Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
I wish we could return to the days of RONALD REAGAN, those were AMERICA'S BEST DAYS
0 views
Skip to first unread message
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Ronald Reagan was the best president EVER
Feb 7, 2012, 11:39:30 AM2/7/12
to
Who here remembers the days when Ronald Reagan was president. Those
were America's BEST DAYS ever. For those of you who don't remember or
were not here, this is what it was like under President Reagan:
* Taxes were at an ALL TIME LOW
* Unemployment was at an ALL TIME LOW
* Regulations DID NOT EXIST
* No states supported Gay Marriage
* Government was OUT OF OUR LIVES
And you know what? The economy THRIVED! Now socialistic liberals are
trying to do the OPPOSITE of the above, and are ruining this country.
Back then we were all PROUD TO BE AMERICANS.
~~~ Ronald Reagan FOREVER ~~~
were America's BEST DAYS ever. For those of you who don't remember or
were not here, this is what it was like under President Reagan:
* Taxes were at an ALL TIME LOW
* Unemployment was at an ALL TIME LOW
* Regulations DID NOT EXIST
* No states supported Gay Marriage
* Government was OUT OF OUR LIVES
And you know what? The economy THRIVED! Now socialistic liberals are
trying to do the OPPOSITE of the above, and are ruining this country.
Back then we were all PROUD TO BE AMERICANS.
~~~ Ronald Reagan FOREVER ~~~
Alias
Feb 7, 2012, 12:15:11 PM2/7/12
to
On 02/07/2012 05:39 PM, O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Ronald Reagan was the
> * Unemployment was at an ALL TIME LOW
Bullshit.
> * Regulations DID NOT EXIST
Bullshit but he did remove the ones that eventually caused the current
economic mess.
> * No states supported Gay Marriage
It's about time state supported gay marriage.
> * Government was OUT OF OUR LIVES
LOL! You are soooooooooooo ignorant.
>
> And you know what? The economy THRIVED! Now socialistic liberals are
> trying to do the OPPOSITE of the above, and are ruining this country.
>
> Back then we were all PROUD TO BE AMERICANS.
>
> ~~~ Ronald Reagan FOREVER ~~~
Revealing your ignorance once again, eh?
Obama in 2012. Choke on it, asshole.
--
Alias
best president EVER wrote:
> Who here remembers the days when Ronald Reagan was president. Those
> were America's BEST DAYS ever. For those of you who don't remember or
> were not here, this is what it was like under President Reagan:
>
> * Taxes were at an ALL TIME LOW
Bullshit.
> Who here remembers the days when Ronald Reagan was president. Those
> were America's BEST DAYS ever. For those of you who don't remember or
> were not here, this is what it was like under President Reagan:
>
> * Taxes were at an ALL TIME LOW
> * Unemployment was at an ALL TIME LOW
> * Regulations DID NOT EXIST
economic mess.
> * No states supported Gay Marriage
> * Government was OUT OF OUR LIVES
>
> And you know what? The economy THRIVED! Now socialistic liberals are
> trying to do the OPPOSITE of the above, and are ruining this country.
>
> Back then we were all PROUD TO BE AMERICANS.
>
> ~~~ Ronald Reagan FOREVER ~~~
Obama in 2012. Choke on it, asshole.
--
Alias
A1...@gmail.com
Feb 7, 2012, 12:27:58 PM2/7/12
to
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:39:30 -0800 (PST), "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate:
Ronald Reagan was the best president EVER" <acco...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
>Who here remembers the days when Ronald Reagan was president. Those
>were America's BEST DAYS ever. For those of you who don't remember or
>were not here, this is what it was like under President Reagan:
>
>* Taxes were at an ALL TIME LOW.
Me thinks you missed when he raised taxes.
>* Regulations DID NOT EXIST
Getting rid of regulation gave us the economic crash
Ronald Reagan was the best president EVER" <acco...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
>Who here remembers the days when Ronald Reagan was president. Those
>were America's BEST DAYS ever. For those of you who don't remember or
>were not here, this is what it was like under President Reagan:
>
Me thinks you missed when he raised taxes.
>* Unemployment was at an ALL TIME LOW
............except when he first took office.
>* Regulations DID NOT EXIST
cloud dreamer
Feb 7, 2012, 1:09:50 PM2/7/12
to
On 07/02/2012 1:45 PM, Alias wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 05:39 PM, O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Ronald Reagan was the
> best president EVER wrote:
>> Who here remembers the days when Ronald Reagan was president. Those
>> were America's BEST DAYS ever. For those of you who don't remember or
>> were not here, this is what it was like under President Reagan:
>>
>> * Taxes were at an ALL TIME LOW
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> * Unemployment was at an ALL TIME LOW
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> * Regulations DID NOT EXIST
>
> Bullshit but he did remove the ones that eventually caused the current
> economic mess.
Not to mention all the people it killed when deregulation in the airline
> On 02/07/2012 05:39 PM, O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Ronald Reagan was the
> best president EVER wrote:
>> Who here remembers the days when Ronald Reagan was president. Those
>> were America's BEST DAYS ever. For those of you who don't remember or
>> were not here, this is what it was like under President Reagan:
>>
>> * Taxes were at an ALL TIME LOW
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> * Unemployment was at an ALL TIME LOW
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> * Regulations DID NOT EXIST
>
> Bullshit but he did remove the ones that eventually caused the current
> economic mess.
industry allowed a lot of smaller airlines to skip certain
inspections/repairs.
It boggles the mind that people are so against regulation. The last
recession should have been a wake up call - if you don't regulate
industry, greed will kill the economy and people.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us
Jigme Dorje
Feb 7, 2012, 1:48:01 PM2/7/12
to
On 2/7/2012 11:39 AM, O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Ronald Reagan was the
the myths about his presidency.
>Those
> were America's BEST DAYS ever.
It was far from the best. Real disposable income growth under Reagan was
16%, trailing 23% under Kennedy, 21.5% under Nixon, 20.5% under Johnson,
19.9% under Truman, 18.2% under Clinton
http://gatton.uky.edu/faculty/bollinger/rants/reportcard.pdf
For many Americans, it was one of the worst times ever. While White
families gained 4.1% in disposable income, black families had a decline
in real disposable income of 2.1%, and Hispanic families had an increase
of only 1%. Black families headed by a person under age 65 made
virtually no progress between 1980 and 1984. Among the factors
contributing to the relative deterioration in minority family income
were the following: (1) high unemployment; (2) Reagan Administration
policies, which led to a more severe recession than might have occurred
otherwise; (3) cuts in income support programs, which exacerbated the
effects of the recession because minority families, who have lower
average earnings, are more dependent on public assistance even when they
are employed; and (4) cuts in programs to increase long-term
earnings--employment, training, and educational programs.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED296046&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED296046
> For those of you who don't remember or
> were not here, this is what it was like under President Reagan:
>
> * Taxes were at an ALL TIME LOW
Taxes are very much lower today under Obama. In 2009, Americans paid
their lowest taxes in 60 years.
the top tax rate was 50% or more, higher than the current 35%t. Every
year that Reagan was in office, the bottom tax bracket was higher than
the current 10%. For a family of four, the average income tax rate under
Reagan in 1983 was 11.06%. Under Clinton in 1992, it was 9.18%. Under
Obama in 2010, it was 4.68%.
Reagan raised taxes 11 times, while Obama has cut them.
His tax increases in 1982, 1983, and 1984 rolled back a sizable portion
of his 1981 tax cuts. In the 1982 Social Security rescue, he raised
payroll taxes in a big way.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/01/233526/taxes-lower-reagan/
> * Unemployment was at an ALL TIME LOW
Not by a long shot. Which political party has a better record on
reducing unemployment? The answer is the Democratic Party, and it is
not even close. In gross unemployment Reagan falls far behind Presidents
Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter.
Unemployment Rate by President and Party
period start end chng President Party
Jan 1949 Jan 1953 4.3 2.9 -1.4 Truman Democrat
Jan 1953 Jan 1957 2.9 4.2 +1.3 Eisenhower I Republican
Jan 1957 Jan 1961 4.2 6.6 +2.4 Eisenhower II Republican
Jan 1961 Jan 1965 6.6 4.9 -1.7 JFK/Johnson Democrat
Jan 1965 Jan 1969 4.9 3.4 -1.5 Johnson Democrat
Jan 1969 Jan 1973 3.4 4.9 +1.5 Nixon Republican
Jan 1973 Jan 1977 4.9 7.5 +2.6 Nixon/Ford Republican
Jan 1977 Jan 1981 7.5 7.5 0.0 Carter Democrat
Jan 1981 Jan 1985 7.5 7.3 -0.2 Reagan I Republican
Jan 1985 Jan 1989 7.3 5.4 -1.9 Reagan II Republican
Jan 1989 Jan 1993 5.4 7.3 +1.9 Bush, GHW Republican
Jan 1993 Jan 1997 7.3 5.3 -2.0 Clinton I Democrat
Jan 1997 Jan 2001 5.3 4.2 -1.1 Clinton II Democrat
Jan 2001 Jan 2005 4.2 5.2 +1.0 Bush, GW I Republican
Jan 2005 Aug 2008 5.2 6.1 +0.9 Bush, GW II Republican
Sorted by decrease in the unemployment rate. Clinton's administration
saw a larger decline in the unemployment rate.
period start end chng President Party
Jan 1993 Jan 1997 7.3 5.3 -2.0 Clinton I Democrat
Jan 1985 Jan 1989 7.3 5.4 -1.9 Reagan II Republican
> * Regulations DID NOT EXIST
There were more regulations in place than today, as subsequent
administrations and Congress chipped away at them, although Reagan's
rhetoric on deregulation has led to a steady economic decline and the
recent housing crisis.
Economist William A. Niskanen, a member of Reagan's Council of Economic
Advisers and later chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, writes
that deregulation had the "lowest priority" of the items on the Reagan
agenda, that Reagan "failed to sustain the momentum for deregulation
initiated in the 1970s" and that he "added more trade barriers than any
administration since Hoover." Economists point out that many of the
major deregulation efforts had either taken place or begun before Reagan
(deregulation of airlines and trucking under Carter, and the beginning
of deregulatory reform in railroads, telephones, natural gas, and banking).
> * No states supported Gay Marriage
It was a dismal time for civil rights. The federal budget shows it in
dollar terms. Programs that helped black America suffered greatly during
his tenure. Reagan did the following:
•Supported racism with remarks like those that characterized poor, black
women as “welfare queens.”
•Fired U.S. Commission on Civil Rights members who were critical of his
civil rights policies, including his strong opposition to affirmative
action programs.
•Sought to limit and gut the Voting Rights Act.
•Slashed important programs like the Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act (CETA) that provided needed assistance to black people.
•Appointed people like Clarence Thomas to the Equal Opportunity
Commission; William Bradford Reynolds, as assistant attorney general for
civil rights; and others who implemented policies that hurt black people.
•Tried to get a tax exemption for Bob Jones University, which was then a
segregated college in South Carolina.
•Defended former Sen. Jesse Helms’ “sincerity” when that arch villain of
black interest questioned Martin Luther King’s loyalty.
> * Government was OUT OF OUR LIVES
No. The “so called” small government President Reagan increased the
nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%. We have 35,000 less
nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.
Total Nonmilitary employees in 1980 — 2,875,000
Total Nonmilitary employees in 2010 — 2,840,000
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their
combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4% compared
with Reagan's 3% in the government's take of "national income."
on January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000
nonmilitary federal employees. By the end of Reagan’s terms the total
number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000, an increase of
238,000. Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the
federal government employee size to pre-Reagan levels. He left office
with 2,703,000, less than the 2,875,000 Reagan started his term with in
1981.
By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the
books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from
226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/big-government-obama-reagan
Meanwhile, he expanded military spending to record highs and the deficit.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute
cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting
to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan tripled the
Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion.It took 31 years
to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
> And you know what? The economy THRIVED! Now socialistic liberals are
> trying to do the OPPOSITE of the above, and are ruining this country.
Just the opposite.
First, Reagan had no responsibility for the bubble that occurred during
his administration. In the early-1980s, the country was fighting a
decade of stagflation. Paul Volcker, the chairman of the Federal
Reserve, decided to lower inflation by sharply raising interest rates,
and this threw the economy into a deep recession. Recovery came when the
Federal Reserve lowered interest rates again and sparked an investment
boom. The expansion was a cyclical recovery, but did not feature an
increase in the structural rate of growth.
Second, his policies were devastating to the economy long term. Obama’s
policies have temporarily increased deficits, but Reagan’s permanently
increased them by increasing structural deficits. He passed permanent,
deficit-financed tax cuts. Long after the recession was over, his tax
cuts remained, necessitating the deficit-reduction bills passed by
George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Obama’s major deficit-financed
policies -the stimulus and the 2010 tax deal - have both been temporary.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/comparing-obama-and-reagans-economic-records/2011/08/25/gIQAHFJcaQ_blog.html
Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981-88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well
above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public
debt rose from 26.1% GDP in 1980 to 41.0% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms,
the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in
1988, a three-fold increase.
Another critique of Reagan's policies concerns the Tax Reform Act of
1986 and its impact on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). This
legislation expanded the AMT from untaxed rich investors to middle
class Americans who had children, owned a home, or lived in high tax
states, and hit middle class Americans the hardest by reducing their
deductions and effectively raising their taxes. The highest income
earners (with incomes exceeding $1,000,000) were proportionately less
affected, shifting the tax burden away from the richest 0.5% to poorer
Americans. As of 2007, the AMT brought in more tax revenue than the
regular tax which has made it difficult for Congress to reform.
> Back then we were all PROUD TO BE AMERICANS.
Sadly, it was one of the most shameful times in US foreign policy.It was
also one of the most corrupt of US presidential administrations.
For example, "despite their many public lies about the matter, it was
eventually proven that the Sales of weapons to Iran, followed by illegal
financial support of the Central American Contras were carried out with
the knowledge of, among others, President Ronald Reagan, Vice President
George Bush, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Secretary of Defense
Caspar W. Weinberger, Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey,
and national security advisers Robert C. McFarlane and John M.
Poindexter. Of these officials, only Weinberger and Shultz dissented
from the policy decision. Weinberger eventually acquiesced and ordered
the Department of Defense to provide the necessary arms. Large volumes
of highly relevant, contemporaneously created documents were
systematically and willfully withheld from investigators by several
Reagan Administration officials in an attempt to cover up the
administration's extensive corruption."
http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/Reagan.html
> ~~~ Ronald Reagan FOREVER ~~~
His disastrous legacy still exerts a detrimental influence. In
measurable terms, whether by conservative, liberal or moderate
standards, he was one of the worst US presidents.
best president EVER wrote:
> Who here remembers the days when Ronald Reagan was president.
Thank you for posting this. It provides an opportunity to dispel some of
> Who here remembers the days when Ronald Reagan was president.
the myths about his presidency.
>Those
> were America's BEST DAYS ever.
16%, trailing 23% under Kennedy, 21.5% under Nixon, 20.5% under Johnson,
19.9% under Truman, 18.2% under Clinton
http://gatton.uky.edu/faculty/bollinger/rants/reportcard.pdf
For many Americans, it was one of the worst times ever. While White
families gained 4.1% in disposable income, black families had a decline
in real disposable income of 2.1%, and Hispanic families had an increase
of only 1%. Black families headed by a person under age 65 made
virtually no progress between 1980 and 1984. Among the factors
contributing to the relative deterioration in minority family income
were the following: (1) high unemployment; (2) Reagan Administration
policies, which led to a more severe recession than might have occurred
otherwise; (3) cuts in income support programs, which exacerbated the
effects of the recession because minority families, who have lower
average earnings, are more dependent on public assistance even when they
are employed; and (4) cuts in programs to increase long-term
earnings--employment, training, and educational programs.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED296046&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED296046
> For those of you who don't remember or
> were not here, this is what it was like under President Reagan:
>
> * Taxes were at an ALL TIME LOW
their lowest taxes in 60 years.
the top tax rate was 50% or more, higher than the current 35%t. Every
year that Reagan was in office, the bottom tax bracket was higher than
the current 10%. For a family of four, the average income tax rate under
Reagan in 1983 was 11.06%. Under Clinton in 1992, it was 9.18%. Under
Obama in 2010, it was 4.68%.
Reagan raised taxes 11 times, while Obama has cut them.
His tax increases in 1982, 1983, and 1984 rolled back a sizable portion
of his 1981 tax cuts. In the 1982 Social Security rescue, he raised
payroll taxes in a big way.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/01/233526/taxes-lower-reagan/
> * Unemployment was at an ALL TIME LOW
reducing unemployment? The answer is the Democratic Party, and it is
not even close. In gross unemployment Reagan falls far behind Presidents
Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter.
Unemployment Rate by President and Party
period start end chng President Party
Jan 1949 Jan 1953 4.3 2.9 -1.4 Truman Democrat
Jan 1953 Jan 1957 2.9 4.2 +1.3 Eisenhower I Republican
Jan 1957 Jan 1961 4.2 6.6 +2.4 Eisenhower II Republican
Jan 1961 Jan 1965 6.6 4.9 -1.7 JFK/Johnson Democrat
Jan 1965 Jan 1969 4.9 3.4 -1.5 Johnson Democrat
Jan 1969 Jan 1973 3.4 4.9 +1.5 Nixon Republican
Jan 1973 Jan 1977 4.9 7.5 +2.6 Nixon/Ford Republican
Jan 1977 Jan 1981 7.5 7.5 0.0 Carter Democrat
Jan 1981 Jan 1985 7.5 7.3 -0.2 Reagan I Republican
Jan 1985 Jan 1989 7.3 5.4 -1.9 Reagan II Republican
Jan 1989 Jan 1993 5.4 7.3 +1.9 Bush, GHW Republican
Jan 1993 Jan 1997 7.3 5.3 -2.0 Clinton I Democrat
Jan 1997 Jan 2001 5.3 4.2 -1.1 Clinton II Democrat
Jan 2001 Jan 2005 4.2 5.2 +1.0 Bush, GW I Republican
Jan 2005 Aug 2008 5.2 6.1 +0.9 Bush, GW II Republican
Sorted by decrease in the unemployment rate. Clinton's administration
saw a larger decline in the unemployment rate.
period start end chng President Party
Jan 1993 Jan 1997 7.3 5.3 -2.0 Clinton I Democrat
Jan 1985 Jan 1989 7.3 5.4 -1.9 Reagan II Republican
> * Regulations DID NOT EXIST
administrations and Congress chipped away at them, although Reagan's
rhetoric on deregulation has led to a steady economic decline and the
recent housing crisis.
Economist William A. Niskanen, a member of Reagan's Council of Economic
Advisers and later chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, writes
that deregulation had the "lowest priority" of the items on the Reagan
agenda, that Reagan "failed to sustain the momentum for deregulation
initiated in the 1970s" and that he "added more trade barriers than any
administration since Hoover." Economists point out that many of the
major deregulation efforts had either taken place or begun before Reagan
(deregulation of airlines and trucking under Carter, and the beginning
of deregulatory reform in railroads, telephones, natural gas, and banking).
> * No states supported Gay Marriage
dollar terms. Programs that helped black America suffered greatly during
his tenure. Reagan did the following:
•Supported racism with remarks like those that characterized poor, black
women as “welfare queens.”
•Fired U.S. Commission on Civil Rights members who were critical of his
civil rights policies, including his strong opposition to affirmative
action programs.
•Sought to limit and gut the Voting Rights Act.
•Slashed important programs like the Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act (CETA) that provided needed assistance to black people.
•Appointed people like Clarence Thomas to the Equal Opportunity
Commission; William Bradford Reynolds, as assistant attorney general for
civil rights; and others who implemented policies that hurt black people.
•Tried to get a tax exemption for Bob Jones University, which was then a
segregated college in South Carolina.
•Defended former Sen. Jesse Helms’ “sincerity” when that arch villain of
black interest questioned Martin Luther King’s loyalty.
> * Government was OUT OF OUR LIVES
nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%. We have 35,000 less
nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.
Total Nonmilitary employees in 1980 — 2,875,000
Total Nonmilitary employees in 2010 — 2,840,000
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their
combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4% compared
with Reagan's 3% in the government's take of "national income."
on January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000
nonmilitary federal employees. By the end of Reagan’s terms the total
number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000, an increase of
238,000. Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the
federal government employee size to pre-Reagan levels. He left office
with 2,703,000, less than the 2,875,000 Reagan started his term with in
1981.
By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the
books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from
226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/big-government-obama-reagan
Meanwhile, he expanded military spending to record highs and the deficit.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute
cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting
to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan tripled the
Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion.It took 31 years
to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
> And you know what? The economy THRIVED! Now socialistic liberals are
> trying to do the OPPOSITE of the above, and are ruining this country.
First, Reagan had no responsibility for the bubble that occurred during
his administration. In the early-1980s, the country was fighting a
decade of stagflation. Paul Volcker, the chairman of the Federal
Reserve, decided to lower inflation by sharply raising interest rates,
and this threw the economy into a deep recession. Recovery came when the
Federal Reserve lowered interest rates again and sparked an investment
boom. The expansion was a cyclical recovery, but did not feature an
increase in the structural rate of growth.
Second, his policies were devastating to the economy long term. Obama’s
policies have temporarily increased deficits, but Reagan’s permanently
increased them by increasing structural deficits. He passed permanent,
deficit-financed tax cuts. Long after the recession was over, his tax
cuts remained, necessitating the deficit-reduction bills passed by
George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Obama’s major deficit-financed
policies -the stimulus and the 2010 tax deal - have both been temporary.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/comparing-obama-and-reagans-economic-records/2011/08/25/gIQAHFJcaQ_blog.html
Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981-88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well
above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public
debt rose from 26.1% GDP in 1980 to 41.0% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms,
the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in
1988, a three-fold increase.
Another critique of Reagan's policies concerns the Tax Reform Act of
1986 and its impact on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). This
legislation expanded the AMT from untaxed rich investors to middle
class Americans who had children, owned a home, or lived in high tax
states, and hit middle class Americans the hardest by reducing their
deductions and effectively raising their taxes. The highest income
earners (with incomes exceeding $1,000,000) were proportionately less
affected, shifting the tax burden away from the richest 0.5% to poorer
Americans. As of 2007, the AMT brought in more tax revenue than the
regular tax which has made it difficult for Congress to reform.
> Back then we were all PROUD TO BE AMERICANS.
also one of the most corrupt of US presidential administrations.
For example, "despite their many public lies about the matter, it was
eventually proven that the Sales of weapons to Iran, followed by illegal
financial support of the Central American Contras were carried out with
the knowledge of, among others, President Ronald Reagan, Vice President
George Bush, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Secretary of Defense
Caspar W. Weinberger, Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey,
and national security advisers Robert C. McFarlane and John M.
Poindexter. Of these officials, only Weinberger and Shultz dissented
from the policy decision. Weinberger eventually acquiesced and ordered
the Department of Defense to provide the necessary arms. Large volumes
of highly relevant, contemporaneously created documents were
systematically and willfully withheld from investigators by several
Reagan Administration officials in an attempt to cover up the
administration's extensive corruption."
http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/Reagan.html
> ~~~ Ronald Reagan FOREVER ~~~
measurable terms, whether by conservative, liberal or moderate
standards, he was one of the worst US presidents.
cloud dreamer
Feb 7, 2012, 1:56:22 PM2/7/12
to
Well said.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 7, 2012, 2:07:28 PM2/7/12
to
Partisanship and ideology are problems for this country primarily
because they are false covers for the nefarious underlying influence of
corporate interests that have been systematically taking over the
government - especially since the time of Ronald Reagan.
It's not a partisan issue. Democrats and Republicans alike have been
complicit. But it's time to lift the veils of deception and air the facts.
BTW, yea Giants!
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Ronald Reagan was the best president EVER
Feb 7, 2012, 2:16:03 PM2/7/12
to
Not sure what you guys are talking about but the FACTS speak for
themselves. In the 1980s under Reagan NO ONE apologized for being an
American
and the slogan "PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN" was born!
~~~ RONALD REAGAN, A TRUE AMERICAN HERO ~~~
themselves. In the 1980s under Reagan NO ONE apologized for being an
American
and the slogan "PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN" was born!
~~~ RONALD REAGAN, A TRUE AMERICAN HERO ~~~
Jigme Dorje
Feb 7, 2012, 8:19:25 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 2:16 pm, "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Ronald Reagan was the
Actually we did back then, and even more with Bush. But not any more.
CC2...@gmail.clom
Feb 8, 2012, 4:05:34 PM2/8/12
to
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:16:03 -0800 (PST), "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate:
Ronald Reagan was the best president EVER" <acco...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
And lets not forget that Reagan should have gone to jail for
that travesty known as Iran Conta.
If a democrat did that republicans would screaming firing squad.
Ronald Reagan was the best president EVER" <acco...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
that travesty known as Iran Conta.
If a democrat did that republicans would screaming firing squad.
ray
Feb 8, 2012, 7:39:19 PM2/8/12
to
In article <77udnb5hmONy9azS...@supernews.com>,
More like greed by the politicians than anything else. The housing
crash is what happens when the federal government runs the banks.
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
crash is what happens when the federal government runs the banks.
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 8, 2012, 8:21:55 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 7:39 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <77udnb5hmONy9azSnZ2dnUVZ_vqdn...@supernews.com>,
> In article <77udnb5hmONy9azSnZ2dnUVZ_vqdn...@supernews.com>,
> cloud dreamer <TJM....@small.penis> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 07/02/2012 1:45 PM, Alias wrote:
> > > On 02/07/2012 05:39 PM, O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Ronald Reagan was the
> > > best president EVER wrote:
> > >> Who here remembers the days when Ronald Reagan was president. Those
> > >> were America's BEST DAYS ever. For those of you who don't remember or
> > >> were not here, this is what it was like under President Reagan:
>
> > >> * Taxes were at an ALL TIME LOW
>
> > > Bullshit.
>
> > >> * Unemployment was at an ALL TIME LOW
>
> > > Bullshit.
>
> > >> * Regulations DID NOT EXIST
>
> > > Bullshit but he did remove the ones that eventually caused the current
> > > economic mess.
>
> > Not to mention all the people it killed when deregulation in the airline
> > industry allowed a lot of smaller airlines to skip certain
> > inspections/repairs.
>
> > It boggles the mind that people are so against regulation. The last
> > recession should have been a wake up call - if you don't regulate
> > industry, greed will kill the economy and people.
>
> More like greed by the politicians than anything else. The housing
> crash is what happens when the federal government runs the banks.
They didn't. They deregulated them. Where have you been?
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 07/02/2012 1:45 PM, Alias wrote:
> > > On 02/07/2012 05:39 PM, O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Ronald Reagan was the
> > > best president EVER wrote:
> > >> Who here remembers the days when Ronald Reagan was president. Those
> > >> were America's BEST DAYS ever. For those of you who don't remember or
> > >> were not here, this is what it was like under President Reagan:
>
> > >> * Taxes were at an ALL TIME LOW
>
> > > Bullshit.
>
> > >> * Unemployment was at an ALL TIME LOW
>
> > > Bullshit.
>
> > >> * Regulations DID NOT EXIST
>
> > > Bullshit but he did remove the ones that eventually caused the current
> > > economic mess.
>
> > Not to mention all the people it killed when deregulation in the airline
> > industry allowed a lot of smaller airlines to skip certain
> > inspections/repairs.
>
> > It boggles the mind that people are so against regulation. The last
> > recession should have been a wake up call - if you don't regulate
> > industry, greed will kill the economy and people.
>
> More like greed by the politicians than anything else. The housing
> crash is what happens when the federal government runs the banks.
ray
Feb 8, 2012, 9:31:34 PM2/8/12
to
In article
<bc5697f4-7f36-4504...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
he created CRA's. During the end of his administration, he created
sub-prime loans which were the heart of the housing collapse. Before
Clinton left office, he put a kid in charge of HUD who instituted 0%
down mortgage loans not to mention little if any credit check.
Ask yourself: why would any bank deliberately loan their own money to
people who had no ability to repay those loans? Would you loan money to
a family member or friend who never had a job? Of course not. And the
reason banks did it is because they sold the loans off to other people
mostly Fanny and Freddy.
Now ask yourself: what would have happened if banks only loaned out
their money with no government involved?
<bc5697f4-7f36-4504...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Jigme Dorje <jdor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Not to mention all the people it killed when deregulation in the airline
> > > industry allowed a lot of smaller airlines to skip certain
> > > inspections/repairs.
> >
> > > It boggles the mind that people are so against regulation. The last
> > > recession should have been a wake up call - if you don't regulate
> > > industry, greed will kill the economy and people.
> >
> > More like greed by the politicians than anything else. The housing
> > crash is what happens when the federal government runs the banks.
>
> They didn't. They deregulated them. Where have you been?
Yes, they did deregulate them. It started back in the Carter years when
> > > Not to mention all the people it killed when deregulation in the airline
> > > industry allowed a lot of smaller airlines to skip certain
> > > inspections/repairs.
> >
> > > It boggles the mind that people are so against regulation. The last
> > > recession should have been a wake up call - if you don't regulate
> > > industry, greed will kill the economy and people.
> >
> > More like greed by the politicians than anything else. The housing
> > crash is what happens when the federal government runs the banks.
>
> They didn't. They deregulated them. Where have you been?
he created CRA's. During the end of his administration, he created
sub-prime loans which were the heart of the housing collapse. Before
Clinton left office, he put a kid in charge of HUD who instituted 0%
down mortgage loans not to mention little if any credit check.
Ask yourself: why would any bank deliberately loan their own money to
people who had no ability to repay those loans? Would you loan money to
a family member or friend who never had a job? Of course not. And the
reason banks did it is because they sold the loans off to other people
mostly Fanny and Freddy.
Now ask yourself: what would have happened if banks only loaned out
their money with no government involved?
Jigme Dorje
Feb 8, 2012, 9:58:08 PM2/8/12
to
> <bc5697f4-7f36-4504-867d-199d20e32...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
commercial banks, not the govt, pushed the subprime mortgages, and
Fanny and Freddie didn't get involved until the very end.
It was not a government initiative, but one created entirely by the
large commercial banks. Why? Greed. With the dismantling of regulation
that prevented lenders from writing securities, the large banks became
investment bankers generating mortgage securities for profit. You can
look up the facts staring here.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
> Jigme Dorje <jdorje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Not to mention all the people it killed when deregulation in the airline
> > > > industry allowed a lot of smaller airlines to skip certain
> > > > inspections/repairs.
>
> > > > It boggles the mind that people are so against regulation. The last
> > > > recession should have been a wake up call - if you don't regulate
> > > > industry, greed will kill the economy and people.
>
> > > More like greed by the politicians than anything else. The housing
> > > crash is what happens when the federal government runs the banks.
>
> > They didn't. They deregulated them. Where have you been?
>
> Yes, they did deregulate them. It started back in the Carter years when
> he created CRA's. During the end of his administration, he created
> sub-prime loans which were the heart of the housing collapse. Before
> Clinton left office, he put a kid in charge of HUD who instituted 0%
> down mortgage loans not to mention little if any credit check.
>
> Ask yourself: why would any bank deliberately loan their own money to
> people who had no ability to repay those loans? Would you loan money to
> a family member or friend who never had a job? Of course not. And the
> reason banks did it is because they sold the loans off to other people
> mostly Fanny and Freddy.
>
> Now ask yourself: what would have happened if banks only loaned out
> their money with no government involved?
That is the revisionist right wing rewrite. In fact, the big
>
> > > > Not to mention all the people it killed when deregulation in the airline
> > > > industry allowed a lot of smaller airlines to skip certain
> > > > inspections/repairs.
>
> > > > It boggles the mind that people are so against regulation. The last
> > > > recession should have been a wake up call - if you don't regulate
> > > > industry, greed will kill the economy and people.
>
> > > More like greed by the politicians than anything else. The housing
> > > crash is what happens when the federal government runs the banks.
>
> > They didn't. They deregulated them. Where have you been?
>
> Yes, they did deregulate them. It started back in the Carter years when
> he created CRA's. During the end of his administration, he created
> sub-prime loans which were the heart of the housing collapse. Before
> Clinton left office, he put a kid in charge of HUD who instituted 0%
> down mortgage loans not to mention little if any credit check.
>
> Ask yourself: why would any bank deliberately loan their own money to
> people who had no ability to repay those loans? Would you loan money to
> a family member or friend who never had a job? Of course not. And the
> reason banks did it is because they sold the loans off to other people
> mostly Fanny and Freddy.
>
> Now ask yourself: what would have happened if banks only loaned out
> their money with no government involved?
commercial banks, not the govt, pushed the subprime mortgages, and
Fanny and Freddie didn't get involved until the very end.
It was not a government initiative, but one created entirely by the
large commercial banks. Why? Greed. With the dismantling of regulation
that prevented lenders from writing securities, the large banks became
investment bankers generating mortgage securities for profit. You can
look up the facts staring here.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
mario in victoria
Feb 8, 2012, 10:42:44 PM2/8/12
to
mario in victoria
--
i saw it coming
ray
Feb 9, 2012, 7:34:13 PM2/9/12
to
In article
<7a2b8768-301b-4568...@pm3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
I have facts of my own. Thank you:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204791104577110643650732030
.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
<7a2b8768-301b-4568...@pm3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204791104577110643650732030
.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Jigme Dorje
Feb 9, 2012, 9:36:00 PM2/9/12
to
eric
Feb 10, 2012, 11:10:48 PM2/10/12
to
> <bc5697f4-7f36-4504-867d-199d20e32...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
and selling them. They didn't have to worry about being around if they
weren't repaid. Outfits like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers went
bust because of the failure of the loans they purchased from the
lenders. And of course it is the failure of Lehman Brothers that was
the trigger of the busted market.
> Jigme Dorje <jdorje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Not to mention all the people it killed when deregulation in the airline
> > > > industry allowed a lot of smaller airlines to skip certain
> > > > inspections/repairs.
>
> > > > It boggles the mind that people are so against regulation. The last
> > > > recession should have been a wake up call - if you don't regulate
> > > > industry, greed will kill the economy and people.
>
> > > More like greed by the politicians than anything else. The housing
> > > crash is what happens when the federal government runs the banks.
>
> > They didn't. They deregulated them. Where have you been?
>
> Yes, they did deregulate them. It started back in the Carter years when
> he created CRA's. During the end of his administration, he created
> sub-prime loans which were the heart of the housing collapse. Before
> Clinton left office, he put a kid in charge of HUD who instituted 0%
> down mortgage loans not to mention little if any credit check.
>
> Ask yourself: why would any bank deliberately loan their own money to
> people who had no ability to repay those loans? Would you loan money to
> a family member or friend who never had a job? Of course not. And the
> reason banks did it is because they sold the loans off to other people
> mostly Fanny and Freddy.
>
> Now ask yourself: what would have happened if banks only loaned out
> their money with no government involved?
Banks during that time were bundling up the loans as AAA securities
>
> > > > Not to mention all the people it killed when deregulation in the airline
> > > > industry allowed a lot of smaller airlines to skip certain
> > > > inspections/repairs.
>
> > > > It boggles the mind that people are so against regulation. The last
> > > > recession should have been a wake up call - if you don't regulate
> > > > industry, greed will kill the economy and people.
>
> > > More like greed by the politicians than anything else. The housing
> > > crash is what happens when the federal government runs the banks.
>
> > They didn't. They deregulated them. Where have you been?
>
> Yes, they did deregulate them. It started back in the Carter years when
> he created CRA's. During the end of his administration, he created
> sub-prime loans which were the heart of the housing collapse. Before
> Clinton left office, he put a kid in charge of HUD who instituted 0%
> down mortgage loans not to mention little if any credit check.
>
> Ask yourself: why would any bank deliberately loan their own money to
> people who had no ability to repay those loans? Would you loan money to
> a family member or friend who never had a job? Of course not. And the
> reason banks did it is because they sold the loans off to other people
> mostly Fanny and Freddy.
>
> Now ask yourself: what would have happened if banks only loaned out
> their money with no government involved?
and selling them. They didn't have to worry about being around if they
weren't repaid. Outfits like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers went
bust because of the failure of the loans they purchased from the
lenders. And of course it is the failure of Lehman Brothers that was
the trigger of the busted market.
ray
Feb 11, 2012, 9:00:29 AM2/11/12
to
In article
<678d844d-12d3-41b6...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Okay, the banks are pressured from the government to make these loans in
effort to put the poor and minorities into their own homes. The bank
makes out because they get the fees involved for processing the loan.
Now what are they supposed to do with these bad loans? Eat them?
If the federal government stayed out of the banking business, the
housing collapse would have never been. Imagine there is no Fanny or
Freddy or any government involvement. Do you suppose these banks would
have made those loans? After all, the people who bought those
securities had the blessing of the federal government approval rating.
As a home owner and landlord, I can't tell you the damage the federal
government has done. Even if they were successful by having the poor
and minorities in their own homes, what would we landlords do? We
couldn't get out of the business by selling our apartments. Who would
buy them? Nobody is renting anymore.
Anytime the federal government says "I'm here to help you." Run for the
hills.
<678d844d-12d3-41b6...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
effort to put the poor and minorities into their own homes. The bank
makes out because they get the fees involved for processing the loan.
Now what are they supposed to do with these bad loans? Eat them?
If the federal government stayed out of the banking business, the
housing collapse would have never been. Imagine there is no Fanny or
Freddy or any government involvement. Do you suppose these banks would
have made those loans? After all, the people who bought those
securities had the blessing of the federal government approval rating.
As a home owner and landlord, I can't tell you the damage the federal
government has done. Even if they were successful by having the poor
and minorities in their own homes, what would we landlords do? We
couldn't get out of the business by selling our apartments. Who would
buy them? Nobody is renting anymore.
Anytime the federal government says "I'm here to help you." Run for the
hills.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 11, 2012, 10:57:32 AM2/11/12
to
> <678d844d-12d3-41b6-9078-47378acad...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
problem not occur until after the Clinton administration? Are you
asserting that the CRA mandated predatory lending practices, that it
wasn't the large banks acting on behalf of investment bankers?
> > > Ask yourself: why would any bank deliberately loan their own money to
> > > people who had no ability to repay those loans? Would you loan money to
> > > a family member or friend who never had a job? Of course not. And the
> > > reason banks did it is because they sold the loans off to other people
> > > mostly Fanny and Freddy.
Because these were not community banks but huge conglamorates
propelled by investment bankers demanding that they sell mortgages
that could be bundled into mortgage backed securities. Yes, it was
deliberate.
> > > Now ask yourself: what would have happened if banks only loaned out
> > > their money with no government involved?
>
> > Banks during that time were bundling up the loans as AAA securities
> > and selling them. They didn't have to worry about being around if they
> > weren't repaid. Outfits like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers went
> > bust because of the failure of the loans they purchased from the
> > lenders. And of course it is the failure of Lehman Brothers that was
> > the trigger of the busted market.
>
> Okay, the banks are pressured from the government to make these loans in
> effort to put the poor and minorities into their own homes. The bank
> makes out because they get the fees involved for processing the loan.
> Now what are they supposed to do with these bad loans? Eat them?
There was no such pressure. The large institutions that made the bad
loans were not CRA lenders.
> If the federal government stayed out of the banking business, the
> housing collapse would have never been. Imagine there is no Fanny or
> Freddy or any government involvement. Do you suppose these banks would
> have made those loans? After all, the people who bought those
> securities had the blessing of the federal government approval rating.
Yes, they would, and they did. And it had nothing to do with any
imaginary "government mandate." There was none. It was the investment
bankers who pushed loan officers to do it to meet the demand for
mortgage backed securities. Thanks to the government, true, but
government deregulation. It was because of government de-involvement.
> As a home owner and landlord, I can't tell you the damage the federal
> government has done. Even if they were successful by having the poor
> and minorities in their own homes, what would we landlords do? We
> couldn't get out of the business by selling our apartments. Who would
> buy them? Nobody is renting anymore.
No, rentals are up significantly because home ownership is down.
> Anytime the federal government says "I'm here to help you." Run for the
> hills.
Nonsence. You haven't proven any such thing. Case after case can be
cited to show where Federal govt has improved your life. But your
ideology prevents you from honestly admitting it.
> --
> Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
Compared to whom? GWB? Lol.
>
>
>
>
>
> eric <warth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 9:31 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <bc5697f4-7f36-4504-867d-199d20e32...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Jigme Dorje <jdorje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Not to mention all the people it killed when deregulation in the
> > > > > > airline
> > > > > > industry allowed a lot of smaller airlines to skip certain
> > > > > > inspections/repairs.
>
> > > > > > It boggles the mind that people are so against regulation. The last
> > > > > > recession should have been a wake up call - if you don't regulate
> > > > > > industry, greed will kill the economy and people.
>
> > > > > More like greed by the politicians than anything else. The housing
> > > > > crash is what happens when the federal government runs the banks.
>
> > > > They didn't. They deregulated them. Where have you been?
>
> > > Yes, they did deregulate them. It started back in the Carter years when
> > > he created CRA's. During the end of his administration, he created
> > > sub-prime loans which were the heart of the housing collapse. Before
> > > Clinton left office, he put a kid in charge of HUD who instituted 0%
> > > down mortgage loans not to mention little if any credit check.
Carter created them? Well, let's humor your assertion. Why did the
>
>
>
>
> eric <warth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 9:31 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <bc5697f4-7f36-4504-867d-199d20e32...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Jigme Dorje <jdorje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Not to mention all the people it killed when deregulation in the
> > > > > > airline
> > > > > > industry allowed a lot of smaller airlines to skip certain
> > > > > > inspections/repairs.
>
> > > > > > It boggles the mind that people are so against regulation. The last
> > > > > > recession should have been a wake up call - if you don't regulate
> > > > > > industry, greed will kill the economy and people.
>
> > > > > More like greed by the politicians than anything else. The housing
> > > > > crash is what happens when the federal government runs the banks.
>
> > > > They didn't. They deregulated them. Where have you been?
>
> > > Yes, they did deregulate them. It started back in the Carter years when
> > > he created CRA's. During the end of his administration, he created
> > > sub-prime loans which were the heart of the housing collapse. Before
> > > Clinton left office, he put a kid in charge of HUD who instituted 0%
> > > down mortgage loans not to mention little if any credit check.
problem not occur until after the Clinton administration? Are you
asserting that the CRA mandated predatory lending practices, that it
wasn't the large banks acting on behalf of investment bankers?
> > > Ask yourself: why would any bank deliberately loan their own money to
> > > people who had no ability to repay those loans? Would you loan money to
> > > a family member or friend who never had a job? Of course not. And the
> > > reason banks did it is because they sold the loans off to other people
> > > mostly Fanny and Freddy.
propelled by investment bankers demanding that they sell mortgages
that could be bundled into mortgage backed securities. Yes, it was
deliberate.
> > > Now ask yourself: what would have happened if banks only loaned out
> > > their money with no government involved?
>
> > Banks during that time were bundling up the loans as AAA securities
> > and selling them. They didn't have to worry about being around if they
> > weren't repaid. Outfits like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers went
> > bust because of the failure of the loans they purchased from the
> > lenders. And of course it is the failure of Lehman Brothers that was
> > the trigger of the busted market.
>
> Okay, the banks are pressured from the government to make these loans in
> effort to put the poor and minorities into their own homes. The bank
> makes out because they get the fees involved for processing the loan.
> Now what are they supposed to do with these bad loans? Eat them?
loans were not CRA lenders.
> If the federal government stayed out of the banking business, the
> housing collapse would have never been. Imagine there is no Fanny or
> Freddy or any government involvement. Do you suppose these banks would
> have made those loans? After all, the people who bought those
> securities had the blessing of the federal government approval rating.
imaginary "government mandate." There was none. It was the investment
bankers who pushed loan officers to do it to meet the demand for
mortgage backed securities. Thanks to the government, true, but
government deregulation. It was because of government de-involvement.
> As a home owner and landlord, I can't tell you the damage the federal
> government has done. Even if they were successful by having the poor
> and minorities in their own homes, what would we landlords do? We
> couldn't get out of the business by selling our apartments. Who would
> buy them? Nobody is renting anymore.
> Anytime the federal government says "I'm here to help you." Run for the
> hills.
cited to show where Federal govt has improved your life. But your
ideology prevents you from honestly admitting it.
> --
> Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
ray
Feb 11, 2012, 11:36:11 AM2/11/12
to
In article
<5b513adf-6a60-45b2...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
A report of F and F from 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid
-mortgage-lending.html
<5b513adf-6a60-45b2...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid
-mortgage-lending.html
mario in victoria
Feb 11, 2012, 11:46:28 AM2/11/12
to
"In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have
been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called
subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and
savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only
get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates
-- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than
conventional loans."
Which sort of means, "We want to lend money to shaky borrowers but we'd
like someone else to take the risk."
Now THAT's capitalism!
mario in victoria
--
only a moron didn't the sub-prime collapse coming
ray
Feb 11, 2012, 11:57:47 AM2/11/12
to
In article <GXwZq.4637$xH4...@newsfe19.iad>,
Of course they would. Wouldn't you like it if I told you to go to the
race track, bet on any horse you desire, and if you lose, I will refund
your lost money? The difference is that banks didn't have the say-so on
how F and F ran their business, government did.
race track, bet on any horse you desire, and if you lose, I will refund
your lost money? The difference is that banks didn't have the say-so on
how F and F ran their business, government did.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 11, 2012, 12:56:34 PM2/11/12
to
cherry picking. Don't stop there. Post the real facts and stats.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 11, 2012, 1:00:20 PM2/11/12
to
to the large institutions that caused the collapse. Facts and stats.
maxw...@my-deja.com
Feb 11, 2012, 1:40:08 PM2/11/12
to
On Feb 7, 11:39 am, "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Ronald Reagan was the
Was Ronny really a leftist? Or have you moved
to the right of Ronny?
http://front.moveon.org/the-one-reagan-quote-that-republicans-dont-talk-about/
And we don't care about your prostate.
best president EVER" <accoun...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Who here remembers the days when Ronald Reagan was president. Those
> were America's BEST DAYS ever. For those of you who don't remember or
> were not here, this is what it was like under President Reagan:
>
> * Taxes were at an ALL TIME LOW
> * Unemployment was at an ALL TIME LOW
> * Regulations DID NOT EXIST
> * No states supported Gay Marriage
> * Government was OUT OF OUR LIVES
>
> And you know what? The economy THRIVED! Now socialistic liberals are
> trying to do the OPPOSITE of the above, and are ruining this country.
Has the govt. changed or have your changed?
> Who here remembers the days when Ronald Reagan was president. Those
> were America's BEST DAYS ever. For those of you who don't remember or
> were not here, this is what it was like under President Reagan:
>
> * Taxes were at an ALL TIME LOW
> * Unemployment was at an ALL TIME LOW
> * Regulations DID NOT EXIST
> * No states supported Gay Marriage
> * Government was OUT OF OUR LIVES
>
> And you know what? The economy THRIVED! Now socialistic liberals are
> trying to do the OPPOSITE of the above, and are ruining this country.
Was Ronny really a leftist? Or have you moved
to the right of Ronny?
http://front.moveon.org/the-one-reagan-quote-that-republicans-dont-talk-about/
And we don't care about your prostate.
ray
Feb 11, 2012, 3:37:25 PM2/11/12
to
In article <jh6abp$pla$3...@dont-email.me>,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060
902626.html
Jigme Dorje <jigme.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> As a home owner and landlord, I can't tell you the damage the federal
> >>> government has done. Even if they were successful by having the poor
> >>> and minorities in their own homes, what would we landlords do? We
> >>> couldn't get out of the business by selling our apartments. Who would
> >>> buy them? Nobody is renting anymore.
> >>
> >> No, rentals are up significantly because home ownership is down.
> >>
> >>> Anytime the federal government says "I'm here to help you." Run for the
> >>> hills.
> >>
> >> Nonsence. You haven't proven any such thing. Case after case can be
> >> cited to show where Federal govt has improved your life. But your
> >> ideology prevents you from honestly admitting it.
> >
> > A report of F and F from 1999
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid
> > -mortgage-lending.html
>
> OK, now expand the context and try to make a case about how this relates
> to the large institutions that caused the collapse. Facts and stats.
A bit lengthy to carry on here, but here you go:
> >>> As a home owner and landlord, I can't tell you the damage the federal
> >>> government has done. Even if they were successful by having the poor
> >>> and minorities in their own homes, what would we landlords do? We
> >>> couldn't get out of the business by selling our apartments. Who would
> >>> buy them? Nobody is renting anymore.
> >>
> >> No, rentals are up significantly because home ownership is down.
> >>
> >>> Anytime the federal government says "I'm here to help you." Run for the
> >>> hills.
> >>
> >> Nonsence. You haven't proven any such thing. Case after case can be
> >> cited to show where Federal govt has improved your life. But your
> >> ideology prevents you from honestly admitting it.
> >
> > A report of F and F from 1999
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid
> > -mortgage-lending.html
>
> OK, now expand the context and try to make a case about how this relates
> to the large institutions that caused the collapse. Facts and stats.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060
902626.html
eric
Feb 11, 2012, 5:35:49 PM2/11/12
to
> <5b513adf-6a60-45b2-83fe-72d5b73f4...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to...
> -mortgage-lending.html
The problem with the Carter-Clinton scenarios you are proposing is
that the bulk of these loans didn't happen until 2006-2007 and were
not written nor guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie who do not resell
loans and thus their mistakes have no ability to impact other
institutions. For example in 2006 83 percent of subprime loans were
issued by banks and only 17% by GSEs. GSE loans were also less risky
and had a much lower default rate than the commercially issued
subprimes.
The impetus for the destruction of the economy was changing the
regulation of large investment banks to allow increased leverage to an
eye-popping 75:1 by the Bush administration in 2004. That relaxation
of banking standards allowed investment banks like Bear Stearns and
Lehman to leverage up providing the cash to purchase large tranches of
mortgage backed securities, the mortgages being provided by outfits
like Countrywide Finance who were all too willing to lend anything to
anybody breathing because they knew they could flip the mortgage so
they weren't going to be around to suffer from any bad loans.
http://itsmorethanmoney.blogspot.com/2008/10/its-230-pm-on-april-24-2004-do-you-know.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/28/business/20080928-SEC-multimedia/index.html#
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi140.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27sec.html?em
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?pagewanted=all
Remember the date April 28, 2004. That's where you will find the
smoking gun.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/02/the_sec_killed_wall_street_on.html
Here's the agenda of the SEC meeting from their very own web site:
http://www.sec.gov/news/openmeetings/agenda042804.htm
Note item 3.
Republicans candidates in their urge to find a Democratic witch to
burn have this dead wrong. Many within the Republican party realize
this.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-21/romney-gingrich-bid-to-pin-crisis-on-government-ignores-culprits
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/michigan-debate-fact-check/
> -mortgage-lending.html
The problem with the Carter-Clinton scenarios you are proposing is
that the bulk of these loans didn't happen until 2006-2007 and were
not written nor guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie who do not resell
loans and thus their mistakes have no ability to impact other
institutions. For example in 2006 83 percent of subprime loans were
issued by banks and only 17% by GSEs. GSE loans were also less risky
and had a much lower default rate than the commercially issued
subprimes.
The impetus for the destruction of the economy was changing the
regulation of large investment banks to allow increased leverage to an
eye-popping 75:1 by the Bush administration in 2004. That relaxation
of banking standards allowed investment banks like Bear Stearns and
Lehman to leverage up providing the cash to purchase large tranches of
mortgage backed securities, the mortgages being provided by outfits
like Countrywide Finance who were all too willing to lend anything to
anybody breathing because they knew they could flip the mortgage so
they weren't going to be around to suffer from any bad loans.
http://itsmorethanmoney.blogspot.com/2008/10/its-230-pm-on-april-24-2004-do-you-know.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/28/business/20080928-SEC-multimedia/index.html#
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi140.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27sec.html?em
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?pagewanted=all
Remember the date April 28, 2004. That's where you will find the
smoking gun.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/02/the_sec_killed_wall_street_on.html
Here's the agenda of the SEC meeting from their very own web site:
http://www.sec.gov/news/openmeetings/agenda042804.htm
Note item 3.
Republicans candidates in their urge to find a Democratic witch to
burn have this dead wrong. Many within the Republican party realize
this.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-21/romney-gingrich-bid-to-pin-crisis-on-government-ignores-culprits
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/michigan-debate-fact-check/
ray
Feb 11, 2012, 7:25:52 PM2/11/12
to
In article
<ca3b28de-0259-4d9c...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
I didn't read all your links, but the ones I did read seem to say the
same thing.
What you are attempting to do here is place blame on the end game
instead of the beginning. You can't pawn off bad securities unless you
have bad securities to begin with. Those bad mortgages came from banks
who used the government standards in which to process these loans.
There is nothing wrong with leverage unless what you are leveraging is
rotten eggs to start off with. Our commodities market is mostly
leverage where the people picking the good investments make a lot of
money and the people picking the bad investments lose a lot of money.
Leverage is not the culprit. Leverage is merely amplifying the
investment, return or loss.
Now, our government creates regulation on leveraging, and Wall Street is
hit with another batch of bad mortgages. What is Wall Street supposed
to do with them? This is not the solution to our problem. What is the
solution is to stop bad mortgages in the first place. If we do that,
then it doesn't matter what leverages Wall Street uses.
This is not to say one entity is to blame. They all are including Bush.
But the reason I respond here is because one or more people try to place
the blame entirely on Bush or the Republicans when in fact, this has
been going on for years.
In 1999, Clinton appointed a young guy to head HUD. He created the 0%
down on home purchases. Beyond that, it elevated to NINA which is a
criteria where the banks don't even check your employment or saving
status. That's where the real problem started.
Why did it take so long to flower? Because Clinton left a tech bubble
bust behind him. Nobody was purchasing houses and few were investing in
them. In 2001, 911 happened and that retarded financial growth for a
couple of years until Bush got the economy going again. After the US
economy spurred, the domino effect was a great world economy. People
started to use the new regulations to their advantage, and word spread
like wildfire.
<ca3b28de-0259-4d9c...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
same thing.
What you are attempting to do here is place blame on the end game
instead of the beginning. You can't pawn off bad securities unless you
have bad securities to begin with. Those bad mortgages came from banks
who used the government standards in which to process these loans.
There is nothing wrong with leverage unless what you are leveraging is
rotten eggs to start off with. Our commodities market is mostly
leverage where the people picking the good investments make a lot of
money and the people picking the bad investments lose a lot of money.
Leverage is not the culprit. Leverage is merely amplifying the
investment, return or loss.
Now, our government creates regulation on leveraging, and Wall Street is
hit with another batch of bad mortgages. What is Wall Street supposed
to do with them? This is not the solution to our problem. What is the
solution is to stop bad mortgages in the first place. If we do that,
then it doesn't matter what leverages Wall Street uses.
This is not to say one entity is to blame. They all are including Bush.
But the reason I respond here is because one or more people try to place
the blame entirely on Bush or the Republicans when in fact, this has
been going on for years.
In 1999, Clinton appointed a young guy to head HUD. He created the 0%
down on home purchases. Beyond that, it elevated to NINA which is a
criteria where the banks don't even check your employment or saving
status. That's where the real problem started.
Why did it take so long to flower? Because Clinton left a tech bubble
bust behind him. Nobody was purchasing houses and few were investing in
them. In 2001, 911 happened and that retarded financial growth for a
couple of years until Bush got the economy going again. After the US
economy spurred, the domino effect was a great world economy. People
started to use the new regulations to their advantage, and word spread
like wildfire.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 11, 2012, 8:20:58 PM2/11/12
to
They're bankrupt. They have no coherent issues to present, and, as you
can see on this group, they're desperate to create a decoy issue.
ray
Feb 11, 2012, 8:42:53 PM2/11/12
to
In article <jh7460$jtb$1...@dont-email.me>,
election is proof of that. Come summer, gasoline prices are expected to
hit $5.00 per gallon or more. This may not sit well with those who
monitored the Keystone events, especially those who are religious.
Jigme Dorje <jigme.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is one reason the Republican Party is facing election defeats.
> They're bankrupt. They have no coherent issues to present, and, as you
> can see on this group, they're desperate to create a decoy issue.
Who is facing election defeat? We are doing just fine. The last
> This is one reason the Republican Party is facing election defeats.
> They're bankrupt. They have no coherent issues to present, and, as you
> can see on this group, they're desperate to create a decoy issue.
election is proof of that. Come summer, gasoline prices are expected to
hit $5.00 per gallon or more. This may not sit well with those who
monitored the Keystone events, especially those who are religious.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 11, 2012, 9:23:09 PM2/11/12
to
On 2/11/2012 8:42 PM, ray wrote:
> In article<jh7460$jtb$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Jigme Dorje<jigme.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is one reason the Republican Party is facing election defeats.
>> They're bankrupt. They have no coherent issues to present, and, as you
>> can see on this group, they're desperate to create a decoy issue.
>
> Who is facing election defeat? We are doing just fine. The last
> election is proof of that. Come summer, gasoline prices are expected to
> hit $5.00 per gallon or more. This may not sit well with those who
> monitored the Keystone events, especially those who are religious.
>
The American public is fed up with Republican stupidity.
> In article<jh7460$jtb$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Jigme Dorje<jigme.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is one reason the Republican Party is facing election defeats.
>> They're bankrupt. They have no coherent issues to present, and, as you
>> can see on this group, they're desperate to create a decoy issue.
>
> Who is facing election defeat? We are doing just fine. The last
> election is proof of that. Come summer, gasoline prices are expected to
> hit $5.00 per gallon or more. This may not sit well with those who
> monitored the Keystone events, especially those who are religious.
>
They've even lowered themselves to attacking the first lady for
performing her ceremonial duties - an incredible double standard since
they never attacked Laura or Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan for it.
They've also railed against the president for taking vacation days, even
though he's taken half the number that Bush or Reagan did in their first
terms.
As far as the economy is concerned, they knew deep down that this was
Bush created, but they dishonestly mischaracterize the statistics to
suggest that it was Obama's doing - Bush's bailout, for instance. And
Bush demanded nothing back from the institutions he bailed out, whereas
Obama did not give carte blanche but set conditions. Yes, Obama is
"responsible" for 20% of the deficit increase, but to correct the
problems created by GWB.
The clown show panders to the lowest common denominator of the
Republican constituency, and even they are so sick of the negativity
that Republican turnout is expected to be low.
The primary front runners consist of one religious extremists and anti
science nutter, one dirty self aggrandizing egomaniac, and one ambitious
disingenuous chameleon who can't possibly believe his own lies.
And some fools are so beside themselves that there is a black moderate
in the White House that they are anxious to believe whatever lies the
corporate Republican propaganda machine comes up with. They're willing
to believe the mistruths that were circulated about the First Lady's
supposed underwear shopping spree (and to overlook Gingrich's actual
Tiffany sprees.) They're anxious to believe that there was something
nefarious about Solyndra - (it's been disproven) but afraid to examine
ExxonMobile and the financial sector's de facto control of the
Republican Party.
As Johnathan Swift wrote, "There are none so blind as they who will not
see."
ray
Feb 11, 2012, 10:06:44 PM2/11/12
to
In article <jh77qj$o6u$3...@dont-email.me>,
For one, can you tell me of one extravagant vacation that Bush or his
wife ever took? Two, his daughters were attacked on several occasions,
and they wanted nothing to do with their fathers position as President.
Hell, even David Letterman went to extremes to attack Sarah Palin's
kids.
What Americans realize is that the DumBama excuses don't work anymore.
To say that he had to spend 6 trillion dollars because of Bush just
doesn't wash. Neither do ATM machines, Japanese earthquakes, tsunamis,
the Arab Spring and the host of other excuses DumBama used to blame the
failed economy on anybody but himself.
Excuses are like assholes: everybody has one. As far as Newt's
financial affairs with his creditors go, he explained that by saying he
had a revolving account where he was not charged interest. Is that a
transgression of some sort? And do tell: what Solyndra fact was false?
The Bush administration refused to lend Solyndra one dime because of
their precarious financial situation. DumBama handed over money like
candy to trick or treaters. This is on top of the several "green"
companies that also failed.
Facts are facts, and you can't change them by blaming Bush. Never in
the history of our country were we downgraded from a three star credit
rating to a two star rating. Never in the history of our country have
we had so many people on food stamps. Never in the history of our
country have we had so many government dependents. Never in the history
of our country have we had so many people in poverty levels. Never in
the history of our country have we had extended unemployment in our
country meaning six months or more.
It's over three years now. Quit blaming Bush. No President in our
lifetime has ever blamed a former President for the countries ills this
deep into the game.
wife ever took? Two, his daughters were attacked on several occasions,
and they wanted nothing to do with their fathers position as President.
Hell, even David Letterman went to extremes to attack Sarah Palin's
kids.
What Americans realize is that the DumBama excuses don't work anymore.
To say that he had to spend 6 trillion dollars because of Bush just
doesn't wash. Neither do ATM machines, Japanese earthquakes, tsunamis,
the Arab Spring and the host of other excuses DumBama used to blame the
failed economy on anybody but himself.
Excuses are like assholes: everybody has one. As far as Newt's
financial affairs with his creditors go, he explained that by saying he
had a revolving account where he was not charged interest. Is that a
transgression of some sort? And do tell: what Solyndra fact was false?
The Bush administration refused to lend Solyndra one dime because of
their precarious financial situation. DumBama handed over money like
candy to trick or treaters. This is on top of the several "green"
companies that also failed.
Facts are facts, and you can't change them by blaming Bush. Never in
the history of our country were we downgraded from a three star credit
rating to a two star rating. Never in the history of our country have
we had so many people on food stamps. Never in the history of our
country have we had so many government dependents. Never in the history
of our country have we had so many people in poverty levels. Never in
the history of our country have we had extended unemployment in our
country meaning six months or more.
It's over three years now. Quit blaming Bush. No President in our
lifetime has ever blamed a former President for the countries ills this
deep into the game.
Alias
Feb 11, 2012, 10:15:47 PM2/11/12
to
created not just for the USA but the entire world. You're the one with
the excuses to blame what they did on the person who's trying to fix it.
--
Alias
eric
Feb 12, 2012, 10:41:03 AM2/12/12
to
> What you are attempting to do here is place blame on the end game
> instead of the beginning. You can't pawn off bad securities unless you
> have bad securities to begin with. Those bad mortgages came from banks
> who used the government standards in which to process these loans.
NINJA loans were never a government standard. The GSE loan default
> instead of the beginning. You can't pawn off bad securities unless you
> have bad securities to begin with. Those bad mortgages came from banks
> who used the government standards in which to process these loans.
rate is much lower than the default rates of loans issued by these
private banks.
> There is nothing wrong with leverage unless what you are leveraging is
> rotten eggs to start off with.
prices doesn't set off a crisis, something else will. Look at Europe,
why do you think they are terrified of a Greek default? It's because
many of their banks are too highly levered to withstand the capital
losses. It isn't the Greek economy, which is tiny, that is the
problem, it's because of excess leverage by the European banks which
are currently more leveraged than US banks. Greece is basically the
Kentucky of western Europe. Imagine how unstable you have to be if
problems in Kentucky threaten your entire economy.
> Our commodities market is mostly
> leverage where the people picking the good investments make a lot of
> money and the people picking the bad investments lose a lot of money.
> Leverage is not the culprit. Leverage is merely amplifying the
> investment, return or loss.
prevent over-leveraging. The exchanges watch this and jack up capital
requirements if it looks like things are getting overheated. Here's an
example of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange doing exactly that:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903791504576589221715678498.html
Unfortunately the frigtards at the SEC weren't as competent and just
let the banks do what they wanted.
> Now, our government creates regulation on leveraging, and Wall Street is
> hit with another batch of bad mortgages. What is Wall Street supposed
> to do with them? This is not the solution to our problem. What is the
> solution is to stop bad mortgages in the first place. If we do that,
> then it doesn't matter what leverages Wall Street uses.
them with the investment banks newly flush with cash that they wished
to invest. If the lenders didn't have a market for the loans it would
not have happened. Certainly the lenders didn't have the capital to
generate the loans for these mortgages.
If you create excess liquidity by allowing banks to lever up to 75:1
that money is going to go somewhere. If not mortgages it will go into
something else. And when the bubble that creates bursts the leveraged
bank is going to fail. Look at the bad mortgage issuance rates. They
exploded after 2004 because the money to make those loans was being
fed into the mortgage system by the increased capital flooding the
from these newly super-levered banks. Now here is a key point! If it
wasn't mortgages it would have been something else that got bubbled up
by that money. And the impact to the financial system would have been
the same.
> This is not to say one entity is to blame. They all are including Bush.
> But the reason I respond here is because one or more people try to place
> the blame entirely on Bush or the Republicans when in fact, this has
> been going on for years.
in a systemic problem with the US Government being overly influenced
by corporations. It's the same crap that caused SOPA. Unfortunately
the situation has gotten so bad with the 2010 Supreme Court decision
that applied the 14th amendment to corporate personhood that I think
the only solution is an amendment. And that is a damn hard thing to
get, for good reason.
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies.” - Thomas Jefferson
eric
Feb 12, 2012, 10:57:09 AM2/12/12
to
On Feb 11, 10:06 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
>For one, can you tell me of one extravagant vacation that Bush or his
>wife ever took? Two, his daughters were attacked on several occasions,
>and they wanted nothing to do with their fathers position as President.
>Hell, even David Letterman went to extremes to attack Sarah Palin's
>kids.
Bush Spent 5 Times More On Flights To Texas Than Obama‘s Christmas
>For one, can you tell me of one extravagant vacation that Bush or his
>wife ever took? Two, his daughters were attacked on several occasions,
>and they wanted nothing to do with their fathers position as President.
>Hell, even David Letterman went to extremes to attack Sarah Palin's
>kids.
Vacation Costs
by Jason Easley
Those who criticize the cost of Obama’s Christmas vacation don’t want
you to know that George W. Bush spent at least $20 million taxpayer
dollars just on flights to his ranch in Crawford.
The right wing has been outraged at the four million dollar plus price
tag for Obama’s family Christmas vacation, and they constantly hold
George W. Bush up as an example of how thrifty a president should be
when going on vacation.
The problem is that W. wasn’t thrifty. He was the most expensive
vacation president in US history. Not only did Bush spend more days on
vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more
often while on vacation than any other president.
During Bush’s two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged
from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to
go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800,
Media Matters calculated that each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers
$259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush’s ranch flights.
If cost of the flight was the only expense involved to taxpayers
Bush’s vacations would still seem rather economical, but there is
more, much more. Unlike the Obama’s $4 million Christmas vacation
price tag, which includes the cost of everything from transportation
to accommodations for the First Family, the White House staff, and the
White House press corps, Bush’s numbers only include the cost of
flying the president to Crawford. The cost of transporting and
accommodating staff, media, friends and family is not included in
Bush’s vacation numbers.
In response to growing criticism that the president was on vacation
too much, the Bush administration adopted the Rovian tactic of
scheduling, “work events,” while the president was in Crawford so that
they could claim that President Bush’s vacations were working
vacations. During his infamous pre-9/11 August vacation, the AP
reported that, “Using the ranch as a base, he will promote White House
initiatives in Rocky Mountain National Park, Denver, Albuquerque,
Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and San Antonio.”
Bush’s “working vacations” cost taxpayers a small fortune in travel
costs because President Bush and his staff would make day trips on Air
Force One all across the country in order to counter the criticism
that he was on vacation too often. For eight years, Bush essentially
used Air Force One as his personal vacation taxi service.
What was also not counted in Bush’s Air Force One mileage total were
the vacations where Bush flew to Crawford from Camp David such as the
following via Media Matters:
In a December 27, 2001, Fort Lauderdale (Fla.) Sun-Sentinel article
(accessed via Nexis), national correspondent Jeff Zeleny reported
“[a]fter spending Christmas at the Camp David presidential retreat in
Maryland, the president and first lady boarded Air Force One to travel
to their ranch near the village of Crawford.”
And on December 26, 2007, The Associated Press reported that Bush took
“Air Force One to fly from his Maryland mountaintop retreat to his
Texas ranch here to see in the new year.”
FactCheck.org was writing about the anonymous chain emails about
Obama’s travel costs and noted in July that the stories about Obama’s
travel expenses are, “part of continuing pattern of false and
misleading claims about the travels of the president and the first
lady,” and that Obama used Air Force One less in his first two years
in office than George W. Bush did.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/another-right-wing-slander-debunked-presidential-vacation-costs/question-2355535/
ray
Feb 12, 2012, 3:41:52 PM2/12/12
to
In article
<86be4d8e-62c2-4eaf...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
defaults, it's who they brought down with them:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204791104577110643650732030
.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
> > There is nothing wrong with leverage unless what you are leveraging is
> > rotten eggs to start off with.
>
> Leverage rates of 75:1 are always unstable. If the decline in housing
> prices doesn't set off a crisis, something else will. Look at Europe,
> why do you think they are terrified of a Greek default? It's because
> many of their banks are too highly levered to withstand the capital
> losses. It isn't the Greek economy, which is tiny, that is the
> problem, it's because of excess leverage by the European banks which
> are currently more leveraged than US banks. Greece is basically the
> Kentucky of western Europe. Imagine how unstable you have to be if
> problems in Kentucky threaten your entire economy.
That just goes right back to what I stated. Leverage has disastrous
results when you have garbage to work with. Leverage is not the
problem, it's what you are leveraging.
> > Our commodities market is mostly
> > leverage where the people picking the good investments make a lot of
> > money and the people picking the bad investments lose a lot of money.
> > Leverage is not the culprit. Leverage is merely amplifying the
> > investment, return or loss.
>
> Commodity market margin requirements are carefully controlled to
> prevent over-leveraging. The exchanges watch this and jack up capital
> requirements if it looks like things are getting overheated. Here's an
> example of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange doing exactly that:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903791504576589221715678498.html
>
> Unfortunately the frigtards at the SEC weren't as competent and just
> let the banks do what they wanted.
The commodities market is still a high-leverage investment. I traded
commodities. I know. You can lose your ass in less than an hour.
That's why there is so much oversight in commodities. In fact, when you
open an account, you have to sign paper after paper each with the
disclaimer how risky the market is. People have lost everything they
owned in one day. But you don't place restrictions on it.
> > Now, our government creates regulation on leveraging, and Wall Street is
> > hit with another batch of bad mortgages. What is Wall Street supposed
> > to do with them? This is not the solution to our problem. What is the
> > solution is to stop bad mortgages in the first place. If we do that,
> > then it doesn't matter what leverages Wall Street uses.
>
> The bad mortgages were created because the lenders had a market for
> them with the investment banks newly flush with cash that they wished
> to invest. If the lenders didn't have a market for the loans it would
> not have happened. Certainly the lenders didn't have the capital to
> generate the loans for these mortgages.
>
> If you create excess liquidity by allowing banks to lever up to 75:1
> that money is going to go somewhere. If not mortgages it will go into
> something else. And when the bubble that creates bursts the leveraged
> bank is going to fail. Look at the bad mortgage issuance rates. They
> exploded after 2004 because the money to make those loans was being
> fed into the mortgage system by the increased capital flooding the
> from these newly super-levered banks. Now here is a key point! If it
> wasn't mortgages it would have been something else that got bubbled up
> by that money. And the impact to the financial system would have been
> the same.
Mortgage backed securities were in high demand at the time. There were
not enough of them to satisfy hungry investors. Before the bubble, they
were considered one of the most reliable investments. So there was a
push to create more securities. That was part of the problem.
> > This is not to say one entity is to blame. They all are including Bush.
> > But the reason I respond here is because one or more people try to place
> > the blame entirely on Bush or the Republicans when in fact, this has
> > been going on for years.
>
> I don't place the blame entirely on Bush. This mistake has it's roots
> in a systemic problem with the US Government being overly influenced
> by corporations. It's the same crap that caused SOPA. Unfortunately
> the situation has gotten so bad with the 2010 Supreme Court decision
> that applied the 14th amendment to corporate personhood that I think
> the only solution is an amendment. And that is a damn hard thing to
> get, for good reason.
>
> ³I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
> liberties than standing armies.² - Thomas Jefferson
Then what are unions? What about the NRA? Are environmentalists
individuals or a voting base that has a movement?
If one cannot solicit for their interests because they are not an
individual, then one should not be taxed either. When you are taxed,
you deserve representation. It's the foundation of our country.
<86be4d8e-62c2-4eaf...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
eric <wart...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What you are attempting to do here is place blame on the end game
> > instead of the beginning. You can't pawn off bad securities unless you
> > have bad securities to begin with. Those bad mortgages came from banks
> > who used the government standards in which to process these loans.
>
> NINJA loans were never a government standard. The GSE loan default
> rate is much lower than the default rates of loans issued by these
> private banks.
And who provided that information? Yep, F and F. But along with their
> > What you are attempting to do here is place blame on the end game
> > instead of the beginning. You can't pawn off bad securities unless you
> > have bad securities to begin with. Those bad mortgages came from banks
> > who used the government standards in which to process these loans.
>
> NINJA loans were never a government standard. The GSE loan default
> rate is much lower than the default rates of loans issued by these
> private banks.
defaults, it's who they brought down with them:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204791104577110643650732030
.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
> > There is nothing wrong with leverage unless what you are leveraging is
> > rotten eggs to start off with.
>
> Leverage rates of 75:1 are always unstable. If the decline in housing
> prices doesn't set off a crisis, something else will. Look at Europe,
> why do you think they are terrified of a Greek default? It's because
> many of their banks are too highly levered to withstand the capital
> losses. It isn't the Greek economy, which is tiny, that is the
> problem, it's because of excess leverage by the European banks which
> are currently more leveraged than US banks. Greece is basically the
> Kentucky of western Europe. Imagine how unstable you have to be if
> problems in Kentucky threaten your entire economy.
results when you have garbage to work with. Leverage is not the
problem, it's what you are leveraging.
> > Our commodities market is mostly
> > leverage where the people picking the good investments make a lot of
> > money and the people picking the bad investments lose a lot of money.
> > Leverage is not the culprit. Leverage is merely amplifying the
> > investment, return or loss.
>
> Commodity market margin requirements are carefully controlled to
> prevent over-leveraging. The exchanges watch this and jack up capital
> requirements if it looks like things are getting overheated. Here's an
> example of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange doing exactly that:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903791504576589221715678498.html
>
> Unfortunately the frigtards at the SEC weren't as competent and just
> let the banks do what they wanted.
commodities. I know. You can lose your ass in less than an hour.
That's why there is so much oversight in commodities. In fact, when you
open an account, you have to sign paper after paper each with the
disclaimer how risky the market is. People have lost everything they
owned in one day. But you don't place restrictions on it.
> > Now, our government creates regulation on leveraging, and Wall Street is
> > hit with another batch of bad mortgages. What is Wall Street supposed
> > to do with them? This is not the solution to our problem. What is the
> > solution is to stop bad mortgages in the first place. If we do that,
> > then it doesn't matter what leverages Wall Street uses.
>
> The bad mortgages were created because the lenders had a market for
> them with the investment banks newly flush with cash that they wished
> to invest. If the lenders didn't have a market for the loans it would
> not have happened. Certainly the lenders didn't have the capital to
> generate the loans for these mortgages.
>
> If you create excess liquidity by allowing banks to lever up to 75:1
> that money is going to go somewhere. If not mortgages it will go into
> something else. And when the bubble that creates bursts the leveraged
> bank is going to fail. Look at the bad mortgage issuance rates. They
> exploded after 2004 because the money to make those loans was being
> fed into the mortgage system by the increased capital flooding the
> from these newly super-levered banks. Now here is a key point! If it
> wasn't mortgages it would have been something else that got bubbled up
> by that money. And the impact to the financial system would have been
> the same.
not enough of them to satisfy hungry investors. Before the bubble, they
were considered one of the most reliable investments. So there was a
push to create more securities. That was part of the problem.
> > This is not to say one entity is to blame. They all are including Bush.
> > But the reason I respond here is because one or more people try to place
> > the blame entirely on Bush or the Republicans when in fact, this has
> > been going on for years.
>
> I don't place the blame entirely on Bush. This mistake has it's roots
> in a systemic problem with the US Government being overly influenced
> by corporations. It's the same crap that caused SOPA. Unfortunately
> the situation has gotten so bad with the 2010 Supreme Court decision
> that applied the 14th amendment to corporate personhood that I think
> the only solution is an amendment. And that is a damn hard thing to
> get, for good reason.
>
> ³I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
> liberties than standing armies.² - Thomas Jefferson
individuals or a voting base that has a movement?
If one cannot solicit for their interests because they are not an
individual, then one should not be taxed either. When you are taxed,
you deserve representation. It's the foundation of our country.
eric
Feb 12, 2012, 4:40:14 PM2/12/12
to
> <86be4d8e-62c2-4eaf-90b9-81a1c0ba7...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> If one cannot solicit for their interests because they are not an
> individual, then one should not be taxed either. When you are taxed,
> you deserve representation. It's the foundation of our country.
I am not saying that corporate personhood should disappear completely.
The original reason for the idea corporate personhood was to give
corporations legal status so that they could be sued in court since
the formation of a corporation after all shields the owners from
liability. Without it there would be no accountability at all. Being
able to enter into contracts is another big reason for corporate
personhood. However corporate personhood has always had limits.
I believe the 2010 Supreme Court decision regarding the 14th amendment
clearly goes beyond reasonable limits and was a huge mistake.
If you go back and look at my posts I have stated that I don't think
corporations should be taxed many times. Corp taxes gets corporations
involved in the political process where they do not belong. Taxation
of corporate profits should happen when the profits are realized by
the owners of the corporation. And since this eliminates double
taxation it also eliminates the need to have preferential treatment of
dividends and corporate cap gains which leads to situations where
people like Buffet and Romney pay lower marginal tax rates than their
secretaries.
John Huntsman proposed the same thing in his tax plan. I think he is
on the right track.
> If one cannot solicit for their interests because they are not an
> individual, then one should not be taxed either. When you are taxed,
> you deserve representation. It's the foundation of our country.
The original reason for the idea corporate personhood was to give
corporations legal status so that they could be sued in court since
the formation of a corporation after all shields the owners from
liability. Without it there would be no accountability at all. Being
able to enter into contracts is another big reason for corporate
personhood. However corporate personhood has always had limits.
I believe the 2010 Supreme Court decision regarding the 14th amendment
clearly goes beyond reasonable limits and was a huge mistake.
If you go back and look at my posts I have stated that I don't think
corporations should be taxed many times. Corp taxes gets corporations
involved in the political process where they do not belong. Taxation
of corporate profits should happen when the profits are realized by
the owners of the corporation. And since this eliminates double
taxation it also eliminates the need to have preferential treatment of
dividends and corporate cap gains which leads to situations where
people like Buffet and Romney pay lower marginal tax rates than their
secretaries.
John Huntsman proposed the same thing in his tax plan. I think he is
on the right track.
eric
Feb 12, 2012, 4:50:50 PM2/12/12
to
> <86be4d8e-62c2-4eaf-90b9-81a1c0ba7...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> The commodities market is still a high-leverage investment. I traded
> commodities. I know. You can lose your ass in less than an hour.
> That's why there is so much oversight in commodities. In fact, when you
> open an account, you have to sign paper after paper each with the
> disclaimer how risky the market is. People have lost everything they
> owned in one day. But you don't place restrictions on it.
But there are restrictions. I showed you where the CME directly
reduced the allowed level of leverage to keep things from getting out
of control. They do this all the time.
This is exactly where the SEC failed.
> The commodities market is still a high-leverage investment. I traded
> commodities. I know. You can lose your ass in less than an hour.
> That's why there is so much oversight in commodities. In fact, when you
> open an account, you have to sign paper after paper each with the
> disclaimer how risky the market is. People have lost everything they
> owned in one day. But you don't place restrictions on it.
reduced the allowed level of leverage to keep things from getting out
of control. They do this all the time.
This is exactly where the SEC failed.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 12, 2012, 5:14:45 PM2/12/12
to
regulations over many years, that began with Republican activist
justices, specifically Lewis F. Powell, Jr. who introduced several
rulings to the effect that corporations are people, which paved the way
for the mess we have today.
His core principle was that people shouldn't get in the way of corporate
profit.
http://wonkette.com/452223/happy-40th-birthday-to-justice-lewis-f-powells-war-on-the-american-left
"Before he was appointed by Richard Nixon to the U.S. Supreme Court
Powell circulated his call for a business crusade not only to the
Chamber, but also to executives at corporations including General
Motors. The memo did not become available to the public until after
Powell’s confirmation to the Court, when it was leaked to Jack Anderson,
a syndicated columnist and investigative reporter, who cited it as
reason to doubt Powell's legal objectivity.
Soon thereafter, the Chamber’s board of directors formed a task force of
40 business executives (from U.S. Steel, GE, ABC, GM, CBS, 3M, Phillips
Petroleum, Amway and numerous other companies) to review Powell’s memo
and draft a list of specific proposals to “improve understanding of
business and the private enterprise system,” which the board adopted on
November 8, 1973.
, Powell’s Memo is widely credited for having helped catalyze a new
business activist movement, with numerous conservative family and
corporate foundations (e.g. Coors, Olin, Bradley, Scaife, Koch and
others) thereafter creating and sustaining powerful new voices to help
push the corporate agenda, including the Business Roundtable (1972), the
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC - 1973), Heritage Foundation
(1973), the Cato Institute (1977), the Manhattan Institute (1978),
Citizens for a Sound Economy (1984 - now Americans for Prosperity),
Accuracy in Academe (1985), and others.
The Powell memo essentially marks the beginning of the business
community’s multi-decade collective takeover of the most important
institutions of public opinion and democratic decision-making. At the
very least, it is the first place where this broad agenda was compiled
in one document."
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/the-lewis-powell-memo-corporate-blueprint-to-/blog/36466/
eric
Feb 12, 2012, 5:10:40 PM2/12/12
to
> <86be4d8e-62c2-4eaf-90b9-81a1c0ba7...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> .html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The thing you (and the WSJ) seem to fail to realize is that the GSEs
never resold their loans. So the insolvency of these organizations was
confined to them. While it ended up creating a nasty taxpayer
liability it did not spread causing the failure of hundreds of banks
the way MBS's did.
>
> eric <warth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What you are attempting to do here is place blame on the end game
> > > instead of the beginning. You can't pawn off bad securities unless you
> > > have bad securities to begin with. Those bad mortgages came from banks
> > > who used the government standards in which to process these loans.
>
> > NINJA loans were never a government standard. The GSE loan default
> > rate is much lower than the default rates of loans issued by these
> > private banks.
>
> And who provided that information? Yep, F and F. But along with their
> defaults, it's who they brought down with them:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020479110457711064365073...
> eric <warth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What you are attempting to do here is place blame on the end game
> > > instead of the beginning. You can't pawn off bad securities unless you
> > > have bad securities to begin with. Those bad mortgages came from banks
> > > who used the government standards in which to process these loans.
>
> > NINJA loans were never a government standard. The GSE loan default
> > rate is much lower than the default rates of loans issued by these
> > private banks.
>
> And who provided that information? Yep, F and F. But along with their
> defaults, it's who they brought down with them:
>
> .html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The thing you (and the WSJ) seem to fail to realize is that the GSEs
never resold their loans. So the insolvency of these organizations was
confined to them. While it ended up creating a nasty taxpayer
liability it did not spread causing the failure of hundreds of banks
the way MBS's did.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 12, 2012, 5:44:08 PM2/12/12
to
ray
Feb 12, 2012, 6:30:53 PM2/12/12
to
In article
<4a04613b-ac82-4d42...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
That's apples and oranges. When you have X amount of money, you don't
need income. These wealthy only pay on their investments which is taxed
at 12%. Capital gains is different than income because lower tax rates
inspire people with money to invest which aids in financial growth for
the country.
<4a04613b-ac82-4d42...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
need income. These wealthy only pay on their investments which is taxed
at 12%. Capital gains is different than income because lower tax rates
inspire people with money to invest which aids in financial growth for
the country.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 13, 2012, 12:42:06 PM2/13/12
to
domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury
official under President George H.W. Bush, and a senior fellow at the
Heritage Foundation in Washington.
In 2006, he published "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America
and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."
It doesn't matter what your background is, if you are objective and
intelligent enough, you can analyze the facts and reach an
intellectually honest conclusion.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 13, 2012, 12:45:52 PM2/13/12
to
"Anyone who has followed the crisis will understand that the real
economy of businesses and commodities is being upstaged by complicated
financial instruments known as derivatives. These are not money or
goods. They are investments in investments, bets about bets. Derivatives
created a booming global economy, but they also led to turbulent
markets, the credit crunch, the near collapse of the banking system and
the economic slump. And it was the Black-Scholes equation that opened up
the world of derivatives."
http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/science/2012/feb/12/black-scholes-equation-credit-crunch
eric
Feb 13, 2012, 3:22:29 PM2/13/12
to
> <4a04613b-ac82-4d42-a6a2-69bcbac2c...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Warren Buffett:
“I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see
anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in
1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate
on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential
taxes have never scared them off.”
What are wealthy people going to do other than invest their money?
They have far more than they need to satisfy their material needs.
“I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see
anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in
1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate
on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential
taxes have never scared them off.”
What are wealthy people going to do other than invest their money?
They have far more than they need to satisfy their material needs.
ray
Feb 13, 2012, 9:50:38 PM2/13/12
to
In article
<5c2b179e-f4f9-45ac...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
People who make money are obsessed with it. It doesn't matter if they
have ten million or ten billion. It's a game to them.
Warren Buffett is currently fighting with the IRS to escape taxes they
believe he owes. I think this has been going on for nearly a year now.
To think, he is the DumBama spokesman for increased taxes. If Buffett
was a younger man worth about two million dollars, do you really believe
that he would stand behind taxing the wealthy even more? I don't think
so.
Buffett makes his money on capital gains--not income. Therefore, he
pays little income tax which is why he is taxed at a less percentage
than his secretary.
<5c2b179e-f4f9-45ac...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
have ten million or ten billion. It's a game to them.
Warren Buffett is currently fighting with the IRS to escape taxes they
believe he owes. I think this has been going on for nearly a year now.
To think, he is the DumBama spokesman for increased taxes. If Buffett
was a younger man worth about two million dollars, do you really believe
that he would stand behind taxing the wealthy even more? I don't think
so.
Buffett makes his money on capital gains--not income. Therefore, he
pays little income tax which is why he is taxed at a less percentage
than his secretary.
0 new messages