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

I totally agree, wholeheartedly

On 5/27/12, mg <mgkelson@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 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
>>
>> ...
>>
>> 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

--
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