on the stimulus, look to the economic analysis:

John Makin of the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute:

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

Or Mark Zandi, advisor to the McCain campaign:

The Great Recession has finally come to an end, in large part because of unprecedented policy efforts by the Federal Reserve and fiscal policymakers. The cost to taxpayers has been substantial but would have been even greater if aggressive action was not taken and the financial crisis and recession had been allowed to continue unchecked.

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/JEC-Fiscal-Stimulus-102909.pdf

Or the CBO about the third quarter of 2009:

On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA (see Table 1). Those ranges are intended to reflect the uncertainty of such estimates and to encompass most economists’ views on the effects of fiscal stimulus.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/Frontmatter.2.2.shtml

Or what the CBO said about the forth quarter of 2009:

In sum, CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009, ARRA’s policies:
-- Raised real GDP by between 1.5 percent and 3.5 percent,
-- Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage points and 1.1 percentage points,
-- Increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.1 million, and
-- Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.4 million to 3.0 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise (see Table 1).

The effects of ARRA on output and employment are expected to increase further in calendar year 2010 but then diminish in 2011 and fade away by the end of 2012 (see Table 3).

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11044

On that basis, CBO estimates that in the first quarter of calendar year 2010, ARRA’s policies:
--Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent,
--Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points,
--Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and
--Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf

Repub,

But there is much more to be said of this data and Hoven does an admirable job of summarizing the highlights of such an analysis:

* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.

* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.

* Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.

* Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.

* Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.

* The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).

* During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/little-known-fact-obama039s-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-iraq-war#ixzz1bj0CY5xv

White House economists predicted the bill would create (not merely save) 3.3 million jobs. Since then, 2.8 million jobs have been lost, pushing unemployment toward 10 percent. BRIAN RIEDL

MRWSR.

What is your point?

The Iraq war was still a waste of lives and treasure.

And the ARRA did help the economy according to the economic analysis, indicating it was not a waste of treasure.

Perhaps you should spend less time reading partisan attempts to rationalize bad policy?

Re?,

Waste of lives and Treasure?

No wonder you feel the stimulus was succesful.

If failed, both times, and will if he gets this third one through.

Before the stimulus passed, Americans were told that $787 billion was the shocking price that had to be paid in order to save the economy from another Great Depression (and high unemployment). The New York Times referred to the initial promise on Oct. 22, 2009 saying, "The Obama administration's forecast at the start of the year, which predicted that unemployment would not climb much above 8 percent."

Yes. Waste of lives and treasure. How can you say it was not, unless you are desperately holding onto an ideological position?

The cost certainly was not worth any benifit one may desperately attempt to find in hindsight.

And, jr. I feel the stimulus did work because the economic analysis shows it did.

You can repeat "it failed" over and over and over again. But that does not change the fact that you have no analysis to back up your postition.

All you seem to have is an illogical line of reasoning. The 8 percent projection.

Illogical because for one, the unemployment rate was above 8% BEFORE the ARRA even passed, but mainly because the actual effects of the ARRA are independent of the projected unemployment rate. (IE. the actual effects would have been the same regardless of whether the projection was 8%, 9%, or 20%.)

So.....

I think you need to do a few things.

1. Turn off the cable news.
2. Read the analysis on the ARRA.
3. Take a logic class.

repoplicants - following your own advise will do wonders for you...

Perhaps you should spend less time reading partisan attempts to rationalize bad policy?

With 9.1 % unemployent, job growth that isn't keeping up with population growth and a program of payroll tax cuts that has yet to stimulate any meaningful growth in GDP. Why should Americans think that more of the same will be any more effective?

I can see that from a political point of view obama is looking for that bump up in GDP that the 2009 stimulas created and which faded as funds ran out. But that bump up will only be illusury and in no way be long term. Obama would have been better off to be supportive of the needs of business to grow and to use rhetoric to build consumer confidence in the future.

As mark zandi commented recently on bloombergTV and I paraphrase... Normally I don't consider that consumer confidence plays much of a role in a recessions recovery, but this time it will be a factor.

ARRA helped the economy?? Please, government projections are hardly proof of effectiveness. Why not explain to us the effectiveness of government intervention in the mortgage mess? The NYT had some interesting observations on what was projected to happen vs what actually happened. It is nearly the end of 2011, how about giving us the facts of what goals projected by the CBO for ARRA actually have accomplished to date?

Failed, Failed, Failed.

Gary Wolfram, the William Simon Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Hillsdale College and a BMI adviser, noted that the stimulus did not address unemployment, "We still have 9.4 percent unemployment. The stimulus certainly did not address any of the problems that were creating the unemployment. It was being created by government uncertainty."

Take your messiah's word for it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6TxCHpDLbE

american.

ARRA helped the economy?? Please, government projections are hardly proof of effectiveness. Why not explain to us the effectiveness of government intervention in the mortgage mess? The NYT had some interesting observations on what was projected to happen vs what actually happened. It is nearly the end of 2011, how about giving us the facts of what goals projected by the CBO for ARRA actually have accomplished to date?

Yes, jr. It did help the economy.

The economic analysis shows it did.

repoplicants - following your own advise will do wonders for you...

I did, kid.

I posted ecnomic analysis.

You posted NOTHING to back up your ideological delusion.

Got any analysis to back up what you repeat? Come on. Anything?

MRWSR.

Failed, Failed, Failed.

Yes, you did.

You failed miserably to back up the projection based delusion you and many on the right so desperately want to believe.

Random quotes from random economists, and WSJ OPED's do not constitute analysis. It does help you preserve things you very desperately want to believe, I know.

Do you, or do you not, have any analysis that shows the ARRA did not help?

And do you have an answer for why ALL of the independent analysis shows it helped?

(I do. You have bought into an ideological delusion.....and it is amusing to watch you two desperately try to preserve it.)

MRWSR and american.

I STILL think you need to do a few things.

1. Turn off the cable news.
2. Read the analysis on the ARRA.
3. Take a logic class.

Your thoughts Repub,

Posted by Brittany Stepniak - Wednesday, September 28th, 2011

It sounds like the Fed has failed again.

At the long anticipated Fed meeting on September 20-21, the policymaking committee voted to lower mortgage rates as well as a variety of other long-term interest rates.

In order to do so, the rearranged their $2.9 trillion portfolio and took $400 billion from short-term Treasurys and put it into longer-term Treasurys through June.

The plan won in a 7-3 vote. Fisher was one of the opponents. He's the only one of the three who has gone public with an explanation for his “unpopular” decision. Charles Plosser of Philadelphia and Narayan Kocherlakota of Minneapolis were the two other Fed Presidents to disagree with the majority vote.

According to Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas, Texas, the Fed better keep thinking of new ways to get the economy going again. In fact, Fisher argues that the latest attempt at a economic boost may do just the opposite...

Instead of giving U.S. consumers confidence, Mr. Fisher fears the latest stimulus plan will merely frighten the consumers and “squeeze bank earnings.”

The Treasury market is sending an abrasive message: inflation is dead.

Now, that doesn't sound too terrible until you think about it. Despite the negative connotation, inflation is one of the key indicators of a healthy, growing economy. As the central bank announces zero-interest rate plans for at least the next two years, it signals a red flag to consumers: things are bad, really bad.

This overload of pessimism can have extremely negative affects on the overall market, because they are all deeply affected by the psychology of consumers and traders alike. Stock markets are likely to remain highly volatile on account of this...

Scared consumers could prove Operation Twist to be counterproductive if citizens believe our economy is “in worse shape than they thought.” In order to protect themselves, they would save money, not spend it. Further decrease in consumer spending would leave the economy stagnant at best.

The dissenters have expressed concern that the Fed's easy money policies risk igniting inflation.

Like Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Fisher called on Congress and the White House to do more to stimulate economic growth. But where they disagree is over whether the Fed should be taking action, too.

Until Congress gets its "act together," any policies adopted by the Fed "will represent nothing more than pushing on a string," Fisher said.

Businesses and banks are already sitting on plenty of cash, Fisher said. They're just too scared and cautious about the future to take risks. That suggests that cutting interest rates further from today's near-record lows won't do much to get banks to lend and businesses to invest, hire and expand.

Is there any hope for our economy?

Fisher has cited what's been going on in Texas as good news. There, the state economy has done much better than that of the overall nation's economy. Pro-business policies and limited government play a role in that.

Meanwhile, Fisher remains hopeful that other lawmakers will take note of this and buckle down, taking the challenges more seriously in days to come.

Is there any hope for a stimulus from the Fed that will actually work?

Fisher is a bit cautious to say “yes” to this one. But he isn't completely hopeless either:

"I wouldn't say we're out of bullets," he said, but whatever ammunition the central bank has left, "we need to deploy very, very carefully."

*Indented excerpts from CBSNEWS

MRSWR.

Your thoughts Repub,

I would actually like to hear your thoughts, MRSWR, and not the thoughts of the partisans you parrot.

If you would stop desperately searching for things that tell you what you have been told to believe, take the time to study the issues on your own, think the issues through, on your own, and come to your own conclusions, you would have a much easier time supporting what you post.

This is what is wrong with you progressive leftest. I can write all of this down, give my own thoughts and you will cry foul. You would say back it up, show numbers. Its never enough with y'all.

If you want to know the truth, obama is bad for this country. Nothing has showed me other wise. The truth is, you will vote for him, I won't. We will just have to see what happens.

MRWSR.

You did not give your own thoughts. You cut and pasted someone elses.

In addition, when you are asked to back something up, you should do so using unbiased sources.

-----------

I realize that you have been repeatedly told (starting before he was even elected) that Obama is bad for this country. You and the people you parrot, are all vested in that leftover 2008 campaign projection based reality.

You have spent the last two and a half plus years searching for and making up other projections to support the orignal delusional projections.

This is why you fail so miserably at supporting the arguments, grown out of the conservative game of telephone, you all copy off each other.

That is the problem with conservatives today. They are eons away from reality, and even farther away from wanting to come back to it.

You call out biased sources and repeating. Why is it that your sources your repeating are the ones that should be the ones with merit. You are a true rank and file follower. Prove obama is what this country needs, you will find only your left talking points. Everything points to failure. Sorry, you can not deny this.

Apparently you got a loan from the private sector....no government influence is wanted there.

I have an FHA loan, government program, why would they not be included? Again, why only loans owned by Fannie and Freddie? The government is discriminating against folks by only helping certain people and not others. We are all in the same situation due this mess.

"The only way President Obama will get things done for our economy is to simple "by pass" congress"

Yes, that darn Constitution is such an annoyance. The same progressives who ludicrously claimed the US Constitution applied to foreign enemy combatants, now assert it doesnt apply to their US President.

JBURNS,

We " true patriots dislike information?" HAHA

I repeat some information......

"Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies ( Fannie& Freddie) , (Barney) Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis."

Barney Frank should be prosecuted for encouraging this behavior with tax payer dollars !! If it wasn't so sad for the American people it would be LAUGHABLE.

JBURNS,

Congressional hucksters sold last year’s “Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” as a pro-consumer effort to prevent future big bank bail-outs. The good news, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, is that Dodd-Frank expanded big government payrolls by nearly 3,000 new positions and seven new agencies. The bad news is the bill has destroyed 130,000 private sector jobs, will cost consumers $11 billion in fees, and is doing a fine job of creating a new American bank crisis.

The U.S. House and Senate took only 21 days to pass the Dodd-Frank Act. And it was signed into law by the President on July 21, 2010 as the largest overhaul of banking in our nation’s history. The massively complex Act is 2,300 pages long and a masterful piece of crony capitalism, which explains why Congress passed the bill before anyone could actually read it.

The public was deeply concerned by the rushed passage and has never been in favor of the legislation. A recent poll by FTI Consulting found that only 12 percent of the public were satisfied with bill, while 54% were dissatisfied. A large majority, 66%, believes the act is insufficient to protect against future bailouts. These opinion polls are about to go from concerned to downright angry as the public begins to learn how much pain they will suffer.

I estimate that the Dodd-Frank Act will cost banks in the United States $22 billion annually. Approximately one third of those losses will come from the “Durbin Amendment”, which was secretly inserted into the bill for the sole benefit of the merchandise retailing association. The language in the Act directs the Federal Reserve to set debit card swipe fees that “are reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer.” Although this language looked innocent, it had the effect of cutting the $.44 per swipe fee banks receive to $.26 per swipe. When multiplied on the 180 million debit cards outstanding, the banks are required to transfer $7 billion of profit to the retailers. To survive crony meddling by Congress in their private industry affairs, the banks have no choice but to begin firing another 130,000 staff and directly charging consumers for their losses.

This is an article written by Chriss W. Street. Says alot to what is going on with our banks, thanks to the dems.

still refusing to believe there may be unbiased information out there.

Why obsess about a little fish like Barney Frank when you can prosecute the entire financial organization in this country.

JBURNS,

What if the congress repealed the act, what do you (not being sarcastic) think would happen as a result?

JBURNS: "Why obsess about a little fish like Barney Frank"

Unfortunately he is NOT a "little fish". That's the whole problem . He's a very powerful Democrat in the House, sad to say ( even after the gay prostitution thing!) ! I guess Nancy Pelosi FORGOT to "drain the swamp"!

Go GOP !!!

"President Obama is going to be re-elected."

Now that is CRAP, not TRUTH.

Obama will lose 40 states, and take down a boatload of Far Left Democrats with him.

yep, all those house bills passed and sent to the senate where the senate majority leader reid has blocked those bills from being debated or even offerring a senate alternative.

It is now October 25, 2011 and still the senate has not proposed an alternative to the FY 2012 budget passed by the house 1 qtr 2011. Since the house is under republican control I would hardly say that they are the ones blocking.