Quantcast

Obama Revises Economic History In New Ad

snipe 2012/08/04 23:36:57
The Bamster's at it again!

"You have a choice to make," he intones. "It's a choice between two very different plans for our country." Then he warns: "Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top. Roll back regulations on big banks. And he says that if we do, our economy will grow and everyone will benefit." Obama continues: "But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place."

For starters, Republican deregulation could not have caused the recession because there was nothing of the sort in the run-up to the crisis. In fact, it was Bush who publicly called for financial regulation — namely, reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the central culprits in the crisis — no fewer than 17 times before 2008.

What brought down the economy was overregulation of the mortgage industry through the Community Reinvestment Act, which controlled bank underwriting, and HUD, which controlled the underwriting of Fannie and Freddie and primary lenders. Now what's retarding the recovery is Obama's re-regulation of that sector.

And far from triggering the recession, the Bush tax rate cuts of 2003 sparked a 46-consecutive-month boom in small-business job gains.

"In January 2003, I called on Congress to accelerate the tax cuts from 2001, which had not fully taken effect, and to pass further tax cuts that would encourage business investment and job creation," Bush said.

He was right. The final round of tax cuts took effect in May 2003, when the economy was still soft from the Clinton recession and 9/11. By September, the economy started adding jobs again. After the tax cuts, unemployment averaged 5.3%, compared with Obama's 9%.

The problem is Obama keeps threatening to end the Bush tax cuts "for the rich." As a trained agitator, Obama knows how to "rub raw the sores of social discontent," as his mentor Saul "The Red" Alinsky was fond of saying.

As a trained business leader and former governor, Romney knows how to turn companies and economies around. In this, the "choice" could not be more clear.


http://news.investors.com/article/620796/201208021848/obama-a...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Mr. Smith 2012/08/05 03:46:09
    Mr. Smith
    +14
    Hey Democrats, you inherited 4.6% unemployment in Jan. 2007, that's a fact, not hyperbole. You said you could do better, but you didn't, that's a fact, not hyperbole. After 5+ years of failure, it's time to step aside and let the adults handle the situation!

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • ☆stillthe12c☆ 2012/08/08 04:16:11
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +1
    Look, what Obama wants ie chaos in the streets and he wants to crash the system. He could have gotten the economy going ay time that he wanted. That is not his goal. He has many people fooled and he wants it that way. He wants the conflict like you see here on sodahead.
  • Michaelene 2012/08/07 14:56:25
    Michaelene
    +2
    I think the problem is the word -regulations. Some regulations are very bad for America like the Community Reinvestment Act. This regulation FORCED banks to make loans to those without enough income or assets to purchase homes they could not afford.

    It is happening all over again.
    Now they're depleting and destroying the FHA with worse guidelines than F & F, like allowing people to use temporary UE benefits as income to purchase homes that will go into forclosure. AGAIN! The new guidelines are allowing $15k cash credit, credit scores in the mid 500's, and little or no work experience and a $35,000 bonus for cosmetic repairs.
    http://www.wallaceteam.com/pr...

    FHA foreclosures are up 26% in one single quarter this year. Here comes the next GSE to crash and need a bailout. This is bad regulation that has allowed home buyers to bury themselves in unpayable debt.

    http://washpost.bloomberg.com...
  • Michaelene 2012/08/06 15:07:59
    Michaelene
    +2
    It's happening again!
    Current Obama (aka CRA) regulations on FHA are about to crush the program, with a 26% increase in ONE quarter of NEW foreclosures with FHA home programs. "the standards are too loose"
    http://washpost.bloomberg.com...

    Business investment and job creation are so low due to Obama's anti-business, anti-capital form of rule by E.O. Through unethical agencies taxing and red tape, the energy Industry is being "crucified" and the service economy is outsourced like never before, now we have foreign nations with foreign employees building our infrastructure. WTH?

    All American people are learning the depth and breadth, everyone is affected and would have less money in 2013.

    A white house insider said, "Smart. Focused. No waste. They want facts. They want real results….like a business…like a well run business. That has been the Romney campaign so far. When mistakes are made they quickly react…they refocus…they move on. Just like a business."
    http://theulstermanreport.com...

    America's business is a hot mess, time to refocus on jobs, the economy, debt and finally pass a budget.
  • ☆stillthe12c☆ 2012/08/05 23:35:02 (edited)
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +2
    Well Yes Romney said that he would like to get rid of Dodd- Franks. He would like to see the force of Glass Steagall that served us very well and protected us from 1933 until 1997.
  • STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL 2012/08/05 20:35:53
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    +3
    Good points about the CRA and HUD. Another GIANT factor was Federal Reserve policy under Greenspan. The Fed held interest rates near zero, letting housing speculators essentially borrow for free. This led to a debt fueled building spree and very high housing cost inflation (building became expensive because there was so much demand from speculators). Once it became clear that there were not enough "final buyers" for all the inventory, the bubble burst.

    Another big issue was ARM's. Home buyers were not only paying inflated prices for homes (prices far in excess of the normal cost to build them), but were taking on mortgages with variable interest rates. The interest resets ultimately pushed many home owners into bankruptcy, or they just walked and sent the keys to the bank. The banks should have seen this coming, but they were greedy and wanted the loan origination fees. And the most toxic mortgages were often bundled and sold off to investors as securities, leaving pension funds and insurance companies holding the bag.
  • sbtbill STU~PWC... 2012/08/05 21:40:56
    sbtbill
    Great example of the free market at work.
  • STU~PWC... sbtbill 2012/08/05 22:03:09
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    +1
    Well, the problem here is not related to the free market. The real issue is that government, through the CRA, HUD rulings, Federal Reserve policy, and absence of banking oversight (in spite of the fact that taxpayers were on the hook for FDIC and other bailouts) created an environment where miscreants (speculators and banks) abused the system, and mortgage insurers and banks were forced to take on risks at inadequate prices (mainly due to the CRA and HUD regulations). You also have the issue of irresponsible borrowers paying grossly inflated prices for homes using ARM's that they knew would eventually reset at rates they couldn't afford. In all truth, government, banks, speculators, and borrowers all share guilt in what happened. This was not a failure of the free market - at root, this was a catastrophe brought about by failure to properly regulate a market that isn't properly "free" (as long as taxpayers are on the hook for bailouts, there have to be logical "rules of the road," and they have to enforced). Sadly, many of the the rules were illogical, and the logical rules weren't enforced because GWB and Greenspan didn't want to. I'm not blaming all of it on the GWB Administration; some of the problems, like the CRA, go all the way back to the Carter era. This was a disaster that was many decades in the making.
  • sbtbill STU~PWC... 2012/08/05 22:26:00
    sbtbill
    I would agree that things go way back. Note else where I put the start at the passage of prop 13 in California. However, I disagree that it was not the free market's fault. Certainly, the possibility of regulation exists but it was opposed and relatively non-existent. The cause was the belief in the free market that real estate was a safe investment that couldn't go down.
  • STU~PWC... sbtbill 2012/08/05 22:41:41
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    +2
    You are definitely correct that there was a belief that real estate was safe and would appreciate forever. Much of the appreciation was due to the frothy speculation driven by Greenspan's "zero interest rate" policy, one of his worst legacies as Fed Chairman.

    But the safety aspect involved alot of bank malfeasance. In exchange for very high closing costs, some banks made loans to extremely weak borrowers who couldn't obtain loans from responsible banks. The banks then booked the closing fees as profit, bundled the junk loans into securities (Collateralized Debt Obligations, or CDO's), and sold them to pension funds and insurance companies, claiming they were prime loans and letting the buyers eat the losses. The low coupons on the loans, in combination with the inflated prices paid for the CDO's because they were fraudulently classified as low risk, could not cover the huge borrower defaults that later occurred.

    The bad banks, who always had some of these junk loans on their books, made out like bandits. The taxpayers bailed them out with TARP funds, which the bank officers treated as "profit" and bonused themselves lavishly with. To my knowledge, none of the bad bank CEO's were ever punished. But taxpayers, pension funds, and insurance companies absolutely got reamed. T...
    You are definitely correct that there was a belief that real estate was safe and would appreciate forever. Much of the appreciation was due to the frothy speculation driven by Greenspan's "zero interest rate" policy, one of his worst legacies as Fed Chairman.

    But the safety aspect involved alot of bank malfeasance. In exchange for very high closing costs, some banks made loans to extremely weak borrowers who couldn't obtain loans from responsible banks. The banks then booked the closing fees as profit, bundled the junk loans into securities (Collateralized Debt Obligations, or CDO's), and sold them to pension funds and insurance companies, claiming they were prime loans and letting the buyers eat the losses. The low coupons on the loans, in combination with the inflated prices paid for the CDO's because they were fraudulently classified as low risk, could not cover the huge borrower defaults that later occurred.

    The bad banks, who always had some of these junk loans on their books, made out like bandits. The taxpayers bailed them out with TARP funds, which the bank officers treated as "profit" and bonused themselves lavishly with. To my knowledge, none of the bad bank CEO's were ever punished. But taxpayers, pension funds, and insurance companies absolutely got reamed. Taxpayers paid trillions to bail out rogue banks, and some pension funds and insurance companies will have long term issues regarding their ability to pay claims when due (because so many of the mortgages within the CDO's they overpaid for are in default). There was clearly bank malfeasance in marketing of CDO's, and the bad banks were "punished" with massive bailouts that made the bad bank officers rich.
    (more)
  • sbtbill STU~PWC... 2012/08/05 23:28:51
    sbtbill
    The real burst started in the late 70's well before Greenspan. There was a brief pause in the late 80's with the saving and loan crisis, but basically things were brewing well before Greenspan cut interest rates. In some ways this started because people were afraid of stocks for about 10 years after the 68 crash. I don't say what you point out wasn't a part of it but it wasn't the driving cause.
  • STU~PWC... sbtbill 2012/08/06 07:36:57
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    I kind of agree with you. As I've discussed, there was no single driving cause. The 2008 meltdown was the result numerous federal regulatory errors, mistakes by the Federal Reserve, wrongdoing by banks, and irresponsibility by borrowers. These multiple issues converged over decades to create a bubble and then a burst. The loss of wealth and confidence has led to one of the most severe cutbacks in domestic business investment in US history, leading to near record unemployment. What's so sad here is that this tragedy was preventable, but too many key players were asleep at the switch or making gross errors in judgment.
  • keeper 2012/08/05 19:31:46
    keeper
    +3
    Unfortunately, you have to remember that the people obama appeals to are simple minded lemmings who would believe him if he said the sky was green. They will be zombies and reapeat the lies over and over.
  • WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2012/08/05 17:23:13 (edited)
    WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA
    +4
    Meanwhile, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac keep buying up mortgages at a record pace and keep expecting American taxpayers to bail them out.

    The problem is too many Americans can't see what is WRONG with this picture and how it is going to inevitably lead to economic collapse UNLESS we vote out Obama and change course.

    We keep getting closer and closer to the iceberg, and denial will not make it go away.
  • Icono1 WhereIs... 2012/08/07 21:46:53
    Icono1
    Good points.
  • Southern Man 2012/08/05 16:54:11
  • Maddog 2012/08/05 16:18:20 (edited)
    Maddog
    +6
    Oh yes, the choice in November has never been more stark: An American Gulag, or the free enterprise system that made America the envy of the world!

    american gulag
  • jackolantyrn356 2012/08/05 16:09:11
    jackolantyrn356
    +5
    OBAMA's a LIAR, but that is lost and I'm too small to get a protest going.
    Oba,ma is still a LIAR
  • Mike 2012/08/05 15:26:50
    Mike
    +4
    Clueless liar
  • dandieselonian 2012/08/05 15:04:00
  • mich52 dandies... 2012/08/05 15:49:43
  • WhereIs... dandies... 2012/08/05 17:25:11
  • dandies... WhereIs... 2012/08/05 17:49:35
  • BifDaddy 2012/08/05 14:45:09
    BifDaddy
    +8
    Amazing how Obama continually spins the continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts as a tax break for the wealthy which he suggests Romney wants to provide.

    All Americans have enjoyed the Bush Tax Cuts for nearly 11 years now and continuing them is anything but a “tax break for the wealthy.”

    After 11 years, I would suggest the current tax rate have become the norm.

    Using Obamas logic, then Romney desires to give all Americans a tax cut as the Bush Tax Cuts lowered tax rates for the middle and lower classes as well.

    Opposed to Obama who desires to raise taxes which will ultimately have a trickle-down effect and cost all Americans more for the same they enjoy now.




    Tax Rich
  • sbtbill BifDaddy 2012/08/05 21:38:59
    sbtbill
    You righties love to say low income people should pay more in taxes. I put this potential annual budget together so you can explain to me how that would work. I’m assuming the person makes $10 an hour

    Annual Balance
    Income 20800
    Rent 12000 8800
    Food 2400 6400
    Car 1200 5200
    Gas 1800 3400
    Car Ins 1200 2200
    Health Insurance 1200 1000
    Utilities 1200 -200
    salestax 600 -800
    FICA 936 -1736
    New 10% Income 2080 -3816

    I use a low rent for the Los Angeles area. I assumed the person had a good driving record and was young and in good health.

    Seems to me there is no point in asking someone like this to pay taxes because they can’t. In a city like LA you have to have a car to work. So that expense is needed. You probably had to work hard to find a car insurance policy for $1000 a year too. If you become homeless you likely can’t stay well enough groomed to keep a job. In fact I doubt any one could actually live on this budget. Certainly a family couldn’t. Buying furniture would be out of the q...

    You righties love to say low income people should pay more in taxes. I put this potential annual budget together so you can explain to me how that would work. I’m assuming the person makes $10 an hour

    Annual Balance
    Income 20800
    Rent 12000 8800
    Food 2400 6400
    Car 1200 5200
    Gas 1800 3400
    Car Ins 1200 2200
    Health Insurance 1200 1000
    Utilities 1200 -200
    salestax 600 -800
    FICA 936 -1736
    New 10% Income 2080 -3816

    I use a low rent for the Los Angeles area. I assumed the person had a good driving record and was young and in good health.

    Seems to me there is no point in asking someone like this to pay taxes because they can’t. In a city like LA you have to have a car to work. So that expense is needed. You probably had to work hard to find a car insurance policy for $1000 a year too. If you become homeless you likely can’t stay well enough groomed to keep a job. In fact I doubt any one could actually live on this budget. Certainly a family couldn’t. Buying furniture would be out of the question. Heck buying cloths would be out of the question. A health savings account would be a joke. There is no money to save. They are a doing there best but are a drag on the economy.

    I’m sure many of you can tell me all kinds of expenses I’ve forgotten.
    (more)
  • JustThe... sbtbill 2012/08/05 23:57:41
    JustTheFacts
    +3
    It's called "having skin in the game" (asking those that make not as much to pay SOMETHING).

    It's amazing how you Lefties love to punish the successful people in life so you can watch the government waste the money and steal our freedom.
  • BifDaddy sbtbill 2012/08/06 13:04:04
    BifDaddy
    +1
    The cartoon was just some flavor enhancing Obamas desire to further tax the wealthy.

    I never really claimed to have a problem with lower income individuals not paying income tax. They certainly, as everyone does, pay enough other tax throughout their lives.

    However, I have issue with Obama spinning the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts as a dig against Romney and the Republicans when no tax cut has been suggested. As indicated in my original post.

    As well when Obama claim the wealthy “should pay their fair share”. That’s ludicrous and poor logic. The bottom 50% wage earners pay zero income tax so how is raping those that make a little “paying their fair share”? They already carry the load for half of the Country.

    True. Using your example, one could barely afford to live and I agree that there should be a certain level that income taxes start to accrue in absence of a flat tax system.

    And if you stop to think of your example, one reason why the individual categories are so costly is due to excess taxation and regulation from the Government.
  • Beagle Mom 2012/08/05 14:44:48
    Beagle Mom
    +3
    What a buffoon.
  • mich52 2012/08/05 14:39:04 (edited)
  • Al B Thayer 2012/08/05 13:56:45
    Al B Thayer
    +4
    Too bad many will take this lie and run with it. Lies work well for Barry.
  • Quietma... Al B Th... 2012/08/06 20:51:59
    Quietman   ~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    That's cuz Libs choose to be ignorant!
  • Al B Th... Quietma... 2012/08/07 01:30:24
    Al B Thayer
    +2
    They clearly have a warped view of business and wealthy people.
  • Quietma... Al B Th... 2012/08/06 21:08:57
    Quietman   ~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    Here's some fun facts: U.S. Taxpayers Back Nearly 100% of Secondary Mortgage Market.
    Ginnie Mae is entirely owned by the government, while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were seized by the government in 2008 in order to avoid insolvency. The three mortgage giants had a market share of 98 percent of the secondary market in the first quarter of 2010, a decrease from 99 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009. Ten years prior, the three had a 55 percent market share. Fewer and fewer lenders are keeping mortgages on their own books, which illustrates just how little private capital exists in the housing market.

    This also shows the enormous risk exposure the American taxpayers have to a downturn in the housing market, which is stabilizing but still in a very precarious position. So far, we have provided $145 billion worth of funds to Freddie and Fannie since their seizure. The Obama Administration pledged an unlimited amount of money to back the GSEs. If anything goes wrong, taxpayers are stuck with the bill.
  • Angus 2012/08/05 13:04:41
    Angus
    +6
    Two Choices:

    1) Obama no clue (just look at the record)
    2) Romney's real plan
  • sbtbill Angus 2012/08/05 21:42:31
    sbtbill
    What is Romney's real plan this week? What will it be next week?
  • snipe sbtbill 2012/08/05 22:53:23
    snipe
    Well, we sure know what obama's plan is and it hasn't worked for 31/2 years and it sure as hell won't work for the next 41/2.

    Romney's plan next week is the same as it's been for a long time. Have you ever bothered to find out for yourself what his plan is, or do you just lay around and let Left Wing pundits feed it to ya?
  • sbtbill snipe 2012/08/05 23:36:50
    sbtbill
    However, bigger versions of Obama's plan worked well for Reagan and FDR. Eisenhower had a better economy but he followed the same plan too and the 50's were economically pretty good. JFK and Johnson did something similar and that made the 60's. Heck even Nixon used it. It was only when Carter really went for fiscal austerity that things got bad.
  • snipe sbtbill 2012/08/05 23:48:58
    snipe
    I got lost in your rhetoric, weren't you asking about Romney's plan?

    If obama's plan is so great and worked so wonderfully for every President since FDR, why isn't the obama plan working for obama?
  • Angus sbtbill 2012/08/06 18:30:12
    Angus
    +2
    Why don't you read for yourself?

    http://mittromney.com/sites/d... PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-...
  • Wahvlvke 2012/08/05 12:19:37
    Wahvlvke
    +5
    I thought Romney's tax returns were far more important than any failed economy.
  • SJG 2012/08/05 12:16:29
    SJG
    +2
    Poopycock!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/28 14:36:02

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals