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

"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 <mgkelson@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 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
>>
>> ...
>>
>> 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