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

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 <mgkelson@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 May 25, 8:39 am, lew <lewc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Bush never signed a 2009 budget. Just Obama has never signed a
>> > > > 2010,
>> > > > 2011, 2012 nor 2013 budget.
>>
>> > > > Why is Obama over-spending income by $1.5 trillion dollars while
>> > > > Bush
>> > > > never over spent income by more than $600 Bilion dollars with the
>> > > > exact same wars? Bush was fighting those wars for 5 and 6 years.
>> > > > Al
>> > > > the sudden the costs balloned when Obama shows up?
>>
>> > > > On May 25, 10:15 am, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > The cost of the wars will continue to add up long after they are
>> > > > > over.
>> > > > > By one estimate the total cost will be $4
>> > > > > trillion.http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/much-wars-cost-report-says-4-tril...
>>
>> > > > > The budget for Oct 2008 to Sept. 2009 began as a spending request
>> > > > > by
>> > > > > Bush, who had been in office 8 years, and was signed by Obama on
>> > > > > Mar
>> > > > > 12, 2009, which was about 50 days after he took office. If
>> > > > > someone
>> > > > > plants a time bomb, he doesn't have to sign it to make it go off.
>>
>> > > > > It's very true that Obama has failed to end the war that Bush
>> > > > > started.
>> > > > > However, it's also true that it's easier to start a war than it is
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > end it.
>>
>> > > > > Obama hasn't spent very much money that I know of except for the
>> > > > > stimulus and except for continuing the policies that were in
>> > > > > place
>> > > > > when he took office. In fact, when you think about it, what
>> > > > > significant amounts of money has he spent, except for the
>> > > > > stimulus
>> > > > > money and what money did George Bush spent and what did he spend
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > on?
>>
>> > > > > On May 25, 6:55 am, lew <lewc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > How did Iraq explin so much deficit?
>>
>> > > > > > The Itraq War only cost about $1 trillionfrom beginning to end.
>> > > > > > - Same
>> > > > > > as the Styimulus that went to the unions.
>>
>> > > > > > Afhanistan is "Obama's War." The War we need to fight in
>> > > > > > Obama's
>> > > > > > words.
>>
>> > > > > > P.S.: Bush never signed a budget for 2009. All the spending in
>> > > > > > 2009
>> > > > > > is Obama'spending. Obama has been over spending his income by
>> > > > > > about
>> > > > > > $1,5 trillion each year. The most Bush ever over spent his
>> > > > > > income is
>> > > > > > about $400 Billion. - About 2 1/2 timnes the Bush rate of
>> > > > > > overspending. in Bush's worst year.
>>
>> > > > > > On May 25, 8:44 am, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > In doing a little bit of research, I came up with the
>> > > > > > > following
>> > > > > > > information which appears to be completely accurate:
>>
>> > > > > > > 1. Before Obama was even sworn in as president, the CBO
>> > > > > > > estimated
>> that
>> > > > > > > the deficit for for fiscal year 2009 (10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009)
>> > > > > > > would
>> be
>> > > > > > > $1.2
>> > > > > > > trillion.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/27/barack...
>>
>> > > > > > > 2. Only a relatively small amount of the stimulus money was
>> > > > > > > spent in
>> > > > > > > fiscal year 2009. The stimulus didn't really begin to ramp up
>> > > > > > > until
>> Q1
>> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > 2010.http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/03/will-the-stimulus-come-too-late/
>>
>> > > > > > > 3. 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-...
>>
>> > > > > > > 4. The growth in government spending under President Obama has
>> > > > > > > been
>> > > > > > > slower than during the Bush and Reagan administrations.
>> > > > > > > Federal
>> > > > > > > spending is lower now than it was when Obama took office. The
>> > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > > called Obama spending binge never
>> > > > > > > happened.http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/19/446990/obama-bush-reagan-......
>>
>> > > > > > > 5. "The economic downturn, President Bush's tax cuts and the
>> > > > > > > wars in
>> > > > > > > Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > next ten years (see Figure
>> > > > > > > 1)."http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> athttp://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>
> --
> 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

--
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