Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs

+2
dumpcare
Floridatexan
6 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Markle

Markle

surfnrg wrote:I really don't have time for all this spin.

It was not w matter of just GM,  but AIG, most of the banking industry,
The largest wall street brokers etc.

You really need to go read history pay particular attention to President Bush"s doomsday speech and Greenspan's assessment.


To late to bail out.  We're talking about GM and Chrysler.

It was President Bush who bailed out the banks, half while he was in office and releasing the other half so President Barack Hussein Obama would have it available as soon as he took office.

The banks repaid all the money, with interest.

Cute try at wiggling out.

President Obama makes speeches.  Speeches which have nothing whatsoever to do with what he plans to do or what he does.

surfnrg

surfnrg

This was an historic moment that required addressing, you cannot divorce one segment of the economy at the time from the other,

Which President decided to use tarp money to loan the Big Three?

And i choose when and when not to respond.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

surfnrg wrote:Here ya go fl texan

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3629

Thanks, Surfman...

Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs - Page 2 11-28-11pov-f1

Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs - Page 2 11-28-11pov-f2

surfnrg

surfnrg

As was brought up on Morning Joe on another post the greatest threat to our economy is not the deficit. And while there are many fixes it is the continued dismantling of the middle class.

There is so much information in this study. And it shocking....it flies completely in the face of so much of what the obstructionist party preaches.

2seaoat



Surf,
Mr. Markle continues to take the 10 billion dollar loss on the GM shares as one side of the equation. He refuses to acknowledge the other side of the equation......by the way GM has 27 billion retained earnings, and today just announced expansion in Flint Michigan spending 1.3 billion and creating jobs.

When Mr. Markle does a economic analysis of the loan to GM and Chrysler he will see what other economists have stated that the actual savings to taxpayers was over 40 billion as I posted on another thread the $8,500 per worker savings in unemployment and economist saying the net savings was over 40 billion.....I will agree with anybody who points to the stupid cash for clunker, because the truth is it was stupid. The GM and Chrysler loans were necessary in saving money for government and allowing our economy to rebound.

Guest


Guest

Well over looking the obvious and atempt to distract is what is going on here in this tag team effort.

Facts are FT is here bitchin about corporate welfare and has said nothing about GM. That is the point.

And what say you about QE? do you consider that a little gift to thee oh richest ones hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?  Wink 

surfnrg

surfnrg

The record is clear. What has been obfuscated is that President Bush
Made the decision to loan tarp money to the big three, The blame President Obama for everything has no bounds.

The decision. Was sound, took a lot of guts on President Bush's part.

Guest


Guest

surfnrg wrote:The record is clear. What has been obfuscated is that President Bush
Made the decision to loan tarp money to the big three, The blame President Obama for everything has no bounds.

The decision. Was sound, took a lot of guts on President Bush's part.


I disagree... what would've happened is that banks could not have held toxic assets and then trickle them into the market as it made head way. We the people took the hit and were shoved underwater. The banks? Lol... they were protected while people were foreclosed upon. Bush proved to me by 2002 that he was for govt and fed interventions... a big govt solution progressive. I knew then that he was not what he had promised... and was not surprised by the bailout. It's inaccurate (and a leftist talking point) that the sky would've fallen... the better question is who fell? Who suffered?

Chrissie is right... flatex is being hypocritical. She's said the govt saved the world too... it's an old fallacy at this point.

Edit: Not that I'm for it... but the govt should've just given each citizen ten or twenty k to pay for house or debt... that winds up in the banks... and we the people gain value. We were screwed and people don't even realize it still. Who benefitted?

surfnrg

surfnrg

Actually if I recall it was President Bush who in his doomsday speech warned of imminent collapse of our economy. Now if he is a lefty ..... Wink

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:
surfnrg wrote:The record is clear. What has been obfuscated is that President Bush
Made the decision to loan tarp money to the big three, The blame President Obama for everything has no bounds.

The decision. Was sound, took a lot of guts on President Bush's part.


I disagree... what would've happened is that banks could not have held toxic assets and then trickle them into the market as it made head way. We the people took the hit and were shoved underwater. The banks? Lol... they were protected while people were foreclosed upon. Bush proved to me by 2002 that he was for govt and fed interventions... a big govt solution progressive. I knew then that he was not what he had promised... and was not surprised by the bailout. It's inaccurate (and a leftist talking point) that the sky would've fallen... the better question is who fell? Who suffered?

Chrissie is right... flatex is being hypocritical. She's said the govt saved the world too... it's an old fallacy at this point.

The problem here is they assume I think bush was a God LOL, he was moderate at best. However I do think he was better at working with people to get stuff done than the egomaniac professional campaigner we have now.

They are stuck on "blame bush" and its 5 years later. Im sorry but the honeymoon has been over.

You are either for something or not. and yes, occasionally there is some grey areas. Im not and have never been happy with any bailouts. Ever.

I think the free market should work. if they fall they fall and someone else will pick up the pieces and rebuild or not. That is the way of business and it is the way it should be. Not the gov picking winners and losers aka crony capitalism. < I learned that from you.

anyway, yes FT is being hypocritical. Perhaps sometimes im hypocritical. I think I probably am and have no problem defending why I may feel like I need to be a hypocrite at times lol

facts are, Obama is a freaking disaster on every front. I really can not see why any self aware person can defend him at this point.

oh one more thing.. Obama has not just been playing pick the winner, he has openly been paying people off for campaign support. I have never in my life seen such out in the open crooks as this.

Guest


Guest

surfnrg wrote:Actually if I recall it was President Bush who in his doomsday speech warned of imminent collapse of our economy. Now if he is a lefty ..... Wink

maybe he knew what the house and senate who were majorities at the time along with their newly picked KING Obama were planning for us?

please do not forget who was majorities in both the house and senate those years. Its just not going to be that convenient for you. sorry

Guest


Guest

surfnrg wrote:Actually if I recall it was President Bush who in his doomsday speech warned of imminent collapse of our economy. Now if he is a lefty ..... Wink

Bush was every bit the big govt solution shill that obama is. The interventions require a crisis... perceived or real.

Although it still amazes me that obama passed an enormous entitlement in the midst of an economic downturn.

He could've done any of the bs he keeps complaining he's being obstructed from doing. Cue the next crisis.

surfnrg

surfnrg

As you probably know i was no fan of President Bush but I believe in this case this crises was real and required decisive measures. No leading economist I know of disagree. In times of crises leaders have to move decisively, mistakes can and will be made. I believe the assistance to the big three was necessary and has proved to be correct. I think President Bush made the correct decision in the face of fire from his own party.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Good Lord Almighty, I go away from a thread and just look what happened...chaos. Bush & Co. ENGINEERED the financial crisis, using the same techniques Reagan did. I don't even know where to begin explaining economics to idiots.

BTW, I have a life...a very busy one lately.

Markle

Markle

surfnrg wrote:The record is clear. What has been obfuscated is that President Bush
Made the decision to loan tarp money to the big three, The blame President Obama for everything has no bounds.

The decision. Was sound, took a lot of guts on President Bush's part.


That is debatable.  The transitions team from President Barack Hussein Obama started work in November.  The approval of $13.4 Billion for General Motors and $4 Billion to Chrysler was approved December 19, 2008.  At that point, President Bush, out of respect for the incoming President, did not approve any expenditures without the approval of the income President.

Incoming President Obama had told us that we could not allow G.M. and Chrysler to go bankrupt.  He was, as we all know, rescuing his union base and cared not an iota about G.M. or Chrysler.  In the end, they both went bankrupt.  What President Obama said could not happen.

G. M. and Chrysler should have been allowed to go bankrupt in the usual manner.  As with all our welfare programs for low income households, we have taught huge corporations that they can take significant risks, follow poor management and rest assured that taxpayers will pay for any mistakes they may or may not have made.

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
Good Lord Almighty, I go away from a thread and just look what happened...chaos.  Bush & Co. ENGINEERED the financial crisis, using the same techniques Reagan did.  I don't even know where to begin explaining economics to idiots.

BTW, I have a life...a very busy one lately.

Flat out LIE, but you already know that don't you.  This has been proven to you several times.

42Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs - Page 2 Empty No k 12/17/2013, 1:34 pm

surfnrg

surfnrg

No it's not debateable:

"On December 19, 2008, a week after Republicans in the Senate had killed a bailout bill proposed by Democrats, saying it didn’t impose big enough wage cuts on the U.A.W., Bush unilaterally agreed to lend $17.4 billion of taxpayers’ money to General Motors and Chrysler, of which $13.4 billion was to be extended immediately. He had to twist the law to get the money. Deprived of congressional funding, he diverted cash from the loathed TARP program, which Congress had already passed, but which was supposed to be restricted to rescuing the banks. “I didn’t want there to twenty-one-per-cent unemployment,” he said to a meeting of the National Automobile Dealers Association in Las Vegas last month, explaining why he acted as he did. “I didn’t want history to look back and say, ‘Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.’ ”

The New Yorker

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Chrissy wrote:Well over looking the obvious and atempt to distract is what is going on here in this tag team effort.

Facts are FT is here bitchin about corporate welfare and has said nothing about GM. That is the point.

And what say you about QE? do you consider that a little gift to thee oh richest ones hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?  Wink 

GM just piggybacked on the banksters, basically saying, "What about us?" The fact is Bush was Reagan on steroids, not only removing "impediments" to business, but giving tax breaks that mostly benefited his cronies while waging costly wars of aggression...something that had NEVER been done in our history.

I'm sorry for your ignorance.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:
surfnrg wrote:Actually if I recall it was President Bush who in his doomsday speech warned of imminent collapse of our economy. Now if he is a lefty ..... Wink

Bush was every bit the big govt solution shill that obama is. The interventions require a crisis... perceived or real.

Although it still amazes me that obama passed an enormous entitlement in the midst of an economic downturn.

He could've done any of the bs he keeps complaining he's being obstructed from doing. Cue the next crisis.

There was no other alternative than stimulus. Bush is no lefty; he's a plutocrat.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
Chrissy wrote:Well over looking the obvious and atempt to distract is what is going on here in this tag team effort.

Facts are FT is here bitchin about corporate welfare and has said nothing about GM. That is the point.

And what say you about QE? do you consider that a little gift to thee oh richest ones hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?  Wink 

GM just piggybacked on the banksters, basically saying, "What about us?"  The fact is Bush was Reagan on steroids, not only removing "impediments" to business, but giving tax breaks that mostly benefited his cronies while waging costly wars of aggression...something that had NEVER been done in our history.

I'm sorry for your ignorance.

don't be sorry for mine, you need to worry about your own ignorance. Its very extreme LOL

Here learn about the bush tax cuts
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/bush-tax-cuts-explained-facts-costs-tax-rates-charts

and

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/

get your head out of the sand. bush was a moderate, obama is a communist.

plain and simple.

Im going to have fun now. do yourself a favor and read some truth for a while. be progressive as in moving forward not being a communist for once.

Guest


Guest

Chrissy... bush was no moderate... he grew the govt in ways that obama and those after him will expand.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


What in hell are you people talking about? Bush was no moderate...not in any sense of the word. You could almost feel the shift in the business climate when he took office. No holds barred, straight up...what is it, Bob...wraslin' or Wrestlin'? He led our beautiful country off a cliff...in every sense of the word. I cannot believe ANYONE would defend...that...

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
What in hell are you people talking about? Bush was no moderate...not in any sense of the word. You could almost feel the shift in the business climate when he took office. No holds barred, straight up...what is it, Bob...wraslin' or Wrestlin'? He led our beautiful country off a cliff...in every sense of the word. I cannot believe ANYONE would defend...that...

The congressionally approved military interventions... the fed interest intervention... the numerous incentives related to the dot com bs (seems mild today huh?)... the tax cuts (regardless of subjective results... which increased revenue). The patriot act... the medicare expansion... tarp... bailout... gawd we're dumb.

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:Chrissy... bush was no moderate... he grew the govt in ways that obama and those after him will expand.

he was moderate compared to obanma.

these people are insane like FT here. you can see thee insanity in her responses of how she goes on and on about bush and hes not the president anymore.

when you hire a new manager they are supposed to be qualified and have ideas as to how to make things better, not worse.

Obama is the true disaster. you know his policies, they make bush look moderate.

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
What in hell are you people talking about?  Bush was no moderate...not in any sense of the word.  You could almost feel the shift in the business climate when he took office.  No holds barred, straight up...what is it, Bob...wraslin' or Wrestlin'?  He led our beautiful country off a cliff...in every sense of the word.  I cannot believe ANYONE would defend...that...

For many years the President and his Administration not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.  Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001
April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.  [Obama advisor, Franklin Raines was CEO of Freddie Mac when they lied about earnings to increase bonuses]

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.”  As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.  (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03).

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.”  To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.”  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03).

2004
February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator:  “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.”  (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.”  Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.”  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04).

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system.  Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs:  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.”  (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04).

2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.”  (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05).

2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions.  Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.”  (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07).

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years.  Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission.  The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start.  But the Senate has not acted.  And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.”  (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07).

2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.”  (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08).

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.”  (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08).

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.”  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08).

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

•                     “Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.”   (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08).

•                     “[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.”  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08).

•                     “Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.”  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08).

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”  (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08).

July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

###

Who halted any of the proposed reforms pushed by President George Walker Bush?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum