And Now For The Down Sides by David Horowitz - Page 3




 
--
Boots
 
January 24th, 2009  
AeolusDallas
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
-----------------------------------------------------------

The answer is YES to both. YES, the economy is cyclical, and YES by effected by outside sources.

The economy is like a river, it has its ebbs and flows, sometimes it can run fast, sometimes it runs slow. BUT you can also effect river artificially as well. You can divert it, you can dam it, etc...

In terms of the economy think the same way. For example is if you give two HUGE tax cuts to Millionaires, then run up TRILLIONS of debt, then push vast deregulation so that every dishonest SOB can milk the system dry without scrutiny, you Import for more than you Export, you buy things on credit, and then get yourself involved in not one but 2 very expensive military conflicts, all of this is going to have a direct an immediate negative effect on the economy.

HokieMSG

I don't see the relation you are drawing between what Bush did as Office as POTUS and what Bill Clinton did with his charitable foundation that was setup after he was out of office.

Nor is their a conflict of interest AS LONG AS, The Clinton Organization doesnt accept any more foreign contributions while Hillary is Sec of State. Which they said they won't. The GOP in Congress looked specifically at this issue, asked Hillary about it and confirmed her with only 2 objections. I am sure Hillary hasnt gained much popularity in the GOP, but for them not to make a fuss was because their was nothing to this.
The current issues don't directly involve the national debt or giving tax breaks to the rich. The problems stem from the housing bubble bursting. That was brought on by the banks loaning money for houses to people who can't afford to pay them back. The policies that brought that on were put in place long before Bush was president.

Add to that the boomers cashing in their ira's and bingo no money left to loan anyone. Even if the housing bubble had not popped the economy would have tightened tremendously and probably tanked.

As to tax breaks, historically they increase investments and help buoy the economy. Even then though they don't break the cycle of the economy. They just moderate it a little.
January 25th, 2009  
mmarsh
 
 
AoelusDallas

Yes they do, because if you remember economy was on shaky ground to begin with as we suffered a first recession during end 2002-2003 for the reasons I mentioned above. The situation stabilized in 2004-2006 but it never recovered. The Housing bubble was the continuation of a downward spiral that had already started, but the situation was never very good to begin with. But the the housing bubble further illustrates my point, the economy CAN be effected by outside events.

I'll grant you that Bush wasn't fully responsible for the housing bubble burst, nor did he cause the economic slowdown. But he did make the situation alot worse than it might have been by the deregulation of the Financial industry (which oversaw mortgages) and by his enormous and wasteful spending in the earlier part of his administration. We are still paying the price for those horrible policies.

This is why the Democrats are adamant about repealing the 2001 and 2003 Bush Taxcuts. Not only did they plunge us deeper into a financial hole, and they didnt help the US economy a single iota. Supplyside economics (Reaganomics) does NOT work. Never has, never will.
January 26th, 2009  
HokieMSG
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Guy
Wow, is this ever a lot of bull. This is like saying if a guy gives me money so I can give it to a friend, and then murders someone, I'm going to stick up for him at a trial. Give Hillary more credit than that.

First off, the long-term effects of the Clinton administration were felt. The 90s was very prosperous, as was the early 2000s. Even 9/11 could not slow down the economy, which turned while Bush was in office, based on the deregulated puzzle pieces his Republican Congress set into place.

Why can't we just accept what's going on and try to work our way out of the sh*thole we're in.
Sorry, but I feel that our leadership should be held to a higher standard then the regular guy. The slightest impression of impropriety simply CANNOT be tolerated from our politicians (Dem OR Rep). BTW I also have issue with the Sec Treas. How can we trust a guy who "forgot" to pay his taxes to run the department that controls the IRS?

I also had trouble with a lot of Bush's appointments too. And Clintons, and Bush Seniors.

I don;t want to give the impression that I'm being partisan.
--
Boots
January 26th, 2009  
HokieMSG
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
-----------------------------------------------------------

The answer is YES to both. YES, the economy is cyclical, and YES by effected by outside sources.

The economy is like a river, it has its ebbs and flows, sometimes it can run fast, sometimes it runs slow. BUT you can also effect river artificially as well. You can divert it, you can dam it, etc...

In terms of the economy think the same way. For example is if you give two HUGE tax cuts to Millionaires, then run up TRILLIONS of debt, then push vast deregulation so that every dishonest SOB can milk the system dry without scrutiny, you Import for more than you Export, you buy things on credit, and then get yourself involved in not one but 2 very expensive military conflicts, all of this is going to have a direct an immediate negative effect on the economy.

HokieMSG

I don't see the relation you are drawing between what Bush did as Office as POTUS and what Bill Clinton did with his charitable foundation that was setup after he was out of office.

Nor is their a conflict of interest AS LONG AS, The Clinton Organization doesnt accept any more foreign contributions while Hillary is Sec of State. Which they said they won't. The GOP in Congress looked specifically at this issue, asked Hillary about it and confirmed her with only 2 objections. I am sure Hillary hasnt gained much popularity in the GOP, but for them not to make a fuss was because their was nothing to this.
I agree with you as long as they take no other donations (directly or indirectly) from foreign countries while she is sitting Sec State. If they wait and dump $2Billion into his foundation the day after she leaves office, I have no beef. I think that his foundation has been trying to do a lot of good and I would like to see that continue. I just don't want the appearance of confilict of interest.
January 26th, 2009  
HokieMSG
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
AoelusDallas

Yes they do, because if you remember economy was on shaky ground to begin with as we suffered a first recession during end 2002-2003 for the reasons I mentioned above. The situation stabilized in 2004-2006 but it never recovered. The Housing bubble was the continuation of a downward spiral that had already started, but the situation was never very good to begin with. But the the housing bubble further illustrates my point, the economy CAN be effected by outside events.

I'll grant you that Bush wasn't fully responsible for the housing bubble burst, nor did he cause the economic slowdown. But he did make the situation alot worse than it might have been by the deregulation of the Financial industry (which oversaw mortgages) and by his enormous and wasteful spending in the earlier part of his administration. We are still paying the price for those horrible policies.

This is why the Democrats are adamant about repealing the 2001 and 2003 Bush Taxcuts. Not only did they plunge us deeper into a financial hole, and they didnt help the US economy a single iota. Supplyside economics (Reaganomics) does NOT work. Never has, never will.
I'm curious about this deregulation of the financial industry you talk about. Can you cite references?

Since we are talking economics, what about the huge increase in the money supply, basic economics tells us that prices will increase unless something is done to reduce the money supply. That is what inflation is.
January 27th, 2009  
mmarsh
 
 
When we say deregulation we are not referring to what Bush did, but what he didn't do. What he didn't do was to closely supervise the banks, housing, mortgage, industries etc.

Everyone knows how lobbyists from the financial industry are ingrained in politics. One thing that Bush did was to nominate Henry Paulson the CEO of GOLDMAN SACHS as US. Treasury Secretary. That's akin like hiring Osama bin Laden to run Homeland Security.

The most notorious example was Bush not doing what he was supposed to be doing was in 2004. In April of that year the SEC (which reports directly to US DEPT of TRES, aka Paulson) ruled that investment banks may essentially determine their own net capital. The reason they did so was because they were demanding greater scrutiny to examine the banks books. But here's the catch, the SEC granted this obscene power to the banks, but they never actually audited their books.

It was literally a license to cheat.
January 27th, 2009  
HokieMSG
 
 
Yeah. Here is the issue as I see it with the Housing Market.

Quote:
On December 18, 2006, U.S. regulators filed 101 civil charges against chief executive Franklin Raines; chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard; and the former controller Leanne G. Spencer. The three are accused of manipulating Fannie Mae earnings to maximize their bonuses. The lawsuit sought to recoup more than $115 million in bonus payments, collectively accrued by the trio from 1998–2004, and about $100 million in penalties for their involvement in the accounting scandal.
Raines took over Fannie Mae under Clinton (1991) after working for the Clinton administration in the OMB.
J. Timothy Howard CFO of Fannie Mae 1990 - 2004
Leanne G. Spencer controller during the reign of Raines.

Also at issue is:

Quote:
In June 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that two former CEOs of Fannie Mae, James A. Johnson and Franklin Raines had received loans below market rate from Countrywide Financial. Fannie Mae was the biggest buyer of Countrywide's mortgages. [37]
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have strategically given contributions to lawmakers currently sitting on committees that primarily regulate their industry: The House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee. The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president.
Barney Frank has been a member of the House Financial Services Committee since 1991 (and is currently the chair). The HFSC is one of two government entities responsible for oversight over Fannie Mae. From 1991 to 1998, Barney Frank had a lover, Herb Moses, who was an executive at Fannie Mae. While at Fannie Mae, Moses helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs. Other lawmakers have called this a "clear conflict of interest."
This clear lack of oversight is disturbing on so many levels. The arrogance is mind numbing.

The above examples, along with pressure from the Clinton administration in 1999 to expand mortgage loads to low and moderate income borrowers only served to make the problem worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

Quote:
In 2003, the Bush administration recommended significant regulatory overhaul of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, the Democrats opposed that proposal, fearing that tighter regulation could sharply reduce financing for low-income housing, both low and high risk. Under immense lobbying pressure from Fannie Mae in association with Congressional Democrats led by Rep. Barney Frank, the Republican controlled Congress did not introduce any legislation aimed at bringing this proposal into law until 2005.
President Bush should have pressured congress more than he did to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Quote:
In 2000, due to a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.
Why were these rules dropped by congress in 2004 after being proposed in 2003 (Under President Bush)?

It is this type of political wrangling and subterfuge that only serves to increase the contempt that most Americans have for the Congress and Senate.