Who damaged the economy?

Bush's tax cut law contrubuted to the debt piling up.

The tax cut law was proposed and carried out by former President Bush. It is proved being a failed policy. In Bush's eight years term, the national debt raised from 6 trillian to 12 trillian. His tax cut law contributes big in debt increasing. Yet, when Obama wanted to recover the tax rate on rich people, the law makers resisted. It proves they are now working for a little group of rich people not for the majority of Americans.

Here is a confession from Greenspan:


Greenspan admits he got it wrong over Bush's tax cuts
By Michael Gawenda, Herald Correspondent in Washington
March 17, 2005

The chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, has admitted he made a mistake in 2001 when he defended President George Bush's tax cuts, which led to the turnaround of a large budget surplus at the end of the Clinton presidency to a budget deficit this year of more than $US400 billion ($506 billion).

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Gr...-Bushs-tax-cuts/2005/03/16/1110913672670.html

Yet, when Obama proposed to cancel that tax cut law to save US from debt increasing, he is facing the opposition from the Republican.
 
Werbung:
Bush increased the national debt not only with his “Tax cut law”, but also with his two Mid-east wars. The war cost is another heavy burden to the US tax payers.

U.S. cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting
By Daniel Trotta
NEW YORK | Wed Jun 29, 2011
Reuters) - When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion (622 billion pounds) price tag for America's wars.

Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday.

The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (www.costsofwar.org)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/uk-usa-war-idUKTRE75S76R20110629
 
Something I wrote several years ago, a summary of the show "Saving our Economy" (found on Youtube) answers your question pretty completely.

-----------------------------------------

Sept. 23, 2008: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "The events leading us here began many years ago, starting with bad lending practices by banks and financial institutions, and by borrowers taking up mortgages they couldn't afford."

-----------------------------------------

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or "Fannie Mae") was created in 1938 during the Great Depression. to create a market for mortgages where they could be bought and sold.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress spun off Fannie Mae so that it would not show up in the Federal budget. But the Federal govt was always there, ready to bail out Fannie Mae if problems happened. This enables Fannie Mae to offer lower rates for the mortgages it bought, since it was not taking the risks that other banks and institutions had to. In 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") was formed, to create competition for Fannie Mae, since ordinary banks could NOT compete with the government-backed rates they offered.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It made sure banks were lending to people of all colors and income levels. But things quickly began going off the rails, as activist groups found a new weapon in the law: The could start suing lenders for discrimination if they didn't lend to enough minority families, regardless of the families' ability to pay the loans back as promised. Banks began making riskier and riskier loans for fear of having to fight expensive lawsuits.

Community groups began bullying the banks, especially one called the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now ("ACORN"). It hired several specialized lawyers, including a young man named Barack Obama, to teach its employees how to go to the homes of bank CEOs and senior officers, harassing and publicly embarrassing them while remaining within the limits of local law to avoid prosecution. At one point, ACORN brought a lawsuit against a thrift merger in Illinois, insisting that the lending institutions had not made as many loans to minorities as ACORN thought they should. The bank replied that such loans would be financially irresponsible, and would put ALL the bank's customers at unacceptable risk. ACORN prevailed in court, and banks began making more and more risky loans to home buyers who could have never qualified for those loans under ordinary circumstances.

In late 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the government ordered Fannie and Freddie to increase the numbers of these risky ("sub-prime") mortgages they were buying from banks and lending institutions across the country. They did, lowering their rates and buying more and more, until fully half their portfolios consisted of these risky sub-prime mortgages, combined and packaged in various ways.

The Bush administration raised red flags starting in April 2001. Their 2002 Budget Request declared that the size of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is "a potential problem" because financial trouble in either one of them "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets".

In 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie, was upgraded to a "Systemic Risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector".

As Fannie and Freddie continued to lower their rates and buy mortgages, lenders made more and more mortgages to buyers with questionable ability to pay, safe in the knowledge that they could immediately turn around and sell the mortgages to the government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie, thus avoiding any consequences if the loans were later defaulted. They were happy to make more and more such mortgages, collecting fees for each and selling the mortgages to F&F.

Countrywide Financial chairman Angelo Mazzillo literally started screaming at Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, when Gigot asked him about the wisdom of making so many loans to buyers unlikely to pay them back. Mazzillo insisted loudly that Gigot had no idea what he was talking about, did not understand the first thing about mortgage lending, etc., etc. He failed, however, to answer any of Gigot's questions in even the simplest terms or explain why they were "wrong".

In Fall 2003, the Bush Admin was pushing Congress hard to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise Fannie and Freddie, both Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.

At a Congressional hearing on Sept 10, 2003, John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury stated: "We need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's, and the safety and soundness of their financial activities."​
 
from "Saving our Economy" - continued

--------------------------------------------------------


At that same hearing, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D-MA) defended his practices with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis."

Frank said the Fed Govt should be encouraging F&F to do more to get low-income families into homes:
"The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up a possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury - which I do not see, I think we see entities which are fundamentally sound financially and can withstand some of the disaster scenarios - the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of 'affordable housing' ".

The top executives at F&F began cooking their books, exaggerating their sales in their quarterly reports, so that the company officials could claim they had met their companies' sales targets, and thus collect huge salary bonuses. They were finally caught in 2004. Several of them stepped down, but none was every punished, or even charged. One of them, Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae, later gave financial and housing advice to the campaign of Presidential contender Barack Obama.

At a House Financial Services Committee Hearing on Feb. 17, 2005, Alan Greenspan warned against one of the fundamental ideas of modern liberalism, the idea of putting all our eggs in one basket by concentrating financial activity into just a few big agencies in central government: "... Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."
He later added at another hearing on on April 6, 2005: "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) ignored any possibility the F&F might be in trouble at that hearing, and simply pointed to the advantages some people had gotten from the government's activities: "I think Fannie and Freddie ... are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world... if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they have done a very, very good job."
Schumer also complained, "Things are good in the housing market. Why are people entertaining radical change?"

On April 7, 2005, Treasury Secretary John Snow warned again: "These large portfolios, unchecked in their growth over the last decade or so, pose a real problem." The Senate Banking Committee adopted strong regulation that would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring these bad mortgages. All of the Republicans on the committee voted for it, and all the Democrats voted against it, and it passed out of the committee on a straight party-line vote. But Democrats then filibustered the bill on the Senate floor, preventing it from being brought to a vote.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was active in making campaign contributions to politicians, from money that ostensibly was for low-income mortgages. The top two recipients were:

Christopher Dodd (D-CT): $165,000
Barack Obama (D-IL): $126,000

The highest-receiving Republican was Bob Bennett (R-UT), who got $108,000. Further down the list was John McCain (R-AZ), who accepted $25,000.

On May 25, 2006 in the Senate, John McCain (R-AZ) sounded more warnings over the huge size and lack of discipline in the government companies, and sponsored a bill to regulate the companies more firmly: "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market... the GSEs need to be reformed without delay." McCain's bill was voted out of committee on a straight party-line vote: All Republicans voted for it, and all Democrats voted against. Democrats then announced they would filibuster the bill in the Senate, as they had the previous year's regulatory legislation. Republicans knew they did not have enough votes to achieve the 60% needed, and so never brought the bill to the Senate floor.

By the beginning of 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had bought up over $4 trillion in mortgages, roughly one-quarter of which was risky sub-prime mortgage paper. With interest rates rising, these rickety homeowners started defaulting on their loans. Only about 2% of them defaulted by January 2008, but the effect was disastrous. Banks began to get leery of lending money to each other, knowing that their fellow banks held substantial assets that might default and become worthless, thus making the banks unable to pay back their loans to each other.

Banks and lending institutions began collapsing or seeking emergency help: Countrywide Financial, Lehman Brothers, insurer AIG, Bear Stearns, IndyMac bank, etc. buckled to their knees as paralysis spread. The huge numbers of risky subprime mortgages, had become like a "poison pill" that choked the institutions that had swallowed them. The Fed finally took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the damage had long been done.

Congress appropriated nearly $1 trillion in emergency funds to loan to, or otherwise prop up, failing financial institutions. But none of the original legislation that had spurred decades of risky lending, has been repealed in all the "bailout" frenzy, and there are no bills pending to do so.
 
The bankers damaged the economy. They are crinminals who dress up their crime in incomprehensible rhetoric. Their speculation would be just as productive if it were done with a pin and a blindfold and they do not care about losses. Why? Because their profits are privatised and their losses are nationalised. They regularly seek Government bail out and this time they did it to the tune of a trillion dollars.
 
The bankers damaged the economy. They are crinminals who dress up their crime in incomprehensible rhetoric. Their speculation would be just as productive if it were done with a pin and a blindfold and they do not care about losses. Why? Because their profits are privatised and their losses are nationalised. They regularly seek Government bail out and this time they did it to the tune of a trillion dollars.
Exactly.

The government (i.e. Congress and the Courts) pushed the bankers to make loans to people who likely couldn't pay them back, by passing laws such as the CRA of 1997 and lawsuits punishing them for not fulfilling artificial quotas; and by setting up FNMA and Freddie Mac to buy up all those risky mortgages, thus shielding the banks from the direct risk of having the mortgages default (aka "bailing them out" or "nationalising their losses"). It was just a matter of time before the bubble burst and the people who couldn't pay their loans back, stopped making the payments... which happened in 2007-2009. And the whole thing came crashing down.

Looks like we are in agreement. :D
 
No we aren't

The bankers were not pushed ny Government to make the loans you describe. This is a myth

The really bad loans ie where you could buy a house or houses on very low income without having to pay a deposit, without having to pay any interest and without having to pay any capital because all of this just kept getting added to the principal was done by mortgage comapnies like HFC.

These were outside of the banking system and not subject to the same regulation and under no pressure from anyone but the crooks running them to make loans of any kind.

Where the bankers came in is here.

HFC and all of the others would make a 25 year loan of say a million dollars to someone earning $15,000 per annum. They would then show all of the profit for the entire 25 years in year one which is fraud as it allows for zero default.

This made these companies looks super profitable and the banks started buying them and trading them. Realising their mistake they then packaged them up with other offerings into CDOs (Collaterlised Debt Obligations) and worked with Moody and S&P to fraudulently rate them as triple A. When Moody's was asked why they did it they responded that if they hadn't the customer would have gone to S&P.

These indecipherable packages were then sold on to other banks especially European investment baks such as Deutsche Bank, UBS and RBS.

And the only things that needed to happen to make this entire house of cards fall down was either a halt to the rise of house prices (inevitable) and or an 8% deafult rate on the loans (inevitable).

Once both of these happened the domino effect was enormous.

That is what happened. Mortgage companies and bankers actively working to defraud the economy of a trillion dollars.

No Government anywhere in the world made anyne do this.
 
No we aren't

The bankers were not pushed ny Government to make the loans you describe. This is a myth

I documented exactly that happening, earlier in this thread. Twice, actually. Did you have anything to refute it?

The really bad loans ie where you could buy a house or houses on very low income without having to pay a deposit, without having to pay any interest and without having to pay any capital because all of this just kept getting added to the principal was done by mortgage comapnies like HFC.
Can you cite even one example of such a loan being made during the period in question?

It is true that lots of criminaltiy poured in the door once the basic criminaltiy started. Even if it hadn't, the basic criminality (government pressuring banks into making excessively risky loans and punishing the ones that didn't via court lawsuits over quotas) would still be there, and in fact accounted for most of the lost money that caused the current recession.
 
HFC amongst many othe rfirms made tens of thousands of them. (HFC was bought by HSBC and promptly collapsed)

They are called sub prime mortages.

You may have heard of the sub prime mortgage collapse

Unless you are living in a state of sheer ignorance.

And you have no idea what really happened have you? You are sooo desperate for it to be the Government's fault that you won't let the facts get in the way.
 
HFC amongst many othe rfirms made tens of thousands of them. (HFC was bought by HSBC and promptly collapsed)

They are called sub prime mortages.

(the usual lies, insults and namecalling deleted)
So we do agree after all.

One hopes government finally quits trying to "help" us and gets out of the way, so that prices can come back down to where they belong.
 
HFC amongst many othe rfirms made tens of thousands of them. (HFC was bought by HSBC and promptly collapsed)

They are called sub prime mortages.

You may have heard of the sub prime mortgage collapse

Unless you are living in a state of sheer ignorance.

And you have no idea what really happened have you? You are sooo desperate for it to be the Government's fault that you won't let the facts get in the way.

you said

The really bad loans ie where you could b mis statements uy a house or houses on very low income without having to pay a deposit, without having to pay any interest and without having to pay any capital because all of this just kept getting added to the principal was done by mortgage comapnies like HFC.


L-A asked for an example and I'd like to see one too because these would certainly n ot be sub-prime. the prime in that does not refer to prime rate but rather the quality of the borrower. perhaps what you meant was interest only loans. might want to dial back the snark as you are making more than a few mistakes yourself (deposit is down payment, capital would be interest for example). besides management has requested it.
 
Exactly, and the loans were to people on tiny incomes for huge sums of money made viable by the fact that tehre was no repayment required.

The whole thing was predicated on an ever appreciating housing market.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top