Re: Here are some facts about the debt and the deficit and Bush and Obama

I follow the financial channels pretty regularly and the consensus
seems to be that the Chinese aren't as dumb as we are and aren't
likely to have a banking crash anything like the one we had. I do
think, though, that their current GDP growth of around 9% or 10% will
probably fall in the near future to about 6%. When that happens, I
suspect that all of those doomsdayers who have been loading up on gold
and commodities are going to lose a lot of money.


On May 28, 12:14 pm, jgg1000a <jgg1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> mg
>
> read up on the coming bank bubble in China....
>
> On May 27, 2:05 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Everyone hated George Bush's program of bailing out the banks, but
> > perhaps for different reasons. In my case, I opposed it because they
> > didn't seize the banks, fire some of the executives and put some of
> > them in jail and seize their toxic assets because a lot of them had
> > undoubtedly been obtained illegally.
>
> > On May 27, 9:20 am, EARL DOYLE <lesjul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "I never really objected too much to Bush's TARP program......."
>
> > > -----
>
> > > "Further, an overwhelming majority
> > > saw the program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used
> > > to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the
> > > future."
>
> > > MG remember they were going to us TARP money to pay bonuses to
> > > executives of A.I.G.
>
> > > On 5/27/12, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I never really objected too much to Bush's TARP program based on the
> > > > money spent since I always assumed that most of it would probably be
> > > > paid back. Then too, the amount pales in comparison to the amount put
> > > > up by the Federal Reserve. I've always vehemently opposed the bailout
> > > > on the basis of moral hazard, though. I would have preferred to see
> > > > the banks shut down and taken over by the federal government and the
> > > > toxic "assets" seized in the same way that the police seize stolen
> > > > property from pawn shops. In addition, I would have liked to have seen
> > > > as many criminal prosecutions as possible, and I'm not even sure if we
> > > > have had any of those so far with high-level executives.
>
> > > > On May 27, 8:51 am, EARL DOYLE <lesjul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Controversies
>
> > > >> See also: AIG bonus payments controversy, Indiana State Police Pension
> > > >> Trust v. Chrysler, and National City acquisition by PNC
> > > >> The effects of the TARP have been widely debated in large part because
> > > >> the purpose of the fund is not easily understood. For example, a
> > > >> review of investor presentations and conference calls by executives of
> > > >> some two dozen US-based banks by The New York Times found that "few
> > > >> [banks] cited lending as a priority. Further, an overwhelming majority
> > > >> saw the program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used
> > > >> to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the
> > > >> future."[67] The article cited several bank chairmen as stating that
> > > >> they viewed the money as available for strategic acquisitions in the
> > > >> future rather than to increase lending to the private sector, whose
> > > >> ability to pay back the loans was suspect. PlainsCapital chairman Alan
> > > >> B. White saw the Bush administration's cash infusion as a "opportunity
> > > >> capital", noting, "They didn't tell me I had to do anything particular
> > > >> with it."
>
> > > >> Moreover, while TARP funds have been provided to bank holding
> > > >> companies, those holding companies have only used a fraction of such
> > > >> funds to recapitalize their bank subsidiaries.[68]
>
> > > >> Many analysts speculated TARP funds could be used by stronger banks to
> > > >> buy weaker ones.[69] On October 24, 2008, PNC Financial Services
> > > >> received $7.7 billion in TARP funds, then only hours later agreed to
> > > >> buy National City Corp. for $5.58 billion, an amount that was
> > > >> considered a bargain.[70] Despite ongoing speculation that more TARP
> > > >> funds could be used by large-but-weak banks to gobble up small banks,
> > > >> as of October 2009, no further such takeover had occurred.
>
> > > >> The Senate Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the TARP
> > > >> concluded on January 9, 2009: "In particular, the Panel sees no
> > > >> evidence that the U.S. Treasury has used TARP funds to support the
> > > >> housing market by avoiding preventable foreclosures". The panel also
> > > >> concluded that "Although half the money has not yet been received by
> > > >> the banks, hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the
> > > >> marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending."[71]
>
> > > >> Government officials overseeing the bailout have acknowledged
> > > >> difficulties in tracking the money and in measuring the bailout's
> > > >> effectiveness.[72]
>
> > > >> During 2008, companies that received $295 billion in bailout money had
> > > >> spent $114 million on lobbying and campaign contributions.[73] Banks
> > > >> that received bailout money had compensated their top executives
> > > >> nearly $1.6 billion in 2007, including salaries, cash bonuses, stock
> > > >> options, and benefits including personal use of company jets and
> > > >> chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships, and professional
> > > >> money management.[74] The Obama administration has promised to set a
> > > >> $500,000 cap on executive pay at companies that receive bailout
> > > >> money,[75] directing banks to tie risk taken to workers' reward by
> > > >> paying anything further in deferred stock.[76] Graef Crystal, a former
> > > >> compensation consultant and author of "The Crystal Report on Executive
> > > >> Compensation," claimed that the limits on executive pay were "a joke"
> > > >> and that "they're just allowing companies to defer compensation."[77]
>
> > > >> In November 2011, a report showed that the sum of the government's
> > > >> guarantees increased to $7.77 trillion; however, loans to banks were
> > > >> only a small fraction of that amount.[78]
>
> > > >> On 5/27/12, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > It's true that NAFTA was a Bush initiative. George H. W. Bush signed
> > > >> > the agreement in San Antonio, Texas on Dec 17, 1992 and he worked to
> > > >> > fast track congressional approval before the end of his term, but ran
> > > >> > out of time. When Clinton took office, he signed it, but he made some
> > > >> > changes to protect American workers and to require US partners adhere
> > > >> > to environmental practices and regulations similar to our own. TARP
> > > >> > was a Bush initiative that was signed by Bush. Bush also passed a
> > > >> > number of stimulus packages, including the Economic Stimulus Act of
> > > >> > 2008.
>
> > > >> > Having said that, I never was all that happy with Bill Clinton. In
> > > >> > some ways I've always thought he was a Republican in disguise. One
> > > >> > does have to give him credit, though, for balancing the budget. When
> > > >> > he left office the budget was balanced and when Bush left office, he
> > > >> > left a huge debt and deficit after cutting taxes and not paying for
> > > >> > them and starting two wars and not paying for them and creating the
> > > >> > drug welfare program for the pharmaceutical companies and not paying
> > > >> > for it and leaving the American people with the worst economic
> > > >> > collapse since the Great Depression.
>
> > > >> > On May 26, 3:02 pm, lynn...@aol.com wrote:
> > > >> >> Lew evidently has some memory problems...TARP and the early stimulus
> > > >> >> packages were BUSH initiatives, just a NAFTA belonged to his daddy. L
>
> > > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> >> From: mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
> > > >> >> To: Open Debate Political Forum IMHO
> > > >> >> <opendebateforum@googlegroups.com>
> > > >> >> Sent: Sat, May 26, 2012 11:34 am
> > > >> >> Subject: Re: Here are some facts about the debt and the deficit and
> > > >> >> Bush
> > > >> >> and Obama
>
> > > >> >> As I said in my original post, most economists agree that the one-time
> > > >> >> spending for the stimulus
> > > >> >> was necessary and
> > > >> >> beneficial.http://www.advisorone.com/2012/02/17/the-stimulus-three-years-on-did-...
>
> > > >> >> In addition, the consensus among nonideological economists is that the
> > > >> >> measures taken by Obama and the Federal Reserve prevented the
> > > >> >> recession from becoming worse or even turning into a second Great
> > > >> >> Depression.http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/fact-check-romney-on-th...
>
> > > >> >> On May 26, 5:08 am, lew <lewc...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> > Bush is not running for president.
>
> > > >> >> > Obama solved nothing and the country became worse under Obama.
>
> > > >> >> > TIME FOR A CHANGE !
>
> > > >> >> > On May 26, 3:47 am, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> > > The costs ballooned before Obama took office. As I said, the CBO
> > > >> >> > > estimated that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 (10/1/2008 -
> > > >> >> > > 9/30/2009) would be $1.2 trillion before Obama was even sworn in
> > > >> >> > > as
> > > >> >> > > president.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/27/barack...
>
> > > >> >> > > If you look at the graph at the following website, you can see
> > > >> >> > > exactly
> > > >> >> > > what caused the $1.2 trillion deficit in 2009 and subsequent
> > > >> >> > > years.
> > > >> >> > > Note that for 2009 a lot of it was because of the economic crash
> > > >> >> > > and
> > > >> >> > > the TARP bailout. Here's a quote from the referenced article:
>
> > > >> >> > > "The recession battered the budget, driving down tax revenues and
> > > >> >> > > swelling outlays for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and
> > > >> >> > > other
> > > >> >> > > safety-net programs.[3] Using CBO's August 2008 projections as a
> > > >> >> > > benchmark, we calculate that the changed economic outlook alone
> > > >> >> > > accounts for over $400 billion of the deficit each year in 2009
> > > >> >> > > through 2011 and slightly smaller amounts in subsequent years.
> > > >> >> > > Those
> > > >> >> > > effects persist; even in 2018, the deterioration in the economy
> > > >> >> > > since
> > > >> >> > > the summer of 2008 will account for over $300 billion in added
> > > >> >> > > deficits, much of it in the form of additional debt-service
> > > >> >> > > costs."
>
> > > >> >> > >http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490
>
> > > >> >> > > On
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en