Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
here is one of those liberal slants. now is a good time for the country to borrow money since interest rates are low.
That would be true if we were not bankrupt, (we are), and the government was spending it on things that work, (they aren't) and if the government was an efficient money manager (it isn't).
Mike we are just here to try to correct the liberal slant. Sorry if it steps on your toes.
Sorry but typing on this iPad takes some getting used to...My fat fingers make the screen smaller or larger and to spell check I have to put my finger over the word to replace.
I will try to do better ;_0
lol, on a lighter note, scared cows.
I know what you meant but that typo cracked me up.
LegionRemember the Obama administration put war funding back in the budget...(although one has not been passed) but they are acting as though it did.....All this will be very small because I will be very interested in how the GOP & Dems will take the newly created recommendations from the deficit cutting commissions..Will new taxes entitlement and defense cuts be considered by the many new republicans in office after November?....It will time to get serious and put away all the scared cows.
It is not a talking point or inherited but an actual funding.....defense spending is very much equal to domestic funding.I was not referring to a hand off of wars.....I just meant the unemployment do not care about small deficits when they are not considered for war..TODAY.
Legion357In the second paragraph of this blog I said the $787 billion stimulus amounted to $882 billion because of unemployment extentions and other fixes...The remaining funds are targeted for projects the dems want to see through.
Now,the newly created deficit hawks (after Jan of 2009)want to cut off all spending....People like me believe the first stimulus was way too small for the recession we are in but realize we were going to have to make due....Short answer stimulus III=extending unemployment benefits for now because it will end after 99 months for all,anyway.
I am trying to cram every reason from both sides that I have heard...I hope it makes some sence.
No one is saying extending benefits is a bad thing, it is the funding being discussed.
Of course you can always fall back on the costs of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. Truman inherited FDRs war, Eisenhower inherited Trumans war, with some debate, it could be said that Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon inherited Eisenhowers war. Reagan inherited Carters Iranian hostage situation.
H.W. Bush stopped short, Clinton only had to police the no fly zones in the first gulf war, and Obama inherited G.W. bush s wars.
Nothing new, using a war as a talking point.
Ok, but if extending benefits will add so little to the deficit and is actually a stimulus, then why did the democratic senate leadership protest when all the Rep. asked was for one half ($17B) of the bill be paid out of stimulus funds, after all it is a stimulus.
Mitch McConnell asked for the Senate's consent to pass a two-month extension of unemployment benefits that would be paid for with unspent stimulus funds. And Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid, objected.
Legion357Read my earlier comment @ 1:36 PM where I explained why the Dems did not want to go this route.....In part it is political games but it has always been passed as abipartisian basis..Bush passed some unemployment bills.
Legion357Unemployment benefits would only add very,very little to the short term deficit;it is actually stimulus since most of the funds are returned as revenues at a gain of 34 cents for every dollar...That is not a place to draw a line in the sand,besides the same John Kyl said "tax cuts" do not have to be paid for....The Dems got their 59 votes and will probably pass it...Hope this answers your question but politics is not a literal game...Some could say that the Dems would love to have this issue over the heads of the GOP..I can't imagine the unemployed are worried about "Pay Go" over the small amount they are talking amount and then watch congress dole billions for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mike? Just a bit of clarification if you will.
Observer commented..."..the GOP does not want to extend unemployment benefits...? Really? Unless every news source that reported on it is lying to us, the GOP merely wanted the Democrats to obey their own pay/go rules and identify the cuts that would be made in order that an extension of unemployment benefits not add to the national debt."
Your response... (The part that pertains to Observers comment anyway)...."The GOP wanted the Dems to get the funds from the remaining stimulus,thereby killing any hopes of recovery" and you will search for more quotes.
Either you agree with Observer or you mean that the Dem.s did not want to use the rest of the stimulus funds to fund a un-employment extension..... but did not identify cuts in other programs to fund the bill.
Or could it be because of, as Senate candidate Carly Fiorina said Thursday,
"Why can't we put forward a bill that does nothing but extend unemployment benefits? Why do we put all these other things on top of it so we have a deficit busting, yet again, another deficit busting bill."
jbjWhy don't you take me up on my novel idea..Fill the void of a poster who put up a daily anti-Obama blog...You can title one "Fanny & Freddie for Dummies:A right wing view.
Then you can write a blog everyday describing how great you and your party are ,to hearts content and I would hope you would take some of these posters with you...You can call the blog " The daily gloom & doom and then have a countdown clock when the chosen party retains power and Obama is out of office.....Don't worry I won't read or become a nuisance;I won't try to change the topic to what I want to talk about....lol
Seriously,there is a void because I seem to get all the discontented ones;wanting to change the topic ,so they can get their distorted message out..It's a win win...At least think about it...:-)
Have a good week end
rollinstone, so much in the works that gets uncovered as we go. I love transparency, don't you? I wish they would use a little.
RE: readersThis the current politics of unemployment benefits.
Senator Olympia Snowe did not want to buck her party leadership (in case GOP wins back senate..Committee chair) so she said she would vote for a stand-alone bill...The Dems do not want a stand alone bill because then the GOP would "Clay Pigeon" (delay with amendments) the energy bill & a response to the "Citizens United ' decesion by SCOTUS....Dems got the 59th vote Friday so unemplyment benefits will pass but 3 million went with for two weeks for nothing but politcs.
AM radio,Fox News & right wing blogs will not cover "the inside baseball of politics"...Go to Congessional Reports,The Hill, CSPAN or other scources.
jbj, you are correct Fannie Mae is a relic left over from FDR's administration. Fannie Mae is a Government Sponsored Entity (GSE) that had an implicit federal guarantee but not an actual one. It was implied up to the point the Chinese said WTH about their triple A investments in Fannie securities.
But there are more of these GSE relics laying around, one of them is the Export Import Bank. This bank makes government guaranteed loans to help US businesses. It has done very little in the past and therefore not much harm - little good but no real harm.
But I think that is about to change. Apparently this little plum has caught the eye of the administration. Remember the state of the union speech where Obama said he want to double our exports? Well, get ready to bail out the Ex Im Bank.
This is who pays "Unemployment Compensation" (UC)
"State UC tax rates vary from state-to-state. State UC taxes may be used only to pay benefits to unemployed workers. The state UC tax rate paid by employers is based on the state's current unemployment rate. As their unemployment rates go up, the states are required by federal law to raise the UC tax rate paid by employers."
So the very businesses struggling to get by get taxed more - what a great idea. I read that extending UC actually extends unemployment because it raises the marginal cost of someone looking for a job.
An unemployed person will not look at just the wage they will get by being employed, but the incremental amount they will get above what they are currently getting being unemployed - it ends up increasing the length of unemployment.
And then there is the problem with the Keynesian multiplier it is probably less than one - at least that's what the Europeans have found.
Mike, or whatever
You mentioned Fannie and Freddie will be reformed at a later date, and you are probably right. They are getting so much bail out and asking for more, and many feel that this needs investigation. If they are not part of the problem at all, investigation would clear them, if they are maybe someone can better understand the problem and fix it. So my question.... why would they not be part of the reform?
ObserverYou can think I am ignorant or a liar but I consider the source but for the other readers:
On CSPAN Tom Coburn said"They're(meaning the unemployed)not going to do it until the benefits run out."..That's when his C-Street room mate was touting a Jobs Fair...Sen. Coburn insinuated that only 3 would show up for the 500 jobs....GOP Sen. from KY. Jim Bunning blocked the last unemployment benefits...Wing nut from GOP senator from NV said the unemployed were lazy...Google,make my day.
Mike, I posed a question in my post. I don't believe you answered it in yours. I will read it again, but it looks like a lot of talk but not an answer.
ObserverThis the second or third time you have tried to accuse me of being liar..Like the Finance Reform bill the GOP makes excuse for choosing between lobbyist money over votes..You can chose to believe their excuse but all parties will use spin...I don't expect a apology because your kind does not do that.But John Kyl on the senate floor talked about how unemployment was a disincentive for finding work and many republicans echoed that...The GOP wanted the Dems to get the funds from the remaining stimulus,thereby killing any hopes of recovery...I will look for more quotes because I know your filtered sources are lacking.
...the GOP does not want to extend unemployment benefits...? Really? Unless every news source that reported on it is lying to us, the GOP merely wanted the Democrats to obey their own pay/go rules and identify the cuts that would be made in order that an extension of unemployment benefits not add to the national debt. Either you are sadly ignorant of the facts or you just told a big one.
Chill or you're going to have a stroke!
You said: "...it is known that the Democrat Party does not have one once of common sense!" I think you meant ounce, but do you really think the brain trust is in the republican party? Who would that be? Bush? Palin?
As to folks lying, I don't think that is exclusive to the Democrat party. I may be a bit fuzzy in my recollections, but I seem to recall something about why we needed to go to war as espoused by Bush, Cheney and other republicans.
Do I have that right, Victore?
For an alternative viewpoint, I recommend 'Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse' by Tom Woods.
Well, that convinced me, Bush did it. Boy, I feel a lot better now - carry on.
Say what you may, but the fact of the matter is the Democrats were in CONTROL during the economic crisis they made damn sure they put a period on the finial chapter of the Bush administration. Reid and Pelosi should being wearing khaki pants in federal prison. It is about time the Democrats start telling the truth and how they “LIED” to the American people. All of these web sites will not provide the truth and it is known that the Democrat Party does not have one once of common sense! The Democrats have done nothing but broke the backs of the taxpayer by spend, spend, spend and have not accomplished one damn thing accept the entitlement programs that no one can pay for…
jbj or whatever
I get it, right wingers wanna talk about Fannie and Freddie but you already run that into the ground and I've already said all I'm gonna say about it. Novel idea! Write a blog then you and the rest of your cohorts can spend Saturday afternoon rewriting history.... You can put in some rules like:
1. Don't in invoke the SEC because that oversight chairman was selected by a republican president.2. Don't mention republican Alan Greenspan and the Feds role.3. Don't mention Wall Street(our donors)
This analogy is worth repeating:
If the police bust a drug ring but keep a lot of the money in some of the drugs; two crimes have been committed..... Ignoring Wall Street's role is either ignorance, a bias, or an agenda.
Is it just me or is anyone buying this" holier than thou" and never do any wrong, themes.... It's always the dems fault..lol
Whoever you are but you seem to be parroting the same talking points..mmmm.
You continue to act as a spokesman for majority of Americans but you never leave many sources to back your speculation or credibility.
Fair or not
PRINCETON, NJ -- More than a year into Barack Obama's presidency, Americans are more likely to say George W. Bush is responsible for today's economic problems than they are to say Obama is responsible. Gallup shows a significant uptick since last July in the percentage of Americans blaming Obama at least a moderate amount (from 32% to 50%), but little decrease (from 80% to 75%) in the percentage blaming Bush.
Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.
Apologize for the republicans all you want but the democrats did not have overwhelming majority for most of the Bush administration and President George W. Bush had veto power.
How many times did he use that veto power on spending bills? Three guesses, the first two don't count.
Those battles have been fought in your side lost and in 2008, 89% thought this country was going in the wrong direction.
I don't want to rehash battles of old and quit pretending.
Just a quick one from Pew:
" Only about a third of Americans (34%) know that the government’s bailout of banks and financial institutions was enacted under the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly say that the Troubled Asset Relief Program – widely known as TARP – was signed into law by President Obama."
I realize that most people already know this but, in order to ask this question, I am providing some basics.
Fannie Mae was established by the fed. govt. in 1938 to create a secondary market. It accomplished this by buying FHA insured mortgages. In 1968 it became a stockholder owned company and expanded to other mortgages. It does not lend money directly, but buys loans as investment or to package them as a debt security to sell to investors as a mortgage backed security.
Freddie Mac is a stock holder owned corp. chartered by the US Congress in 1970. It buys and packages residential mortgages into securities and sells them to investors. Freddie Mac guarantees these securities.
Fannie and Freddie are at this time being bailed out and have been given a huge amount of money and are going to get much more.
Fannie and Freddie are involved and intertwined heavily in the housing crisis that is a huge part of our economic disaster. Congress oversees these two giants. Why would anyone vote for a bill that overhauls the financial system without addressing Fannie and Freddie?
It is real important now, to slam the Republican Party since the Democrats have nothing to brag about that does not cause more anger with the majority. They got alot done but most of it will hurt their party much more than they will help it.
Congress has themselves to blame for almost all of what happened during the Bush administration since most of them are still sitting there in the same seats. That is not an inheritance, it is a creation and they are responsible for it.
Bush tax cuts help the middle class and they are going to suffer terribly when those cuts expire. So again, Congress will try to blame Bush. Call it a tax cut for the rich, but it will be a tax increase on the middle class, and the middle class is who will feel it.
The IT revolution was created with private and public grants. People like Bill Gates and Michael Dell worked out of their apartments and garages and that's why I feel that we need to support some kind of program for clean energy innovators. Israel and other small countries are not standing still, they're building infrastructures to support battery interchange stations.
Thanks a lot for the kind words.
The census jobs that were added, were a constitutional requirement but that is over for now. I don't know how many jobs were added in Obama's first two years as compared to his predecessors but I do know that government grows no matter what party is in office.
State and local public jobs are in trouble but the GOP does not want to extend unemployment benefits(great stimulus) but do want unpaid tax cuts. I don't know if they are grandstanding or just making some bad decisions but Oakland, Colorado Springs, and Philadelphia are all cutting back firemen and police officers to balance their budget. It seems to me, they could cut some other public services such as a public library, tourist attractions, or even raise taxes before going to that extreme.
House minority leader(who thinks he's already the majority leader) John Boehner wants a moratorium on all Federal regulations. To be fair, many in his party do not agree with him but that sound bite will get you a whole bunch of lobbyist money. I looked at Friday Financial reports and it doesn't seem like the regulations have hindered the corporate profits much. As I said before, companies within the Fortune 500 have a $1.8 trillion cash surplus.
I agree , uncertainty is a legitimate reason not to hire but most companies are getting more out of their full time employees and will bring back their part timers before they consider hiring. The uncertainty also keeps that young employee from buying a house, a new car, or even the products the company sells. It's a two way street.
Regulations work both ways, I believe we both remember our first mortgage statement, pages after pages but if you were like me , I just wanted to know the monthly payment, the interest I was paying, and a link of term. The private sector is not one to complain about regulations, have you ever read the EULA agreement that comes with software?
Have agood week end
Rollinstone,I will tell you what is truly amazing to me about this economic crisis… In 2007 the Democratic Party was in total “CONTROL” of the United States Congress, two seating United States Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden knew dang well that there was an economic crisis on the horizon, but they sat back on their elite butts and allowed it to happen! They covered up F&F when in fact they knew all along there was a problem; it was brought to their attention in by the Bush administration, again the Democratic lead Congress done absolutely nothing to stop the wave that was coming. The Democratic Party with Obama and Biden has done nothing but out right “LIE AND BUFFLO” the American people. Those two “MORONS” have blamed Bush time after time, when in fact those two and the Democratic Party should be held totally “RESPONSIBLE AND ACOUNTABLE” for their actions! They were in “CONTROL!!!”
I agree, innovation has brought us out of the past recessions. Often, it has been the entreps class that provide the new and lasting.
I look to the small and local to provide the change this time. I think many are skeptical of both big business and big government.
MikeI look forward to reading your blogs and enjoy them, even if I disagree. You have a good writing talent.My thoughts on jobs:Federal govt jobs have increased.State and local public jobs are in trouble because they have to balance their budgets.
The private sector is concerned about adding jobs due to uncertainity.Regulators are still writing rules for the HealthCare bill and will begin writing rules for the Financial bill. Even the legislators that passed these large bills have said they will find out what is in them, after the bills are passed.
And oh yeah, that "financial reform" bill you are so proud of is estimated to add over 500 new regulations to our financial system.
Boy, now that is good news, I can't wait for what that does to the economy. And gosh it's just such a wonder why our economy seems stalled - if more regulations, higher taxes and new mandates won't get us going what will? .....duh, I don't know, Mikey.
Mike, here is a "cut and paste" from the Washington Post. It describes the "legal function" of Fannie and Freddie. You will notice there is no mention of the CRA. F&F purchased mortgages made by many orginators, packed them into MBS's got them a triple A rating and sold this garbage all over the world.
"By law, the GSEs must make affordable housing part of their business (see SF #80). The GSEs do not make mortgage loans directly to individual borrowers. Instead they perform their “secondary market” function by buying mortgages from banks, savings institutions and other mortgage lenders.
They either keep these loans in their own portfolios or, more typically, package the loans in pools and sell them to investors as mortgage-backed securities. These functions, in turn, provide lenders with the funds needed to issue new mortgages, thus bringing additional capital into the housing loan market.
For the mortgages to be packaged and sold as securities, they must meet certain standardized underwriting criteria set by the GSEs. The combined purchases by GSEs in recent years have ranged well over 50 percent of all conventional mortgage activity and this year may hit as much as 71 percent of the market.
As a result, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a tremendous degree of influence over which types of borrowers have access to different types of mortgage credit and on what terms.
Interestingly, subprime market growth in the 1990s occurred largely without the participation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The GSEs started showing interest in this market toward the end of the decade and now purchase A-minus mortgages as a regular part of their business. National Mortgage News, a trade publication, estimates their combined market share in 2001 grew by 74 percent, representing about 11.5 percent of all subprime loan originations in that year.
Some market analysts estimate that GSEs will soon be purchasing as much as one-half of all subprime originations.In other internal documents, there was a common refrain: One of Fannie Mae's objectives for 2006 was to "increase our penetration into subprime."
In an interview, Fannie Mae Executive Vice President Thomas A. Lund said the company pursued the purchase of subprime loans in 2006 and 2007 at the request of lenders, who wanted Fannie Mae to take the loans off their books. He said Fannie Mae hoped to bring higher standards to the market, and he added that the loans helped the company in its struggle to meet goals the government had set for Fannie Mae's advancement of affordable housing."
Case closed.....Mike and Forrest say... "And that is all I have to say about that.";)
cont:A link to the fed chair's letter.
I forgot to add my source.
" In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." Bernanke further wrote: Further, a recent Board staff analysis of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and other data sources does not find evidence that CRA caused high default levels in the subprime market.
I probably won't have more to say on this subject because the case is closed as far as I'm concerned...I provided the McClancy newspaper article,so people can believe Rush,Glenn Beck or the Ron Paul newsletter for all I care...
RE: readers of this blog.
Use your researching skills from the your high school and/or college days and please do not take my word.
Government oversight can and should always share the blame for any financial crisis since it shares a role.
I will not bore you with cut and paste material but please allow me to suggest things you might want to look at.
The right wing free market fundamentalist will always try to steer blame to the Federal government because to them the free market does no harm. Forget about that BP oil spill, Enron or the recent financial crisis because it was somehow all the government fault...BP has approval rating of Hitler,Saddam, and al Qaeda (4%) but some defended them.Blaming minorities,the poor, and the Fed is par for the course.
The first blame was put on Jimmy Carter(democrat) in naming the Community Reinvestment act of 1977 as part of the blame. It took it 31 years for it to finally hit...lol ,actually it was irreverent because that housing boom was driven by loan originators who weren't even subject to the act.
The recent housing bubble reached its peak in 2005. During this time Freddie and Fannie were already under the spotlight of Congress, so their loans were bottoming out while private investors were surging. Fannie and Freddie started peaking again in 2007, after the bubble had burst.... The financial crisis happened between the years of 2005 to 2007.
For decades, going back to the 1940's, banks and mortgage lenders had survived and thrived by using conservative criteria to determine whether or not to make a mortgage loan. This approach served them, the communities in which they were located and their stockholders well. Their use of their loss experiences and that of their peers in deciding the areas of their community in which they would write mortgages was condemned by the left-wing as "red-lining", despite the fact that it was based on actual loss experience. The Clinton administration-established quotas for mortgage loans was not successful until Clinton was able to get Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae to agree to buy these loans. Once the bankers realized they did not have to hold the loans in their portfolios, they and the mortgage brokers were more than willing to make money by meeting Clinton's quotas. This was the source of the toxic CMO's and CDO's that brought the market crashing down. In the absence of the quotas and Fannie Mae's acquiescence, the crash would have never occurred. There, see how easy that was. It did not require several screens of rhetorical flatulence trying to explain away the facts. Of course, I was not motivated by a desperate need to find some, ANY, explanation that blamed business for the crash rather than admit to the obvious fact that the crash was caused by government policy changes that were designed to alter long-established and successful business practices.
In 2010, who has all of those loans? It couldn’t be F&F or is it one reason the republican are ticked off, or perhaps it is because Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, didn’t want to impose any type of legislation that might reflect some hard feelings with F&F. Do you think that might be possible?
You know you are certainly entitled to believe whenever you want. I'm tired of arguing that point. I just heard the treasury secretary say that Freddie and Fannie will be reformed at a later date. The democrats said it will be sometime next year but the secretary indicated that it will be before that. It's a separate bill altogether.
I know the right wing version of the financial crisis.
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12...
Several books, documentaries, and media sources backup this version.
I'm not try to push an agenda but people can make up their own minds.
A "financial reform bill" that does not address the single major cause of the crash -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- for which the taxpayers are on the hook for $187 billion and growing by billions every month is not a reform bill; it is a joke. It is also an attempt to camouflage the fact that the crash was caused by government interference in the free enterprise system.
Linchpin,you caught my attention, I followed your link to Amazon but it was not enough so I went to other sites to try to get a little more information. Intriguing.
I still believe we need to be the first nation that comes up with that innovation , the world needs. We have to be that indispensable nation and it starts with that individual the author describes.
Apple and iPhone 4 are good examples. They had an antenna flaw, they admitted it, so instead of recalling all the phones at a cost of over $1 billion ,they cut their losses by giving away the fix. None of in their 3 million customers wanted to give the phone back. Great PR by refunding those customers they had bought the $30.00 part .... This should be a lesson to Toyota,BP, and Goldman Sachs.
In the meantime, I would recommend reading Seth Godin's "Linchpin."
I found his advice very helpful. Have a great weekend!