That is the trillion-dollar Q, f'sure. I wonder about that all the time.
My personal opinion/speculation is that nothing would have happened!!
FDIC would have covered most of the working class (AND been a whole lot
cheaper), and a few investors in Goldman Sucks would have been out of luck.
But then, I don't have a degree in economics.....
Excellent response, largely wasted on the likes of the omnicsient Trader4s.
I've forgotten the exact numbers, but it also would have been A LOT cheaper
for Le Gummint to simply have kept everyone in dey homes, instead of
spreading their cheeks to Wall Street. A number of notables in Congress
were dead set *against* the bailout. THEY thought it was foolish, with
none of the resulting financial Armageddon bleated by the others.
See, 99% of Congress don't have degrees in economics either, not even in
accounting, beyond the Accounting for Dummies that lawyers get.
To wit, Greenspan (who DOES have a multiple degrees in eco) to Charlie Rose:
But.... but.... but.... but....but..... I THOUGHT the market would
Yeah, either he was deluded enough to really think that, OR he knew EXACTLY
What Congress et al DOES DO have, however, is UTT expense accounts from dey
fav lobbyists..... who, btw, outnumber Congress by AT LEAST 10 to 1.
Be aware, tho, that this was one of Trader4's few semi-coherent posts.
But he still believes Big Insurance is some facsimile of a "fair bet", good
value, and does not understand the original elegance of the initial proposal
of Obamer's Pubic Option. The Trader4's of the world believe that because
they lucked out and dodged a bullet, everyone else who didn't dodge it so
well deserves what they get.
Trader4 has Big Business's dick so far up his ass, his retinas have started
to detach. Dats why he cain't see shit properly.
And funny, that Big Business Trader4 is posting here on UseNet, right along
with the rest of us.... funny.....
I believe it was in Winner Takes All Politics (segment on Bill Moyes), the
authors cite that in 1980, the top 1% had about 10% of the wealth in
Merka..... now it's the 0.1% that has that 10%..... And all of them (or
some direct minion) are trying to get into politics -- the Ultimate
First, it's a false premise that Bush's tax cuts decreased revenue.
When Bush left office, revenue was higher that it had ever been
in history. Those tax cuts stimulated the economy. Had there
been no tax cuts, the economy would have grown slower, there
would have been higher unemployment, and perhaps LESS
revenue. The deficit was steadily decreasing over Bush's
final years. It was down to a mere $160bil in 2007. Today,
And second, you blamed Bush for CRASHING THE ECONMOMY.
There is no link at all between the recession and federal debt.
It was caused by a huge speculative bubble in HOUSING.
And if deficit spending and debt is the problem, why is it that
all you libs want to spend even MORE, borrow even
more and are perfectly happy with Obama doing exactly that?
In other words, as usual, you make no sense.
Again, please point to the specifics attributable to Bush.
Glass-Steagall repeal was the major deregulation that many
point a finger at. That was repealed under CLINTON.
Yes, maybe. But then Congress has direct involvement with
Fannie and Freddie, their quasi-govt agencies that they created.
What good did that do? Barney Frank pronounced them both
sound weeks before they went bankrupt.
The low interest rates were Greenspan's doing, not Bush.
Yes, Bush reappointed him, but Greenspan has headed the
fed since 1987, including during the 8 years of Clinton.
So, again, pointing the finger at Bush doesn't work.
LOL. Typical. The poor SEC just doesn't have enough tax payer
money to do it's job. Let's send it even more money, that's always
the solution, right?
If you look back through history there have been many, many
Bernie MAdoffs and speculative boom/busts, with or without
That's becaue you don't know what you're talking about. First, the
starting falacy is that the economy is static. You think if you
tax rates from 30% to 40%, you'd get an additional 10% in revenue.
It doesn't work that way.
And second, how can you say the Bush tax cuts are the most important
reason for the increase in the national debt? Per your own alleged
numbers above they amounted to $2 tril over 10 years. The deficit
for the year that just ended under OBama is $1.1Tril alone. We've
added $5.5 tril under his 4 years and we're continuing to add more.
Obama rails against the rich and insists that we must raise taxes
on those earning $200,000 a year. I would not call those people
rich. But even if you did exactly what Obama wants, you obviously
have no idea at all how insignificant it would be. Raising taxes
on those making over $200K a year would bring in $75bil to $90bil
a year in additional revenue. The deficit is $1.1Tril. See the
It's not taxes, it's that SPENDING is out of control. And Obama
is actually paying to run ads to encourage more people to apply
for food stamps.
There was no steady loss of jobs. Those tax cuts went into effect
with the recession that Bush inherited when he took office. They
got the economy moving again, they created jobs, and we had the
lowest unemployment in history. Yes, that changed with the recession.
A recession caused not by tax cuts. It was caused by a speculative
bubble in real estate. And if you want to blame tax policy, there is
blame there. It's that the govt for decades has had a tax policy that
encourages people to speculate in real estate. The mortgage
interest is tax deductible. The real estate taxes are tax deductible.
And perhaps best of all, if you claim it's your residence, it's
exempt from any tax when you sell it a big profit. Then people
wonder why people speculated in housing?
So why give the top earners
The jobs did materialize, look at 2000-2007
The economy was in recession when Clinton left office. The stock
market had started collapsing in the spring of 2000. Did you accuse
Clinton of screwing the stock market? Of him and Greenspan allowing
that bubble to go on? That booming stock market was a key part of
Clinton's brief surplus. With the stock boom over and the economy
in recession, the budget was going into deficit regardless. And if
Bush had not cut taxes, the recession would have been deeper and
the govt would have wound up with about the same deficits.
As to the wars, the total cost of more than a decade, including
both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan is around $1.3 tril.
The deficit is now $16tril. We've added $5.5 tril under Obama.
So, sorry, but the wars and the Bush tax cuts are not the problem.
SPENDING is the problem. Spending has increased by 40% since
Bush left. And that with one war entirely over.
And it obviously is no priority at all for Obama and the Dems.
He doesn't even talk about it. When asked what the level of
national debt was when he took office by David Letterman,
Obama said he didn't know....
What would you have done? Send Bin Laden a cake? What did
John Kerry, Hillary, Bill Clinton, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy all say
in 2001? They were saying the exact same things about Iraq
that Bush and Cheney were.
What has OBama done? He's still waging war in Afghanistan
4 years after Bush is gone.
Do you blame Clinton for the very similar stock market bubble
that burst because he didn't do anything about it? And that
bubble was a lot more obvious. Presidents don't buy houses
every day or know that real estate has doubled in Las Vegas.
But I bet they know what the DOW and Nasdaq are doing.
It was real growth. The economy does not just consist of housing.
Other sectors were performing well with real growth.
That is just such total BS. You really need to take some courses
in economics. There is not one bit of evidence that the collapse in
housing prices, the collapse in derivatives had anything whatever
to do with tax cuts. And revenue was NOT decreasing. The
federal govt took in more revenue in 2007 than ever before in
history. The deficit was just $160bil. Today it's $1.1 tril with
an economy that's been growing for 2 years now.
Again,with the cost of the two wars over a decade+ at $1.3 tril,
the wars are NOT the major factor. So, why must you libs always
pretend that it's so? And then blame Bush for it all, while all the
leading lib Dems were saying the exact same things about Afganistan,
Iraq, WMDs, etc?
They seem very concerned now, but I believe
Yes, it would if you had a president that was pro-business
instead of being anti-business. And a president that had the
right policies. But we don't. For examples of that, look at
past recessions and where we would be today. Reagan
inherited one hell of a mess. By this time in his administration,
we were creating 400,000 jobs a month. One month, it
reached $1.2mil. Today, we're lucky to see 90,000.
LOL. Austerity? What austerity? The Republicans didn't
force a downgrade. The USA piling on debt, increasing spending
40% over what it was in 2007, is what resulted in the downgrade.
All the Republicans are guilty of is insisting that there finally
be real SPENDING cuts. The libs idea is to first start with
a fantasy baseline. Pretend that the war in Iraq is still going on.
Pretent that the war in Afghanistan would go on for another 10
years. Put in every other spending idea they can. Add all that
up, then propose to cut it by 1% in future years and demand
that taxes go up immediately as part of it. The net result is
the tax increases are real and the spending cuts are totally
bogus and never materialize. That's why we're spending
40% more now than in 2007.
No cherry picking. Just the actual numbers, instead of emotion
without numbers, which libs prefer.
2000 $236bil surplus
2001 128 surplus
Note that the 2001 budget year began in Oct 2000, before Bush was even
elected. There were no Bush tax cuts, etc. Clearly the Clinton
was already cut in half and reversing because the internet stock
bubble and all the capital gains from it had burst in the Spring of
and the economy was in a recession when Clinton left office.
2002 158 deficit
Clearly the deficit was coming down nicely as the economy continued
to grow. And that is with the Bush tax cuts.
Then we had the burst of the housing bubble, a severe recession,
And today? Why it's a honking $1.1tril and has been above $1tril
every year under Obama. Numbers don't lie. Revenue is back
to where it was under Bush. The problem? SPENDING has
increased 40%+ in just 4 years. The libs solution? Raise taxes
and spend even MORE....
Actually it was $236bil, based in large part on an internet stock
market bubble that had burst in the spring of 2000, before
Bush was ever elected. And the economy was already in
recession when Clinton left office. So, of course the surplus
would not last. I suppose you'd prefer Bush to not have cut
taxes, which BTW, the Dems voted for too. Then you could
have had worse deficits and unemployment and you could
bitch about that. And of course even Obama has done
precisely the same thing, arguing that tax cuts are essential
to getting the economy moving. It's just that he can't really
make up his mind. He's been for them, then against, them,
then for them.....
Yet here you are. Is that all you have? Explain to us the
exact mechanism whereby the deficits under Bush caused
the bubble in housing prices and their subsequent collapse.
Explain how the deficits made Fannie and Freddie buy up
crappy loans on inflated properties. How it made homeowners
line up to speculate on housing. Of course you can't because
it just ain't so.....
And if it were, they why the hell is it peachy keen cool for
Obama to be running deficits of $1.1 tril with no end in sight?
And for him to spread the lie that a big, essential part of the
solution is to raise taxes on those "rich" people making
$200K+? You obviously don't even understand that if
taxes are raised exactly as Obama wants, the projections
are it will raise a whopping $80bil a year. That's right, just
$80bil a year. The deficit, unfortunately is $1.1tril. See the
problem? It's not a tax problem, it's a SPENDING problem.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:00:12 -0800 (PST), " firstname.lastname@example.org"
actually..there was NO surplus.
the "surplus" was numbers based on long term speculation that never
Simply...no surplus. At all. None. Nada. Zip
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:32:12 -0500, "Robert Green"
Odd that the wars cost at most..over 12 yrs...1.1 Trillion dollars
total. And the 3.5 trillion in bailouts Your Obamassiah gifted his
friends with in the past 4 yrs.....?
Build the housing bubble? You seem to be ignoring the fact that Bush
and Co warned the Left that the housing bubble was in trouble..and was
not just ignored..but castigated by the Left.
Did liberals collapse the housing market?
HOW THE ECONOMY COLLAPSED 1011 1977: Jimmy Carter (D) signs the
Community Reinvestment Act, guaranteeing home loans to low-income
2 September 14, 1993 Bill Clinton (Democrat) signs NAFTA bill, killing
3 December 08, 1994 Bill Clinton (Democrat) signs GATT, killing US
4 September 03, 1998, HUD publishes report damning FREDDIE MAC and
FANNIE MAE for not lending home loans to unqualified blacks and
Mexicans. EEOC charges that FREDDIE MAC and FANNIE MAE create
"hostile" work environment toward blacks
.5 1999: Bill Clinton (D) puts the CRA on steroids, pushing Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac to increase the number of sub-prime loans.
6 March 02, 2000, Franklin D. Raines (Democrat) chairman of FANNIE MAE
pledges to open lending to unqualified blacks and Mexicans
.7 October 10, 2000 Bill Clinton (Democrat) signs U.S.-China Relations
Act of 2000, killing US jobs
8 April 2001, Bush administration raised red flags over massive
low-documentation loans by FNMA
9 September 30, 2002, African-American Safiyyah Rahmaan, (Democrat)
sues FANNIE MAE for not lending to enough unqualified blacks
.10 September 10, 2003, Treasury Secretary John Snow (Republican)
recommends to the House Financial Services Committee to impose
controls on FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC. Barney Frank (Democrat) and
Maxine Waters (Democrat) object to controls.
11 October 2003, less than a month later, Fannie Mae disclosed 1.2
billion dollars in "accounting errors".
12 November 2003, Bush Administration increases warnings of toxic
loans made by FANNIE MAE.
13 December 21, 2004, Franklin Raines (Democrat) resigns from FANNIE
.14 February 2005, Bush budget plan exposes potential disaster from
FANNIE MAE loans.
15 February 17, 2005, Alan Greenspan recommends limits on FANNIE MAE
16 April 6, 2005, Senator Chuck Schumer (Democrat) refutes placing
limits on FANNIE MAE.
17 June 2005, Deputy Secretary of Treasury, Samuel Bodman (Republican)
warns of risks caused by FANNIE MAE lending to unqualified lenders.
18 April 2006, Goldman Sachs sold $494 million of securities on toxic
FANNIE MAE loans.
19 May 25, 2006, Senator John McCain (Republican) warns of risks of
slack limits on FANNIE MAE lending.
20 August 2007, Bush (Republican) asks Congress to put through limits
on FANNIE MAE lending.
21 December 2007, Bush (Republican) warns Congress to hurry limits on
FANNIE MAE lending.
22 March 2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
23 April 2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
24 April 2008, Goldman Sachs donates $1,000,000 to Obama campaign.25
April 2008, AIG donates $630,000 to Obama campaign.
26 April 2008, Morgan Stanley donates $485,823 to Obama campaign.
27 May 03, 2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
28 May 19,2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
29 May 31, 2008, Bush (Republican) makes radio address warning
Congress to pass limits on FANNIE MAE.
30 June 2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
31 July 2008, Congress finally passes a reform bill on FANNIE MAE
32 November 4, 2008, Hussein Obama elected president.
33 December 18, 2008 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
conducts further hearings into FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC.
34 February 17, 2009, Hussein Obama (Democrat) signs bailout program.
35 March, 2009, AIG reports $62,000,000,000 loss.
36 April 2009, Goldman Sachs reports $780,000,000 loss.
37 April, 2009, Morgan Stanley reports $1,300,000,000 loss.
38 American taxpayers get stuck in the #$%$ with over $787,000,000,000
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
The first thing liberals did when the sub-prime mortgage was
instigated before the November elections was to say "There is plenty
of blame to go around" It was said instantly and loudly from every
newspaper and television station. It was said consistently. There
appeared to be no equivocation.
However. Not one of those pablum distributing liars ever gave a
single example of Conservative values causing the catastrophe. This
was done by liberals and for liberals. You mention how derivatives of
the bad loans were made possible by deregulation of the Glass Stegal
Act. This was the sole instance of deregulation and it was done to
make the Community Reinvestment Act work better.
Since all liberal thought, policy, values and beliefs are based on
specific, and very alluring lies. All liberal rhetoric is
justification of those lies. Liberals instantly started to say this
debacle was caused by "deregulation" in order to justify larger
government intrusion into our lives.
Deregulation became the enemy and regulations were deemed good. Go
Just to debunk the myth that deregulation caused the sub-prime tsunami
let me postulate a housing and loan market with no regulations at all.
There would be no fannie or Freddie to assume bad loans. banks who
made loans would be on the hook if they went bad and 50% of the wealth
of our nation would not have been squandered.
Yes! Liberals did collapse the housing market. The next question to
consider is, did they do it deliberately?
I was offered one of those "Affirmative Action Home Loans" back when
things were flying high. I knew damn well if I took it and something
happened to me to knock me off my feet, I would be unable to pay the
mortgage. I got hurt and very ill but I've managed to survive without
living under a bridge or tent in the woods because I knew better than
to volunteer to having a millstone placed around my neck. O_o
And the hilariously ironic aspect is that the fact check, by
http://www.ijreview.com , originates from a political conservative
site; their own kind are characterizing the quote as fraudulent.
Almost certainly misdirection by the much reviled and well proven to
be fraudulant Snopes
The Probably False is a dead giveaway. Along with the suddenly pulled
rebuttles to the Obama birth cert scandal.
So odd that the quote only appears on kook sites; not on any reputable media
site, right or left.
So odd that it's totally out of character with everything else Carville's
So odd that he's denied making it.
So odd that it doesn't even have his name spelled correctly. Talk about
So odd that the Internet's crawling with hoaxes yet some still naively
believe crap like this.
It's just more made up, partisan bullshit. You might have noticed that
strategy didn't work. Some people say that it was Mitt's naked lies about
the auto industry sealed his fate.
Somewhere along the line, the media began to become obsessed with reporting
a story through the eyes of people on both sides of an issue. The problem
became one of finding at least some opposing viewpoints that were kooky and
presenting them alongside realistic viewpoints as if they had equal weight.
Creationism v. evolution is one example, at least in terms of provable
assertions. Creationists have the bible and evolutionists everything else.
Here's a news story about how Facebook is fast become fraud central:
SAN FRANCISCO - The Facebook page for Gaston Memorial Hospital, in Gastonia,
N.C., offers a chicken salad recipe to encourage healthy eating, tips on
avoiding injuries at Zumba class, and pictures of staff members dressed up
at Halloween. Typical stuff for a hospital in a small town. . . . But in
October, another Facebook page for the hospital popped up. This one posted
denunciations of President Obama and what it derided as "Obamacare." It
swiftly gathered hundreds of followers, and the anti-Obama screeds picked up
"likes." . . .The fake page came down 11 days later, as mysteriously as it
had come up. The hospital says it has no clue who was behind it.
I know!!! (-: Well, I can make a pretty good guess. The same people who
faked the Carville quote. For the same tired old reasons.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:54:27 -0500, "Robert Green"
Could have been somebody at the hospital itself. The medical industry
has as many wackos/quacks as most other industries.
Went to a new doctor for a yearly exam a month ago, because I'm now on
Medicare, and have the "no-cost" United Health Care Advantage
supplemental. Previous medical group doesn't take it.
You know, the "major free enterprise United Health Care company"
insurance plan paid for by U.S. Government for the past so many
Doctor was a total quack. He had my complete medical history, all my
"issues," a couple moderately serious. None about pissing.
First question: "How many times do you get up at night to urinate?"
My answer: "I don't."
He expresses a look of shock on his face.
Second question: "Who do you think will win, Obama or Romney?"
My answer: "Obama."
He expresses a look of shock on his face.
Third question: "Why?"
My answer: "Romney is an obvious flip-flopping liar, with no core
His face expresses shock and puzzlement.
Then he goes on for maybe 10 minutes talking about the evils of Obama
and "socialism.". I argued back enough to let him get the idea he was
wearing a tin-foil hat.
No medical questions but the first. No looking in the ear, no light
in the eye or hammer to the knee, no urine sample, didn't ask me to
take off a stitch of clothing, much less stick his finger up my ass.
Real drive-by exam. Quite amazing, and I never encountered such
shoddy work before. The "cabinet carpenter" in a recent thread here
is a better doctor.
His "nurse" took BP and a blood sample. They never followed up with
Probably too busy filing claims for money with the U.S. Government.
Medical industry "closet socialists."
Of course I won't be back there next year.
Don't know about facebook, only go there when family posts photos.
Even if that were true, a lot of us would rather have someone
with no core values, instead of someone with precisely the
WRONG values, who is an anti-business, America bashing,
socialist. The fact that Obama sat in the Reverend Wrights
hate filled church for 20 years told me all I needed to know
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:54:41 -0800 (PST), " email@example.com"
Right. Fox News trumpeting a south side black preacher-man for months
on end can make you believe anything - even 4 years later.
Or are they still talking about Wright?
But you're forgetting the roots of Obama's beliefs can easily be seen
by studying the Kenyan anti-Colonial Mau Mau.
I see the Republican "leadership" kicking, spitting and stomping on
Romney's still warm body.
Not merely as a loser, but as a cur.
The same jokers who barely a week ago endorsed him for POTUS.
If he won, they would deem him noble.
Never saw anything quite like it.
But Romney still has you. May you live happily ever after.
You truly deserve each other.
Now I'm done with this. You keep spitting into the wind..
Who reported on what Wright said for years in that church
is irrelevant. What he said and how Obama could listen to
those hateful, racist, anti-American sermons and choose Wright
to marry him, is the issue.
More recently it's come to light that he had a full fledged
communist as a mentor when he was a child. I'd consider
that a more likely foundation of his belief system.
No, it was YOU who was kicking him, right here, after
Oh, I'm sure you'll be back again with more leftist drivel.
My guess is that it's part of a sore-loser pushback against the ACA. You
know, the same kind of people that blame the ACA for all their ills like the
coal company that fired its workers claiming it was because of Obama's war
on coal. Funny how economists seem to believe that the coal industry is
suffering from the competition of gas produced by fracking. All these
supposedly super-smart businessmen like the founder of Papa John's Pizza are
boiling mad because the spent so much money trying to buy the election for
Romney and ended up with nothing to show for all the money they spent except
their wangs in their hands. That's *got* to burn.
Congratulations, Vic, you're what Romney might call a moocher or a taker
because you're getting healthcare benefits from the Feds. He tended to
always discount the fact that Medicare and Social Security are not
giveaways. People have paid into these programs for most of their lives
when they finally get to collect. Many never even live long enough to
collect and folks like Ryan want to make that even MORE likely by forcing
people to work even longer before they collect.
I am immensely curious to see how the R's will deal with the looming budget
crisis. For a state like Florida to go for Obama tells me that Medicare is
still the third rail of politics, waiting to electrocute any Republicans
that try to mess with it.
Still, Vic, you're now one of the 47% (which Romney flipped on again and now
says he really meant - his apology was the lying part). (-: Reminds me of
that old logic joke. "Today, Mitt Romney announced "Everything I say is a
lie." When asked about his statement, Romney countered: "I'm lying now!"
That's a lie, Vic. Of course he has core values. Rich people who got rich
raping American businesses should get even MORE tax breaks so they can sell
off even MORE of US businesses.
What amazes me is that despite the very effective propaganda machine the R's
have, they couldn't figure out how to use it to win the election. I doubt
1% of those howling about Benghazi-gate ever heard of it before their
propaganda masters began trying to make it a wedge issue.
You sound disappointed. (0:
I've always found nurse-practictioners to give more thorough exams. The AMA
is fighting the expansion of NPs like they were plague carriers.
There's an enormous amount of waste that can be eliminated in Medicare and
Medicaid. I believe that once it's addressed a significant savings will be
achieved. The irony is that as you've discovered, a lot of doctors are
conservative and as they deride the ACA and universal healthcare, they cash
those government checks as fast as they can.
I won't even do that. I think it's silly to give away my content for
someone else to monetarize.
Heh! I saw a TV anchor discussing the budget with a Republican congressman.
He made a point, then another point, then another, all clearly refuting the
propositions of the anchor. Finally, she says:
"What makes you such an expert on economics? You'd think you had a degree in
it or something!"
His response: "I do. Two degrees. With highest honors. You?"
I recall a poster on another newsgroup responding to something Charles
"What the fuck does a TV commentator know about economics or the mental
process to lead some, according to him, to a flawed reasoning?"
Of course I had to throw in:
McGill University, BA Economics, Summa cum Laude
Balliol College, Oxford, Commonwealth Scholar in Politics
Harvard Medical School
Residency in Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital
Board Certified in Psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.