E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Another set of numbers from our new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll: 60 percent say President Obama inherited the current economic conditions, compared with 26 percent who blame his policies for the state of the economy.
That's a slight change from Aug. 2011, when 56 percent said the president inherited the economy, versus 33 percent who singled out his policies.
Yet when asked in a separate question whether the president’s policies have helped or hurt the economy, 33 percent say they’ve hurt; 32 percent say they’ve helped; and another 32 percent answer that they haven’t made much of a difference.
The full NBC/WSJ poll -- which was conducted of 1,000 adults and which has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points -- is released at 6:30 pm ET.
Leave a Comment:
As a matter of fact, I'm going to make a prediction... I bet somehow if Obamacare is struck down, he will say it's Bush's fault somehow. Has this guy taken any credit for anything other than shooting hoops?
If there has been credit to be had he's gone out of his way to accept it. He did go into Pakistan with a knife in his teeth and take out Bin Laden singlehandedly, didn't he. Responsibility or accountability, however, is a completely different story.
Anyone thats honest with themselves knows damn well George W Bush is the one and only man (of course with dickhead Chaney) that put this country in the toilet, and it has been the Republican politicians who have kept it there. If Romney is elected, we may as well flush the toilet and finish the job.
No doubt...
Operative phrase - "On every major measurement"
""On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.""
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book-on-the-bush-legacy/26402/
Can we cue up the clip of Barney Frank telling us how strong Fweddie mac and fannie mae are again please
Anyone that is not a bare faced liar or completely has his head up his ass would know that the problems that we are experiencing now is due to policies put in place before George Bush took office.
If we accept that the economy crashed during Bush's term and because of that it was Bush's fault then we have to accept that Obama is going on four years with being completely unable to fix it and will end up doubling Bush's debt.
Imagine how much better the economy would be if the repubs would have put the economy FIRST! instead of trying to make their party look better by making Obama look bad. Just shows their priorities are not with the American people.
Obama had two years to do whatever he wished. What he did made the economy worse and kept it from a more normal recovery. That is what you get with an anti-business, class warfare agenda, a bad economy.
He had one year...before losing the 60 votes in the Senate needed to overcome McConnell's perversion of the U.S. Constitution, via the filibuster.
In that year he completed TARP (with which I believe you agree), launched the Stimulus program (with which I assume in agree in part...the payroll tax holiday, the unemployment extensions...at least...which was two-thirds of it). He passed the Lily Ledbetter Act, whose success or failure, remains in the future. He extended Pell grants and made some improvements in student loans. In foreign policy, he approved the attack on the Bin Laden compound, leading to Bin Laden's death, plus upped the drone strikes on Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership. He completed the Bush Administration's planned withdrawal from Iraq and started the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
He agreed to the extension of the Bush tax cuts, in exchange for the extension of payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits. He opened by nuclear power again and attended ground breaking ceremonies outside of Atlanta for new nuclear power plants. He's put billions into new technology and R & D, toward manufacturing exports. He passed the Dodd-Frank Act, which restores, in part at least, some financial institutional regulation, as well as moving us along on Basel IV and opening a new Consumer Protection Agency.
And, of course, he signed the Affordable Health Care Act, if not the end of health care reform, the beginning.
Banking and credit crises require a long time to resolve, on top of a historic shift in investment between East and West. If you want at least a chance of the restoration of the American middle classes (which would spread the tax burden) vote for his reelection.
If you want to continue Bush the Unmentionable's policies and a two class American society of rich and poor, vote for Mitt.
What happens after his reelection depends on the composition of Congress. If the House remains Republican...not much. If McConnell keeps using the filibuster to get around the U.S. Constitution, not much.
If he wins back Congress, then there will be additional stimulus spending on short term infrastructure projects to restore demand and create jobs, plus a continuing reorientation of the economy toward trade surpluses, based on innovative and high tech products, while investing in long term infrastructure such as education and health care.
And, we have to tackle the problems of restructuring defense expenditures, social security and medicare/medicaid, to provide for long term solutions, which balance income with expenses.
But, even if Congress remains as is, "not much" is better than the Romney alternative.
Hey,.. remember when the teapublicans told us that massive tax cuts for millionaires, and billionaires would jump start employment demand??
I know... how silly...
And yes,.. this is why we laugh at teapublicans...
So it is better for a clueless president to take a crack at being a venture captalist? He wasted $20 Billion of our money! Romney would never waste $20 billion of anyone's money.
Here is some news, rich people do not hang on to their money. They put it to work with investing. In start-ups, small business. That is why you do not tax them %30. These are alot more than %1. They are people in the $250K to $1 Million THI range who file individually and represent %90 of small business registerd with the ABA. Obama is not punishing the %1, he is punishing Ma and Pa. Walk down your main street, all those store fronts and eateries will be gone with Obamacare and his %30 tax punishment
Really...
Funny how so much of willard's is in offshore accounts...
No doubt invested in American "start-ups".. LOL!!!
More nonsense from the rubes...
It's not %30. In English, that would read "percent thirty," instead of "thirty percent." So, it should be "30%."
You're welcome.
Yes...and hopefully some financial advisor told you BEFORE you put your life savings into your restaurant, that they have a very high rate of turn over. Meaning, that large numbers of them fail, regardless of how much they are being taxed, or the regulations they must meet, to ensure clean food and safety for their customers.
If you are filing on a "Self-Employment" form, you deduct expenses and are taxed only on income. Labor is a deductible expense. Therefore, it is more likely that your business suffers from a lack of customers than anything else.
Big businesses and small "hang on to their money" if they do not see a demand for their product (or, they invest it elsewhere, outside of their own business, or "park it" in an account or through commodity purchases, such as gold).
Your problem is first of all "customers," then expansion expenses to meet that demand.
Hey,.. remember when the teapublicans told us about the magical wonders of "trickle down" economics??
They're STILL waiting for the trickle down !!!
RECORD earnings among the 500 largest US corps. -And,... No trickle down.. What a shocking surprise !!!
""Fortune released its annual list of the country's 500 biggest companies this week, and it turns out to have been a good year for corporate America. In 2011, the Fortune 500 generated a combined $824.5 billion in earnings -- an all-time record, and a 16 percent jump from the previous year."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/fortune-500-company-earnings_n_1497593.html
I hope they keep telling themselves that the economy is Bush's fault. Whether its true or not does not help Obama. If anything it will only disenchant the fringe voter that cast their ballot for Obama in 2008.
I have no issues if the casual lazy Democrats just decide to stay home. After all they would not be making "history" anymore. A novelty is just a novelty and when you deduce incompetence down to its most basic level, the trendiness loses all appeal.
I am not electing a Rock Star. I am not electing someone to hang out with. I am trying to elect the POTUS, and I would say that this person should have a little more business experience than the average community organizer.
Business experience??
Here's results from our first MBA president..
Enjoy !!!
"On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.""
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book-on-the-bush-legacy/26402/
Barack Obama campaigned four years ago assailing President George W. Bush for wage losses suffered by the middle class. More than three years into Obama's own presidency, those declines have only deepened.
The rebound from the worst recession since the 1930s has generated relatively few of the moderately skilled jobs that once supported the middle class, tightening the financial squeeze on many Americans, even those who are employed.
"It started long before Obama, but he hasn't done anything," said John Forsyth, 58, a railroad-car inspector and political independent from Lebanon, Ohio. "He kept pushing this change, change, change, and he hasn't done anything."
Underlying the erosion of the middle class, defined by some economists as the middle 60 percent of income earners, are trends that stretch back decades, including competition from lower-wage workers overseas and technological advances that allow factories and offices to produce more with less labor.
As a candidate in 2008, Obama blamed the reversals largely on the policies of Bush and other Republicans. He cited census figures showing that median income for working-age households -- those headed by someone younger than 65 -- had dropped more than $2,000 after inflation during the first seven years of Bush's time in office.
Yet real median household income in March was down $4,300 since Obama took office in January 2009 and down $2,900 since the June 2009 start of the economic recovery, according to an analysis of census data by Sentier Research, an economic- consulting firm in Annapolis, Maryland.
[link to www.bloomberg.com]
Let's not forget that Obama has given us:
8.2% unemployment
18.9% unemployment for Blacks
9.1% for woman,
685,000 woman lost their job and health insurance(who cares about FREE birth control when you do not have health insurance)
The poverty rate for woman has gone up to 14.2% from 7.6%
We have 5.1 million fewer jobs than 3.5 years ago
3.6 million Residential foreclosures
2.6 million Commercial foreclosures
Over 3.8 million business have gone out of business
38,000 US products moved offshore for manufacturing
The lowest number of patents in 35 years
The highest number of people receiving food stamps in 30 years
A 26% decrease in the value of the dollar
The fewest new prescription drugs in 25 years, 308 prescription drugs in short supply (as of 6/1/11)
Housing values drop 33%
Housing starts the lowest in 35 years
Gas $4 a gallon
Inflation at 18% (counting food and energy cost), a budget that is 24.6% of GDP (Clinton's was 18%), this is the slowest recovery in the history of the United States
Gave Al Gore $527 million to build electric cars in Finland
Fast and Furious - Americans and Mexicans murdered
The only President to drop our credit rating to AA from AAA+
Over 2000 EPA regulations on business and farmers.
I don't think anyone could win with numbers and scandals like this. Yes you can blame Bush but that train has left the station over a year ago, today Obama owns the economy! Election Day November 6, 2012!
Bush deficit spending.
00 -230 Billion
01 -150 Billion
02 200 Billion
03 400 Billion
04 410 Billion
05 350 Billion
06 275 Billion
07 200 Billion
08 425 Billion
Odumbo deficit spending.
09 1.45 Trillion
10 1.25 Trillion
11 1.25 Trillion
6 in 10 Americans know that President Obama inherited the economy from the BIG spending Repubs leftover mess of the Bush administration.
Only 4 in 10 Americans think Obama's to blame. Hey you 40%, stop listening to FAUX and read up on the issues and learn exactly what Bush did to our country and what Obama has been trying to do.
Suzq-1497446
CORRECTION|
6 in 10 Americans have been fooled into thinking that President Obama inherited the economy from the BIG spending Repubs leftover mess of the Bush administration. That is because they want to continue to take your money and buy votes from the moochers of our society.
You - Rick, are speaking lies not truth!
Obama's attack on our liberty.
•The fifth amendment to start. The government now has the right to detain you for as long as they like with out trial. The Government now owns 1/6 of our economy. The government has no right to own interests in the very Business and industries they are deemed to regulate as dictated in the constitution. Obama is now using his power to target private citizens who speak out against him; the IRS.
There is more:Obama attack on liberty:
D.C. Representation in Congress (passed by Senate 2009-02-26)H.R. 157/S. 160 give the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly says only States may be represented in Congress. This reduces the effective right of representation of the inhabitants of every other state (except for Utah, which is given an additional representative)
.Health Privacy Rights (goal signed into law 2009-02-17)As part of the huge American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Obama and the Congress set as a goal "for each every person in the United States" to have an electronic health record. There is no exception granted to anyone. There is currently no legislation to implement this goal, which is set for 2014.
Taxpayer Rights (bill signed into law 2009-02-17)As a major part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Obama and the Congress have taken away even more of our rights to determine what to do with our own money, especially in light of the Tenth Amendment prohibition on federal powers not granted by the Constitution (explicitly or implicitly via the "necessary and proper" clause), both now and -- because it is deficit spending -- for many years into the future. [As the Congress and President tend to do this almost all the time, we won't bother noting every example of it.]
Funding of Abortion Clinics (implemented 2009-01-23)Obama signed an executive memorandum allowing federal funds to go to overseas clinics that provide abortions.
Freedom of Speech on the Radio (proposal seen 2008-11-04)Democratic New York Senator Chuck Schumer said he wants to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." He is joined by Democratic Senators Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein.
Take Away Certain Gun Rights (proposal posted 2008-11-04)President Obama's web site says Obama and Biden ... support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. This proposal, among other possible provisions, will take away rights to many firearms and accessories and ammunition. The page also says Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment which protects the right of privacy of gun owners, and abolish the right to private gun sales.
Obama Economy: Inauguration Today
Unemployed Americans: 12.0 million 13.1 million up 1.1 million
Unemployment rate: 7.8% 8.2% up 9%
Gas prices: $1.85 $3.39 up 83%
Federal debt: $10.6 trillion $15.2 trillion up 43%
Debt per person: $34,731 $48,699 up 13,968
Misery index: 7.8 11.9 up 53%
College tuition: $6,591 $8,244 up 25%
Worker health
insurance costs: $3,354 $4,129 up 23%
Food stamp recipients: 32 million 46 million up 45%
Americans in poverty: 39.8 million 46.2 million up 6.4 million
Home values: $169,700 $147,800 down 13%
U.S. global
competitiveness: 1st 5th down 4 places
Here's some facts PO's: www.factcheck.org
Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?
Spending is high by historical standards -- but rising slowly. And revenues are low.
Posted on June 4, 2012 , Updated on June 7, 2012
Summary
Is President Obama’s spending an “inferno,” as Mitt Romney claims, or a binge that “never happened” as an analysis touted by the White House concluded? We judge that both of those claims are wrong on the facts.
The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.
That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.
Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year.
So if current spending is an “inferno,” it’s one that Bush (and Congress) is mostly responsible for starting. But it’s also true that Obama has done little to put it out.
Spending under Obama remains at a level that is quite high by historical standards. Measured as a percentage of the nation’s economic production, it reached the highest level since World War II in fiscal 2009, and has declined only slightly since.
And there’s more spending to come: The health care law Obama signed in 2010 calls for a new wave starting in 2014, to subsidize coverage for millions who wouldn’t otherwise have it. That will be adding an estimated $110 billion to federal outlays in fiscal 2015, and more in later years.
But note also that receipts are running at levels that are well below historical averages. It is the combination of historically high spending and low revenues that is producing the current string of trillion-dollar annual deficits, and piling up debt. Those who blame deficits solely on spending ignore the other side of the ledger.
Analysis
Mitt Romney claims President Barack Obama’s spending amounts to an “inferno.” But who is really responsible for the huge jump that took place in fiscal 2009? Here are some undisputed facts:
Presidents don't control gas prices...
Presidents don't control personal debt.
Presidents don't control college tuition.
Presidents don't control home values...
More blathering , from the childish rube...
Now tell me how Obama is responsible for FALLING GAS PRICES...
The teapublican rubes are frothing uncontrollably here... Yikes !!!
Obama inherited two wars and an economy in meltdown. He's a brave man-it took guts to take that on with an opposition that was determined to ruin him. Is he the perfect POTUS, no, he's too nice, or he was, most of the last 3 years. I've seen numbers that indicate only about a third of the current deficits can be attributed to his actions. The rest belongs to the Bush policies and laws in place when he took over-Part D, the wars, et al.....
I'd like to know where the TP guys were when Bush was running up the bills.
I guess you think Obama should have been able to wave a magic wand on Day 1 to fix 8 years of GOP foulups-and I love how you ignore that the price of gas was over 4.00 summer 2008, the unemployment rate in Jan 2009 was already at almost 8%, and jumped very quickly to over 10%. It's also great you can ignore the fact that foresclosures had soared long before the election.
Mitt thinks the foreclosure situation should be allowed to go forward with no effort to help homeowners so developers can take over homes and rent them out. I've seen the tape. He also thought GM should have been allowed to go under. Bain turned GM down-there was no money out there in the private sector for GM to borrow. The unemployment rate would be 3% higher now had Obama's actions not occurred. The stimulus was not big enough and too much went to tax breaks. Serious economists are agreed on this. The GOP refuses to do anything. Do you really think they will if they get in in November? Not a chance. We'll end up where we were in 1933 by the time they're done.
PO'd
Have you checked any of this information or just make it up on the fly?
That is alot data to make up on the fly. You think to much of me, no one could do that. It comes from the BLS.
The BLS has a wealth information if you know how to drill down and get it. Works like SAP
Firstly, this is a depression. Second, Obama not only inherited this mess, but an opposition that spent Inauguration Day plotting ways to keep him from getting re-elected. How often have we heard the GOP mouthpieces not only say his defeat in 2012 is Job 1, but wishing him to fail???? I heard it right out of McConnell's own mouth - he's on tape saying it. If you want to know why the economy isn't better, you have only to check out the Senate record for filibusters. The GOP continues to oppose anything that would help the economy. They have lots of time for bedroom legislation, but none to help the economy.
The reason there's no budget is because the GOP has welched on the deal it made, and because they continue to try and force radical social legislation into budget bills. They would have shut the govt down over Planned Parenthood, they just did not dare.
No one who checks their facts believes any of the GOP garbage. This lot knows most of their followers really don't check the facts, so their mouthpiece Fox, spews out lie after lie unchallenged.
I am always ready for a fair fact based argument-there just is almost no one on the other side who can go there. The GOP rejected the only reasonable and qualified candidate they had for....Mitt Romney.....worse than Bush-his guys can't even spell America.....
Romney is a puppet who has no interest in working people-in fact, from his business experience, he actually views us as a obstacle-because part of how he made his money was looking for ways not to pay workers. That's his viewpoint.
Bush, however delusional, at least believed in something beyond himself. Romeny believes only in his right to be POTUS.
We need better from the GOP. Until we get it, I'm for the other side. They aren't great, but they are looking out for the country as well as themselves. The GOP is not.
Little PO'd, is still PO"d, after losing that fry station gig...
He was hoping for a promotion to the desert station...
Epic FAIL !!!!
Now it's all Obama's fault...
The teapublican rubes HATE this one !!!!
Operative phrase - "On every major measurement"
Enjoy !!!!
""On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.""
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book-on-the-bush-legacy/26402/
Clinton was in office during the unsustainable tech bubble that crashed just as his term ended. He was in office before 9/11, so I think Clinton was fortunate to be president in a good time period.
Bubbles will always come and burst, and a president in office when one bursts did not necessarily do things to cause it.
IN any earlier post, you defended Obama by saying presidents have limited control over many things.
In this post blaming Bush, you seem to imply presidents have total control of everything.
hahahahaahahahaah - ky ! your still refrencing that same stale post from the atlantic????? you REALLY need to start sourcing some actual news. I LIKE GRITS
Geez, what a "news" flash! EVERY President inherits the economy from the last guy.
Unfortunately, Obama worried more about getting his ObamaCare passed then he did about actually DOING something to start a recovery.
Now all of a sudden we have a poll that says Obama inherited this economy? At EVERY turn Obama has talked about what he "inherited", and has done pretty well nothing to change it except pass more regulations, more taxes, a "mandate", more borrowing, more record deficits, and more government spending, ALL of which do NOT have anything to do with our economy recovering or creating jobs.
MSNBC is just attempting to justify Obama blaming all HIS problems on someone else.
Of course Obama inherited this economy. In the year 2000 our economy was doing fine but Americans wanted a change. They got it. Bush and his fellow hoodlums destroyed this great country and now the criminal Republicans are doing everything in their power to prevent Obama from undoing their damage. They want further destruction.
I really think Obama is his own worst enemy and the think the economic problems are more complex than just blaming Bush even though that makes all Democrats feel good.
Don't you all remember, 3 1/5 years ago. The streets were paved with gold and everybody was living high on the hog. That is what Mittens says. He does not lie. He is not a punk. He is not an empty suit. And the world is flat.
Hmmm...I am afraid that many of our new legal immigrants who came here to make their fortunes in the Great United States of America, arrived a bit late. Hopefully, you will be able to make a decent living for yourselves, without becoming zillionaires and come to understand that the country does offer more than an opportunity to become rich beyond your wildest dreams. Although, hopefully, we'll get back to that, in a generation or so.
Here's the problem.
We're a mature economy, with an aging population, not being replaced, other than through immigration. That means two things: 1) we are not that attractive to Big Capitalism anymore; because 2) all our savings are gone and our priorities are shifting with age from "stuff" to a sustainable income and medical care.
Big capitalism is moving on...either through direct relocation overseas or through exports by multinational corporations, who use less and less labor because of technology. The new, attractive markets are in the Southern hemisphere or Asia. Large populations of young people, with savings, and everything-in-the-world still to buy for the first time.
Capitalism thrives on "demand." The supply siders lied to you. Just because you can build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door, only is they can afford to buy it and, today, most of in the good ole US of A can't.
Sorry, to break the news, but in real life, you can not sell ice to the Eskimos, no matter how smart and clever you think you are. Life is more than Mitt Romney and a Power Point Presentation. It's more than the pitch, it is the substance.
There is, however, a slim chance for a successful way forward...the recreation of a strong American middle class based on well-paying middle class jobs, in turn, based on new innovative technologies for export, primarily in the capital goods and agricultural sectors of the economy, both of which the new emerging economies will need.
That requires a painful process of slowly paying off past debt, establishing new personal savings, upon which new lines of credit may be established, and a return of demand.
How to get there?
Consider that the global economy is like our "bank." We're one big family, with various ages, various relationships, various incomes and we loan and borrow money among ourselves. But, ultimately, we all bank at the same place, the bank called the global economy.
Now, the first time we went to borrow from this bank, they said fine. You are an old and trusted customer. We, in fact, remember when your family was one of the few in town that banked here. You helped us get our start. No problem...how much do you need?
Then, the second time we went for another loan, they said "we still believe in you, but we would like a little collateral in return for the loan...and we offered dot.com stocks.
And, a lot of the stocks failed resulting in an inability to pay off the loans. So, we went back again, and they were skeptical. But, we said, "no, no...this time we have this sure thing...it's called a risk management model, coupled to a mathematically arrived at securitization process for our very home, and insured by a new financial innovation callied a credit default swap.
And, of course, no one had any idea what we were talking about, but based on our past track record, and our reliability as a "safe haven," they said, "OK, how much do you need?"
And, just as the dot.com stocks failed, so did the "sure thing" called a securitized mortgage package, insured by credit default swaps...the banks, the insurers could no more pay off their debts, than the people who bought the underlying assets, the homes.
Now, we have to go to the well...the bank... a third time. And, the bank is saying...."whoa, wait a minuter. You've already burned us twice. Maybe you just shouldn't borrow anymore."
And the answer..."We're in an embarrassing position. We have no more money, no more credit and the house is falling down. All the collateral is gone. We have only a new business plan to offer you."
And, that business plan is Obama's slim hope to gain the capital necessary to implement a new business plan, changing our product line from financial services to capital goods.
In order to build capital goods in Illinois and ship them around the world, we need infrastructure, skilled labor, and healthy bodies performing that labor. In order to sell "new financial innovations," you need a computer linked to the internet, an idea, and a promise.
Which creates the most jobs? And, where?
And, on that rant, good night all.
One Postscript: Who is Romney in the above analogy? The miserly uncle who still has a little cash made from loans to the rest of the family, and who will go separately to the bank, saying "forget the people in the house, they aren't capable of fulfilling the new business plan, just take these savings and invest them them somewhere else for me. I'm moving to Dubai. Forward the returns there."
I see the redhead missed first post today. How'd that happen?
Musta been snoozing at the computer...shameful.
Bye, Bye, Barry.
What the democrats and the liberal media want you to forget is that George Bush is not running for president.
For some strange reason they don't seem to want Obama running against Romney.
Romney is Bush the Unmentionable in disguise. Same policies. Who cares about the different mask?
stone6
The rest of the liberal FR community say that Romney has no plan because he has not elaborated on them. Maybe you should enlighten the rest of you liberal friends
Maybe Romney following Bush's policies is a good thing.,........a growing economy, low unemployment, deficit spending steadily decreasing, the dollar was still strong, a strong stock market......that is until the democrats took over congress.
You should have read my earlier posts. By January 2007, most of the toxic loans had already been made and were in the system.
Members of Bush the Unmentionable's Administration, spent most of 2007 denying to the public and Congress that there were any serious economic problems, saying "this is a temporary correction" or "only a blip" and, the famous, "the fundamentals are good."
Bush achieved his economic boost in GDP, revenue and employment on the basis of an unsustainable "bubble" of loose credit and over-valued real estate, driven by subprime lending, supported by the Administration.
And, whatever the composition of Congress, ALL of the key regulatory agencies were headed by Bush appointees until January 2009...the Fed, the SEC, the FDIC, the OCC, the FHFA, HUD, etc. Many of them could have burst the bubble with a phone call, IF they received WH permission first.
Actually, no they could not. There were regulations passed in 2000 that prevented trhose agencies from interfering. The loans you speak of were set in motions as early as 1991 and reached their peak in 2005.
Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the Congressional Black Caucus successfully resisted appeals from President Bush and repubican members of congress to bring the largest institutions engaging in the sub prime scandal from being reulated especially after Dodd became chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in 1970 until 2011 and Frank who was the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee
This is the roll Barney Frank played:
I would be willing to bet the people involved in that know more about it than you do.
Check out Franklin Raines and James A. Johnson for the accounting scandal
You are missing the point. I am not defending Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Democrats, simply saying there were no Republican complaints about their underwriting of subprime loans. If you can find a link to one, I'd be glad to look at it.
You are simply wrong about the regulations. Congress had given Greenspan the power to extend the Feds regulatory powers to the front line money lenders, such as Countrywide. He chose not to use the powers because he believed "free markets regulate themselves." Cox, at the SEC, has subsequently stated that giving the investment banks the power to establish their own leverage limits was probably the "worst decision of my life."
The deregulation that occurred in 2000 did allow the magnitude of the melt-down to grow by allowing the mergers of insurance, investment and commercial banking. And, whatever the merits of that deregulation, it was offset by the failure to change the remaining regulations to bring them in line with the new mega-banks. That allowed the financial institutions to practice "regulatory arbitrage," or to shop for the regulatory agency least likely to interfere with their practices.
But, there were, in fact, other powers on the books that could have been exercised, had the Administration really been interesting in bursting the bubble earlier.
The 2003 Committee Meeting you reference is a case in point. In 2003, the GSEs were not in trouble, largely due to their minimal participation in underwriting subprime loans. Further, in 2003, Frank was in the minority and Republicans in charge of Congress. Google "HUD 2004 Proposal for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae." HUD, which reported directly to Bush, as part of his cabinet, was complaining that the GSEs were not underwriting ENOUGH subprime loans and setting goals for them that would have them leading the market.
It was largely as a result of the pressures from the Administration and investors, who were eager for the type of returns they were getting from Wall Street, that the GSEs finally went into the subprime underwriting and securitization business in a significant way.
I've done the research...you are being scammed or taking part in one.
He inherited the economy and hasn't done a thing to help it except put us deeper in debt..time for a new man in November.
President Obama inherited the debt from Bush we know that.
President Obama tried to create new jobs that would stimulate the economy but those attempts were all blocked by the GOP adding further problems to the economy of America.
Now the same political party wants back in office to make everyone think that they will be the solution to the nations debt problem.
A problem that could have been fixed during President Obama's time in office but because of the GOP will carry over until they force their way into the office of the White House.
dwighthuth
And Bush inherited approximately half of that debt from Clinton.