Obama Revises Economic History In New Ad
"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...
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...
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Oba,ma is still a LIAR
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
The GSE's only held a third of the sub-prime while Wall St. Investment Banks held 2/3rds..
Deregualtion, the Fed, Greed, and Wall St. were the main reason... Both parties share in the blame..
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/25...
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.
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 (CRA) that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
Oh blaming Frank is rather assinine too..
Frank is a House member, right..
The House passed regulation in 2005 the GOP Senate failed....
The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, H.R. 1461, would establish the Federal Housing Finance ...
The GSE's only held a third of the sub-prime while Wall St. Investment Banks held 2/3rds..
Deregualtion, the Fed, Greed, and Wall St. were the main reason... Both parties share in the blame..
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/25...
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.
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 (CRA) that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
Oh blaming Frank is rather assinine too..
Frank is a House member, right..
The House passed regulation in 2005 the GOP Senate failed....
The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, H.R. 1461, would establish the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as an independent agency, funded outside the congressional appropriations process by assessments on the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs).
H.R. 1461 cleared the House floor by a vote of 331 to 90 following numerous proposed amendments and over the objections of the White House, which sought stronger limits on the growth of Fannie and Freddie's mortgage portfolios
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.
1) Obama no clue (just look at the record)
2) Romney's real plan
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?
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?
http://mittromney.com/sites/d... PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-...