Obama extends Bush tax cuts [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

View Full Version : Obama extends Bush tax cuts

BJJ-Blue

12-20-2010, 11:02 AM

Drake

12-20-2010, 11:57 AM

It was a compromise. Pres Obama never had a problem with the tax cuts for most people. He was concerned about the tax cuts for the wealthy.

David Jamieson

12-20-2010, 02:16 PM

I am still waiting for the obese horde to start the revolution whilst chomping kfc, watching portable dvd players, texting each other and shopping online...

Oh wait, that's WHY there is an obese horde and that's also WHY said horde will do exactly nothing about it's plight except perhaps cry when it comes their turn to lose their head?

Oh America...where have you gone? What is this falseness beneath us now? :p

BJJ-Blue

12-20-2010, 03:06 PM

Compromise or not, he changed his tune. He wanted to keep the tax cuts for the middle class, yet he and the Democrats have been saying over and over that only the rich got the tax cuts in the first place. Which one is true?

And those same people also said the Bush tax cuts were a disaster on the economy. And then Obama said we must keep them to help the economy. So, was he lying or just ignorant about economics? It has to be one or the other.

This of course begs the question: If Bush's tax policies were so bad, why is Obama saying we must keep them in place?

Reality_Check

12-20-2010, 04:54 PM

President Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits, have the new START treaty ratified, have Don't Ask Don't Tell repealed, have a vote on the DREAM Act, etc...

So maybe it had something to do with this:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-01/politics/gop.senate.demands_1_tax-cuts-congressional-tax-negotiators-spending-side?_s=PM:POLITICS

Senate GOP pledges to block all bills until tax dispute resolved

BJJ-Blue

12-21-2010, 08:04 AM

Syn7

12-21-2010, 08:33 AM

And this very confusing to me. He's spent the last 2+ years saying that the Bush tax cuts were bad for the economy and that only the rich got the tax cuts. Now he says if we dont extend the tax cuts it will be bad for the economy and that without them the middle class will pay more taxes.

How can this be? :confused:

are you gonna start talking trash about how he caved now??? like, when you dont get your way, he's bad for the country, when you do get your way youre gonna slag on him for that too?

Syn7

12-21-2010, 08:41 AM

Reality_Check

12-21-2010, 09:51 AM

Again, it had ZERO to do with compromise. He wasn't saying, 'Well the Bush tax cuts were bad, but I have to keep them to get my other legislation passed'. He was out there rallying to keep Bush's tax cuts and trying to persuade DEMOCRATS to vote for them.

He didn't have to compromise with the GOP, the Democrats still control both Houses of Congress.

I'm still waiting for you guys to answer my question of why he flip-flopped on Bush's tax cuts. One minute they were bad for the economy, the next minute they were good for the economy. I have the quotes, do I need to post them?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/07/president-obama-middle-class-tax-cuts-and-unemployment-insurance-agreement-a-good-de

Well, look, I’ve got a whole bunch of lines in the sand. Not making the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent -- that was a line in the sand. Making sure that the things that most impact middle-class families and low-income families, that those were preserved -- that was a line in the sand. I would not have agreed to a deal, which, by the way, some in Congress were talking about, of just a two-year extension on the Bush tax cuts and one year of unemployment insurance, but meanwhile all the other provisions, the Earned Income Tax Credit or other important breaks for middle-class families like the college tax credit, that those had gone away just because they had Obama’s name attached to them instead of Bush’s name attached to them.

So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.

...

And that means because it’s a big, diverse country and people have a lot of complicated positions, it means that in order to get stuff done, we’re going to compromise.

...

Under the criteria that you just set out, each of those were betrayals of some abstract ideal. This country was founded on compromise. I couldn’t go through the front door at this country’s founding. And if we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn’t have a union.

It certainly seems that President Obama views it as a compromise.

Reality_Check

12-21-2010, 09:57 AM

you really arent capable of seeing the other side of the coin are you??? i see your point, but i see the other side too... its politics, its nature is to act righteous and point out fault in all political "enemies"...

you know, its really sad how you will scrutinize one side so much more than the other... both sides play politics, yet you only really seem offended by the parts you just happen to disagree with... you cant see past your bias and it makes you irrelevant... im not even really willing to argue with you anymore, im happy to just do a few type-by's... the more you type, the more i see how lost you really are in the thick of all the rhettoric... its sad, you should use your mind for something that is real... your politics are a joke son...

I find this interesting...

Here is Obama saying "you dont raise taxes in a recession":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrozt_vuJdE

On Jan 1st capital gains taxes go up and the Bush tax cuts (which include the middle class) are set to expire.

Will Obama be breaking another campaign promise, or will he keep his word?

Fyi, the lowest income tax bracket (of those who actually pay taxes) is 10%. On January 1st, the lowest bracket becomes 15%. So Obama will be raising income taxes by 50% on the poorest American taxpayers.

Unless he actually keeps his word.

If President Obama doesn't extend the tax cuts, he's a bad guy. If he does, he's a bad guy. A least Bad-BJJ's Obama Derangement Syndrome is consistent. :rolleyes:

BJJ-Blue

12-21-2010, 10:29 AM

are you gonna start talking trash about how he caved now??? like, when you dont get your way, he's bad for the country, when you do get your way youre gonna slag on him for that too?

Do what?!?!

I'm glad he did the right thing, which is not raising taxes on anyone. Again, I'm not saying he "caved", I just want to know why his tune about the Bush tax changed.

you really arent capable of seeing the other side of the coin are you??? i see your point, but i see the other side too... its politics, its nature is to act righteous and point out fault in all political "enemies"...

you know, its really sad how you will scrutinize one side so much more than the other... both sides play politics, yet you only really seem offended by the parts you just happen to disagree with... you cant see past your bias and it makes you irrelevant... im not even really willing to argue with you anymore, im happy to just do a few type-by's... the more you type, the more i see how lost you really are in the thick of all the rhettoric... its sad, you should use your mind for something that is real... your politics are a joke son...

Of course I can see other side. They wanted to either raise taxes on everyone or just the rich. Both are bad ideas. You don't raise taxes during a recession, and you darn sure dont do it on the job producers, ie the rich.

And I often disagree with the Democrats. Alot of them are socialists. And alot of them are dangerous. Pelosi actually said we have to vote 'Yes' on Obamacare to see whats in it?!?! How can anyone not agree that that is horrible policy?

As to bias, anyone with their own ideals is biased. Call it rhetoric or whatever, but it's MY thoughts, my positions, my ideas. If I happen to share them with certain elected officials, it doesn't mean I'm a parrot, it just means I'm lucky enough to have representatives who agree with me. How is that a joke?

And of course I'm going to be offended by the parts I disagree with. Who in the world does that part not fit?

BJJ-Blue

12-21-2010, 10:36 AM

I find this interesting...

If President Obama doesn't extend the tax cuts, he's a bad guy. If he does, he's a bad guy. A least Bad-BJJ's Obama Derangement Syndrome is consistent. :rolleyes:

You're still not getting it. I want to know why his tune on the Bush tax cuts changed. Not his position on them, but his thoughts on them.

Here is what I'm talking/asking about:

"NEW YORK -- Over the past three months, Obama described the Bush-era program that he's now adopting as his own as "tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires" no fewer than 50 times, according to a review of his stump speeches, weekly addresses, and comments to campaign donors and members of the news media.

The rhetoric was deliberate: Obama was trying to cast Republicans as the party of the wealthy while his fellow Democrats represented the middle class.

He used that rhetoric at campaign events across the country, from Los Angeles and Las Vegas to Des Moines, Iowa, and Richmond, Virginia.

During at least three pre-election rallies, Obama, playing to crowds filled with die-hard supporters, railed against the tax cuts for the wealthy, eliciting rounds of boos from the audience, according to White House transcripts.

Obama repeated the "millionaires and billionaires" line once again on Monday in announcing the deal, but with a slight twist: Rather than rejecting Republicans' call for a full extension of the tax cuts, he simply expressed opposition to their demand of making it permanent.

Obama didn't make that distinction on the campaign trail.

But in addition to the class-warfare rhetoric, Obama described the tax cuts as unaffordable and ultimately ineffective.

On Sept. 25, during his weekly radio address Obama referred to the initiative as "tax breaks we cannot afford."

A few days later, during an event the White House billed as a "backyard discussion" at the home of a family in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Obama said the nation would "have to borrow the $700 billion" -- the estimated cost of the cuts over 10 years -- "from China or the Saudis or whoever is buying our debt, and then we'd pass off on average [a] $100,000 check to people who are making a million dollars, up to more than a billion dollars."

Obama wanted to make sure that his audience understood that either the U.S.'s main rival for decades to come would be financing the tax cut, or the nation that sells the U.S. most of its oil. He used the reference to China and Saudi Arabia a few times.

And while Republicans and some Democrats have claimed that no one -- even the wealthy -- should have their taxes raised during a recession because that could stunt the recovery, Obama cast aside those fears, arguing on Sept. 29 that "98 percent of Americans wouldn't see any benefit from it."

On Monday, the White House tone towards the tax cuts changed from hostility to acceptance. On a conference call with reporters, senior administration officials declined to explain why.

If passed by Congress, the tax initiative would expire in two years. The Federal Reserve forecasts the unemployment rate to hover around 8 percent at the end of 2012. Prior to the current recession, unemployment hadn't reached the 8 percent level since January 1984. There have been two recessions since then: 1990-91 and 2001.

It's unclear how the White House will be able to let the tax cuts lapse with 8 percent unemployment. Senior administration officials declined to comment when asked."

Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/obama-bush-tax-cuts-video_n_793123.html

Syn7

12-21-2010, 10:50 AM

And of course I'm going to be offended by the parts I disagree with. Who in the world does that part not fit?

me... lots of people... you just arent capable of seeing it... your democrat counterpart is just as much of a joke...

it reminds me of the time a told this cat that i didnt feel any elected official represented me... he says "oh well then you must be either too socialist or too conservative... he didnt understand me at all... and this was even after a long talk about politics... he saw, as you do, the political spactrum as a a line... for me its more like a sphere... calling one end right or left is rediculous... because there is no end.. no start... no line between any thought... and you may yet claim to understand what im saying, but you really dont... and thats very cleqr from reading your posts... you are linear, finite, boxed in, you even believe you have representatives... nuh uh son, they have you...

BJJ-Blue

12-21-2010, 01:30 PM

he saw, as you do, the political spactrum as a a line... for me its more like a sphere... calling one end right or left is rediculous... because there is no end.. no start... no line between any thought... and you may yet claim to understand what im saying, but you really dont... and thats very cleqr from reading your posts... you are linear, finite, boxed in, you even believe you have representatives... nuh uh son, they have you...

How do you know what I think without asking me? Do you have the same 'gift' as Jamieson in regards to that? :rolleyes:

I've seen the spherical spectrum, and it is quite accurate. However, I don't discuss it much because most people I've talked with are actually unaware of it.

As to the linear one, I've actually discussed it before. I do so again for you, as you likely missed it. It was awhile back.

I do NOT believe in this one:

Socialism Fascism
Communism ---------------------------------------------------------- National Socialism
Marxism

I do believe in this one:

Anarchy----------------------------------------------------------------- Total Gov't Control

And by total Gov't control I mean Socialism, Communism, National Socialism, Fascism, etc are on the SAME side. To me the spectrum I believe in is simple, it's completely based on individual rights, not the traditional 'Left' vs 'Right' spectrum.

BJJ-Blue

12-21-2010, 01:37 PM

calling one end right or left is rediculous... because there is no end.. no start... no line between any thought...

I actually had it explained a different way (although yours is accurate as well). The guy asked where on a traditional Left vs Right spectrum does Anarchy fall? Where does a monarchy fall? Where does a direct democracy fall? Since the traditional Left vs Right spectrum did not allow for those philosophies to 'fit' (as well as other examples), it cannot be accurate.

and you may yet claim to understand what im saying, but you really dont... and thats very cleqr from reading your posts... you are linear, finite, boxed in, you even believe you have representatives... nuh uh son, they have you...

So, do you still think I don't understand that concept, or do you admit you were mistaken about that?

David Jamieson

12-21-2010, 01:50 PM

Lucas

12-21-2010, 02:40 PM

dont worry, we'll be stealing someones lunch money pretty soon. :p

Reality_Check

12-21-2010, 02:47 PM

You're still not getting it. I want to know why his tune on the Bush tax cuts changed. Not his position on them, but his thoughts on them.

Well then, why don't you send a letter to the White House and see if President Obama answers you? Because no one here can tell you what his "thoughts" are. As I see it, the only reason you started this thread was to criticize President Obama for doing the very thing you said he had to do.

"Will Obama be breaking another campaign promise, or will he keep his word?"
"Unless he actually keeps his word."

Your words. I guess he kept his word, didn't he? Nevertheless, you'll find any reason to criticize him, even when he does something you wanted him to do.

BJJ-Blue

12-21-2010, 03:14 PM

Because no one here can tell you what his "thoughts" are.

Dude, I used his words on the subject! And I even posted his words for all to see. So of course when he discusses the issue, we know what his thoughts on said issue is. Unless, of course, he is lying.

Your words. I guess he kept his word, didn't he? Nevertheless, you'll find any reason to criticize him, even when he does something you wanted him to do.

It's hard to keep your word when it keeps changing. First it was 'You dont raise taxes in a recession'. Then it was, 'Lets raise taxes on the rich, but no one else'. Then it was, 'We wont raise anyones taxes, but just for two years'.

Again, not raising taxes was the right thing to do. However, making the tax cuts permanent would have been ideal. Of course he only agreed to not raise taxes after he had said he was going to raise taxes, but only on "the rich". So let's be honest here, it was not like keeping the Bush tax cuts was his original intention. If you're coerced/forced/etc into doing the right thing, it's a little different than doing the right thing all on your own.

Drake

12-21-2010, 05:11 PM

It's been really weird watching your nation commit suicide over the last 12 years.

-Giving a huge chunk your jobs to other countries.

-Letting your financiers fail the whole world.

-Dividing yourselves politically and ideologically instead of unifying under your original constitution and bill of rights.

-Allowing gross misinterpretations to take the limelight and be presented as one half of the divide.

-Letting ideologues run the show so that divide stays in place.

If you keep it up, you won't have a nation at all. Just a bunch of severely weakened city states that frankly, China and India will destroy and in the meantime all t he wall street fat cats are setting up shop in Bangladesh and Beijing.

We're in a recovery right now. China, on the other hand, has already admitted its economic bubble is about to burst.

You can say all you want about the US, because unlike Canada, we are still the most powerful nation in the world, and our political divide is a representation that at least we still have a choice as to what we believe is best for the nation. The Republicans gaining a good chunk of congress was the best thing to ever happen, because now everyone has to compromise, instead of a single political ideology running the show.

The fact that everyone in Canada is talking about what is happening in the US is a clear indicator that your system is stagnant and dull. You don't hear Americans talking about your system, because on a global level, you are pretty much irrelevant.

Oh, and our stocks are at their highest in two years.

References are as follows:

China's econic problems: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-03/china-s-economy-to-slow-may-crash-in-next-nine-months-marc-faber-says.html

Our recovery: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-18/leading-indicators-index-in-u-s-climbs-0-5-as-fed-prepares-easing-moves.html

Canada being stagnant: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2010/30/c6438.html

So yeah... back up your **** or STFU :D

Syn7

12-21-2010, 11:25 PM

Letting your financiers fail the whole world.

for me thats the big one... its one thing to screw over your own people... but the fact that my life is directly and negatively impacted by a massive american failure to properly regulate and account for their financial systems... thats just bullsh!t, americans cant say they are affected on that large a scale by any other countries misdeeds... yeah sure, china fixes the game and cheats too, but they arent responsible for the economic fallout we see today in Canada... that is directly related to american arrogance and absolute failure... (not to minimize chinas role, but we are talking canada vs the US here)

can anyone name any canadian foriegn policy or fanancial theivery that has affected americans to such an extent??? no ofcourse not... your governments failure and your top financial wizards sheer criminality are two very good examples of american failure on such a massive scale that it has affected canadian economies and in some cases even made us a target by extremists... alot of canadas more shady foriegn policies are implemented under massive american pressure... just like how they are slowly crawling on their bellies towards our public works... wont be long till old crown corps will be owned by american privates... our how our legal system is being americanized against the better judgement of the average candian citizen... american politicians and lobbyists have more power over canadian law than most canadians ever will...

you know, how many times have we seen american biz scream foul about canadian biz breaking NAFTA, and scream louder when canadian biz apeals... then when the table is turned they scream appeal... then if the dicisions dont go their way, they ignore it, call it unfair or unconstitutional or whatever it takes to ignore the NAFTA rulings they expect everyone else to follow... case and point, the softwood lumber bullsh!t we had going on here in the northwest awhile back... they b!tched and whined and dragged everyone and their mother thru NAFTA and when they didnt get favorable decisions they did everything they could to ignore the rulings...

so its like, "you have to play by the rules, but if we dont like the rulings and dont agree, we wont follow those rulings... but you have to or we will point fingers and call you cheats and such"

Syn7

12-21-2010, 11:29 PM

Dude, I used his words on the subject! And I even posted his words for all to see. So of course when he discusses the issue, we know what his thoughts on said issue is. Unless, of course, he is lying.

you say that like you believe that most of what comes out of a politicians mouth is what they actually personally believe... dont be so naive... most politicians say what they feel they need to say to get votes, whether they intend on following thru or not... and its common on both sides of the isle...

Syn7

12-21-2010, 11:49 PM

The fact that everyone in Canada is talking about what is happening in the US is a clear indicator that your system is stagnant and dull. You don't hear Americans talking about your system, because on a global level, you are pretty much irrelevant.

well first of all, not "everyone in Canada is talking about what is happening in the US"... i talk politics all the time and its rarely about american politics... we talk US politics here because its an american site and most of the users are american... i dunno where you got that "fact" from, but its complete bullsh!t... i find canadian politics to be very interesting...

and americans dont talk about anyone other than themselves... its by far the most self absorbed nation on earth... case and point drake: you have no problem saying the US is so great and canada sucks, but if i said the opposite you get offended and start talking about how misinformed canadians are about US politics and how we are egotistical and whatnot... like how before when Jamieson was basically saying what you say, but vice versa, and you got real bent outta shape and ranted about how "oh so thats how canadians think"... i couldnt be bothered to find the thread but it was in this section...

america was a great nation, now its a sad shadow of the idea it was supposed to be and never ended up being... americas time is limited, you guys are on the downstroke now... you have peaked, its all downhill from here... pretty soon you wont be able to manipulate yourselves into the top spots like yall been doing for the last while... you cant keep pointing fingers and then turn around and do it yourselves... like the china money fixing conspiracies... you get mad at them for doing what youve been doing for a long time now... so they got wise and started to even the score and somehow that pis$ed you off and makes them bad people? but not yall? :rolleyes:

this is why the WHOLE WORLD calls america arrogant... yall believe ur better in all ways... youre like the self proclaimed popular tough bully kid at school that everyone is nice to but disses you and plots your downfall when you arent around... its america vs everyone else... you will lose... and the reason people arent as openly critical is because they know very well the the US will do whatever it takes to eliminate what it sees as threats... sh!t, you guys arent even capable of having a legit revolution, your blue bloods would open fire on preschools if thats what they had to do to keep what they view as rightfully theirs... which is whatever they feel they want at the time...

and because the US cant seem to keep to its own biz and insists on trying to control everyone else, since we are so close, we are gonna go down with you...

Drake

12-22-2010, 06:50 AM

BJJ-Blue

12-22-2010, 07:50 AM

you say that like you believe that most of what comes out of a politicians mouth is what they actually personally believe... dont be so naive... most politicians say what they feel they need to say to get votes, whether they intend on following thru or not... and its common on both sides of the isle...

I'm not naive at all. Notice I used the words "unless... he is lying".

for me thats the big one... its one thing to screw over your own people... but the fact that my life is directly and negatively impacted by a massive american failure to properly regulate and account for their financial systems... thats just bullsh!t, americans cant say they are affected on that large a scale by any other countries misdeeds...

No one was forced to get involved in our financial systems. Like Drake said, you do not have economic independence. And that's not our fault. As to people/mations being screwed over, people/nations should just pay attention to where they put their money. Bernie Madoff stole millions (or maybe even billions), and the people he stole money from willingly did business with him. Same as the US, no one is forcing anyone to trade/invest/buy anything from the US, it's a choice.

David Jamieson

12-22-2010, 08:10 AM

We don't "try to control" anyone, and we aren't self-absorbed. I find it interesting that you blame the US for your economic problems. If Mexico collapsed, the US would still be fine. Same with Canada. Your dependency on our economy in no way mean we are "trying to control you". It means that you do not have economic independence.

That being said, if the Nikkei crashed, the US would be hurting, but it's not because the Japanese are trying to control us.

First let me say this: hahahahahahahahahahahahah!!! WHAT??!!

Dude! Give yer frickin head a shake, yer slippin.

You don't try to "control" anyone?

TSA, Homeland security, a unilaterally declared war of occupation in Iraq, a war on terror (whatever that is) globally, and so on and so forth. In fact, America tries to control a lot.

MOving on to self absorption:

watch and American show, something banal like dancing with whatever or sing a song sing along something. Almost every episode, despite the show being pretty much only of interest in america and less so in Canada, you will invariably have someone say "I'm glad the world saw this" despite the fact, the world ain't watching that, just america.

Never mind all the other incidences of clearly evident American self absorption with itself. That's less bad really, because frankly, most countries are self absorbed and see the world through their paradigm as a nation quite often.

It's not that your economy collapsed, it's that your primary capital market, wall street ripped off banks all around the world by selling empty packages fo crappy mortgages taken out by dead beat americans on Bushes directive that caused the global banking collapse and all the storm that has followed. It's documented and it is a fact that the fault is on the shoulders of greedy American wall street traders, brokers and banking corporations.

Canada will be fine, not because of you, but in spite of you. YOur continual belittlement of Canada and Mexico is indicative of your ignorance of the real power each of these countries have and in actuality, America in many ways depends on both.

So if your just trying to start an argument, you are arguing from ignorance.
If you're trying to make America out to be some great and powerful nation, you fail. It is viewed with a pretty dim eye by most of the world and the only thing that is stopping america from getting a spanking is that it keeps pointing guns at everyone.

If cable gate has shown us anything and it continues to show us a lot, it's that America is not unified, is weakening and if she doesn't pull it together, there will be further division until eventual collapse and then a term of chaos and oddly enough, there are a lot of Americans who WANT this!

You have your own president calling an entire party "hostage takers".
He went from non partisan over to "F those GOP fools" in a relatively short time eh?

YOda would say this: "Screwed, You are".

A couple of more years, then I'll break out the solid rounds of "I told you so". :p

BJJ-Blue

12-22-2010, 09:41 AM

So if your just trying to start an argument, you are arguing from ignorance.

Actually you are. And your next paragraph illustrates it.

It's not that your economy collapsed, it's that your primary capital market, wall street ripped off banks all around the world by selling empty packages fo crappy mortgages taken out by dead beat americans on Bushes directive that caused the global banking collapse and all the storm that has followed. It's documented and it is a fact that the fault is on the shoulders of greedy American wall street traders, brokers and banking corporations.

First off, no one forced anyone to buy the "empty packages of crappy mortgages".

Second, it is NOT Bush's directive. I've repeatedly asked anyone on this board, including you, to show us ANY of Bush's economic policies/legislation that led to the sub-prime mess. And not one person has named any legislation. Of course that doesn't stop people like you parrotting the "its all Bushs fault" line over and over and over...

It was actually Clinton who deregulated it.

"Passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 was celebrated in a Wall Street Journal editorial as an end to "unfair" restrictions imposed on banks during the Great Depression, under the headline "Finally, 1929 Begins to Fade." But Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, writing in Mother Jones, warned that the legislation, which amounted to the "finance industry's deregulatory wish list," would "pave the way for a new round of record-shattering financial industry mergers, dangerously concentrating political and economic power." Mokhiber and Weissman also predicted that such mergers would eventually "create too-big-to-fail institutions that are someday likely to drain the public treasury as taxpayers bail out imperiled financial giants to protect the stability of the nation's banking system.""

Source:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/its-deregulation-stupid?page=3

"The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate. For example, Citicorp (a commercial bank holding company) merged with Travelers Group (an insurance company) in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. This combination, announced in 1998, would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 by combining securities, insurance, and banking, if not for a temporary waiver process. The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. It also allowed traditional investment brokers to create and sell high-risk investment products to traditionally low-risk commercial banks, which worsened the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007. Historically, the combined industry has been known as the "financial services industry".

President Barack Obama believes that the Act directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have also criticized the Act as contributing to the crisis. They state that "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, but under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly.""

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

So even Obama says it was Clinton's legislation that "directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis". ;)

And again, please share with us ANY of Bush's policies that caused the subprime mess. I'll go on record right now saying you wont, because none exists. But good luck. :D

David Jamieson

12-22-2010, 10:34 AM

First off, no one forced anyone to buy the "empty packages of crappy mortgages".

So, you believe trickery and thievery is excusable so long as no one notices they are getting ripped off until after the fact?

I think you are despicable if that is the case and would never in an eternity do business with you or anyone connected to you.

That, is the fundamental flaw in your logic and the failure in your speaking to this on any level that can be deemed reasonable.

You are a greedy person if you think this behaviour is acceptable Period.

go live with yourself.

:rolleyes:

BJJ-Blue

12-22-2010, 11:01 AM

So, you believe trickery and thievery is excusable so long as no one notices they are getting ripped off until after the fact?

It's not thievery or trickery. The people that bought those "crappy mortgages" knew exactly what they were getting. They just gambled the mortgages would be paid and they would profit. They speculated, and they got it wrong. It's that simple.

I think you are despicable if that is the case and would never in an eternity do business with you or anyone connected to you.

And that's your right to make that choice. Just like anyone who bought "crappy mortgages" made the choice to buy them.

That, is the fundamental flaw in your logic and the failure in your speaking to this on any level that can be deemed reasonable.

You're the one blaming Bush and not giving us ONE example of Bush policy/legislation that caused the sub-prime mess. So your logic is flawed, unless you can come up with some examples. ;)

You are a greedy person if you think this behaviour is acceptable Period.

go live with yourself.

I never said whether I felt it was acceptable or not. That is moot anyway. It was 100% legal, no one forced anyone to buy anything.

And I live with myself just fine. I've made intelligent decisions with my money, unlike those who got sub-prime mortgages or the entities who bought bundles of "crappy mortgages".