Ever hear the right say: Well GHWB, now this is your economy?

[Ron 7]

Quote

Perhaps

Not "perhaps" The left and right both say it when it suits their political BS.

Quote

So you want to hang your hat on campaign slogans as tho they're meaningful? Good luck with yourself.

Nope, but you seem to do it. All I am saying is BOTH sides throw out lines when it suits them and keep quiet when it would hurt them. It seems that you only think one side does dumb things.

Quote

But to address the economy under GHWB, he inherited a mess that was just waiting to pop. The debt had increased so much in such a short time in time of peace. Some want to call the Cold War, wartime. This is ridiculous and to say that therefore FR couldn't help but to overspedn for this pseudo-war, gee, the debt fell during a couple years under Eisenhower and he had the Korean War to contend with, the debt fell in 1969 during the heat of the VN War and both of these times were also under the period of the Cold War, so WTF?

RR DID in fact spend the soviet union into ruin.

Quote

Great Fasist Pig Ronnie, Republican bitch, So was FR delluded? Of course.

Can you possibly have a discussion without lame theatrics?

Cause if you can't I am going to not bother anymore. I don't need to listen to crap.

You wanna have a logical polite discussion? Quit the lame BS first.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

blah blah blah Reagan blah blah blah Presley

Y'know, Lucky...for someone saying that the military service wasn't the point, you sure do go on and on and on and on and on and on about it...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[d16842 0]

Quote

Quote

The President doesn't have unilateral war powers. Congress must fund it. Every year. And Congress has funded both wars all the way through.

The pres can claim we are being attacked and send us to war; unilaterally.

Hell, he doesn't have to say we are attacked. But as I stated above, he is limited to the budget that Congress grants him, and in the case of the current wars, they have granted pretty much everything asked for many years. Practically speaking, his unilateral powers are only really for a small period of time, as the budget won't permit more.

Quote

Quote

Tax laws he signs indeed, the ones congress gives him. Did Congress give Bush the tax laws he wanted? No.

Really? Did he want even bigger cuts? Are you talking Bush 1 or 2?

You must have misread what I wrote, for yes, Congress didn't give Bush II the tax cuts he wanted, especially making them permanent. And yes, I think he wanted even more, but that was a non-starter.

Bush I signed a tax increase, and paid for it on election day. Obama probably won't initiate a tax increase per say, but instead just let the existing cuts expire and say he didn't raise taxes. Same thing except in election years. I never said Obama was stupid.

Tom B

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Hell, he doesn't have to say we are attacked. But as I stated above, he is limited to the budget that Congress grants him, and in the case of the current wars, they have granted pretty much everything asked for many years. Practically speaking, his unilateral powers are only really for a small period of time, as the budget won't permit more.

After winning back Congress, the Democrats tried to put a timeline on troop withdraw from Iraq, attaching it to the spending bills. Bush vetoed them, leaving Pelosi with the choice of voting against the troops, or continuing. Their power to stop is not very potent at all.

This truth dates back at least as far back as Teddy and the Great White Fleet.

[d16842 0]

Quote

Quote

No they weren't. In general, people buy as much house as they are allowed.

Right, and you qualify based upon teh PITI, as the I falls, the P can climb and you still have the same payment with a higher P amount, hence housing cost escallation.

I agree with your math, but if we had some housing price escalation today, we could far more easily get out of the crisis Buyers determine the market price. That was the problem last year, when builders kept putting houses up. In my small town they are again building in every neighborhood. It is nuts.

Quote

And with a lower I rate the payment/note is lower, so sellers compensated by jacking up the cost of their houses. Before long, that same house was worth 200k and anyone could qualify due to lenders not caring about the credibility of the borrower, but the credibility was in the house for which they speculated would continue to increase in value. This is how subprime borrowers were able to get into houses or get 2nds, 3rds, etc.

I agree that the banks didn't look as well as they might have at the credibility of the buyer. But why should they, if their intent was to immediately sell the loan? All they needed for their safety was to see that it met the newly relaxed standards of the underwriters and secondary market.

Everyone got over-leveraged. If they had maintained the historical down payment percentages and percent of take home earnings that could be applied to a loan, homeowners would have bee in much better shape. Even a modest price rollback would not have put owners in the hole. I am not big on government regulation in general, but they threw all control out to get in this mess.

Quote

Quote

What sent it to hell was Congress "encouraging" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite very questionable loans, setting the new industry standard. They were hell bent to make sure everyone could have the American dream of home ownership. The bottom line is that many people are not responsible enough to handle it. That old standard of 20% down separated who was and who wasn't.

OK, I'm just asking what act, law or whatever was it that proposed that, required that, etc?

That is the problem. I don't know of a law. Call it more continuous head slapping by members of Congress, applied to the heads of many banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA, etc. They kept dragging them to "testify", really just to slap them around, pointing out to them that current regulations and limits didn't allow everyone to buy a home. After enough years of it, the agencies caved and reduced the requirements so that just about everyone with a pulse could qualify. This was led by Rangle, Dodge, Franks, Kerry, and others.

And lest you think I blame only Democrats because I listed only them, for much of this time Republicans controlled the house and senate, and sat silent on their asses as this all happened. So long as they got their pork, whatever the Dem's did was fine.

One more point. Why the hell are Fannie May and Freddie Mac making political donations at all? Am I the only one that see's the likelihood of a too close relationship problem. Congress is their oversight body.

Tom B

[kallend 1,672]

In the interests of accuracy, the worst defaults were NOT on loans made to the poor under government mandated programs - these were no worse (and no better) than the historical default rates for all mortgages. By far the worst default rates were on loans to middle class buyers and investors in real estate who thought "trees could grow to the sky". Loans the banks pushed not because they had to, but because they thought they would result in huge profits.

The only fault of the government was in deregulating so that the bankers could gamble irresponsibly.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[d16842 0]

Quote

After winning back Congress, the Democrats tried to put a timeline on troop withdraw from Iraq, attaching it to the spending bills. Bush vetoed them, leaving Pelosi with the choice of voting against the troops, or continuing. Their power to stop is not very potent at all.

You mean exactly like Bush being left with the two bad choice options of pulling out of a war in a losing position, a real disaster for the US as about anyone who remembers post-Vietnam knows, or continuing to pursue the war while enduring a daily beating by the press and senior Democrats, who were all the while applying incredible political pressure to withdraw?

Let's look at this from an integrity perspective. Bush believed we should be there and stood by his belief despite incredible pressure to pull out in 2007, Congress didn't believe we should be there, had the power to not fund it, but were unwilling to take the political heat it would have caused. The same heat Bush stood up to willingly and knowingly. If they believed what they are proclaiming to anyone who would listen, Congress shirked their duties. I would have respected them far more if they had actually followed their statements. At least I could trust them to act with integrity. Personally, I think the majority of them knew damn well that a pullout would be a disaster, and thus it was a political stunt to embarrass the President.

The problem is that actions like this embolden our enemies. The surest way I know to lose a war, especially an insurgency war, is to tell the enemy how long you plan to stay. Name even one insurgency war that any nation has ever won, after telling the enemy when they are leaving. I strongly believe the greatest political contribution made in turning Iraq into a "victory" of sorts, was made by John McCain projecting that under his administration, we would stay as long as necessary. At the time he out-polled Obama. McCain was then tied with Clinton, and she more or less agreed on the public timeline thing, and more privately the surge. They heard that unified voice, and got the message.

What is Afghanistan hearing now?

Tom B

[d16842 0]

Quote

In the interests of accuracy, the worst defaults were NOT on loans made to the poor under government mandated programs - these were no worse (and no better) than the historical default rates for all mortgages.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that, and hope nobody took it that way. Most of the defaults around here are middle class. The poor who bought houses just don't exist in enough numbers to have had major influence on the whole market. The problem is that the same stupid standards created in blind zeal to help the poor, were applied to all.

I blame the elected and appointed officials who yet again ignored working standing market practices, and twisted them in an ill-advised attempt to help the poor. And my personal opinion is that they did so as much for political gain as anything else. But that an opinion, not a fact.

Quote

By far the worst default rates were on loans to middle class buyers and investors in real estate who thought "trees could grow to the sky".

Of course it was the middle class. We already covered the poor, and the rich generally have enough assets to ride out a bad housing market. Their home typically does not represent the vast majority of their net worth. Only the middle class remains.

Tom B

[kelpdiver 2]

You're missing the point, turning into a question about what was right to do.

I'm only addressing your claim, your incorrect claim, that the President has very limited authority to use the military as he pleases. He is quite capable of deploying forces that, for the reasons you suggest and more, make it very difficult for others (even the next President - Somalia) to undo.

[d16842 0]

Quote

By far the worst default rates were on loans to middle class buyers and investors in real estate who thought "trees could grow to the sky".

I hear the claims about evil investors, but I have not seen compelling evidence that they made a big difference. The negative stereotype seems to be someone who buys multiple houses hoping to quickly turn them for profit. I don't think these guys make a big difference in the market, except in one short of houses, where they quickly pounce upon good deals. But there aren't tight markets today. In this market, the houses they purchase are duplicated many-fold by others available. For every home they purchase, someone apparently wanted to sell it, for a variety of reasons from forclosure avoidance, to just wanting a different one, a good thing. Unless they somehow add new homes to a flooded market, or quickly take under-priced homes off a tight market, I just don't see the impact.

But there is one investor group that has incredible impact, and that is home builders. They build homes in the hope that the market will return, flooding it and depressing prices, making our national problem much worse. They are doing it here in great numbers, for reasons that baffle me. In this market, I think builders are a much greater problem than other "investors".

Quote

Loans the banks pushed not because they had to, but because they thought they would result in huge profits.

John that is a point I strongly disagree with. While I know it happened to some degree, I believe it is overwhelmed in impact by mortgage discrimination laws Two close friends are mortgage brokers and have. described the mortgage discrimination laws they work under. It is NOT just a racial thing. Just about anyone in any group, except possibly a white male between 20 and 40, can claim mortgage discrimination, and even he can if he is poor. It can become a huge problem for the lending institution. After several discrimination claims, brought about by their honestly believing the customer was way over their head in the loan amount, they stopped trying to apply even common sense. If the customers even came close to meeting the rules set by mortgage underwriters, ones with limits they all believed way too high, they approved the mortgage.

So I don't see greed as biggest problem in initiating loans. Stupidity was certainly a factor, as in 17% of sub-prime loans, the first payment was never made. But greed most certainly drove what happened AFTER loans were made, in terms of how the banks created loan derivatives, sold them, and even bought them, knowing how bad the ones they sold were. The leveraged their banks well beyond any modern standard. And I am convinced that many banks knew exactly what was coming and proceeded anyway. It was a win-win for them. If the economy improved, they would have made incredible fortunes because they were so highly leveraged. If it failed, they would get a bailout in all likelihood.

Tom B

[d16842 0]

Quote

I'm only addressing your claim, your incorrect claim, that the President has very limited authority to use the military as he pleases. He is quite capable of deploying forces that, for the reasons you suggest and more, make it very difficult for others (even the next President - Somalia) to undo.

Sorry to have to correct you yet again, but this time I will include the background documentation so you can understand the reason.

I was quite correct when I wrote:
Practically speaking, his unilateral powers are only really for a small period of time, That time period is only 60 days without approval from congress.

I suggest you read up on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
Here is the first paragraph:

This was a US Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization (a Congressional authorization) of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.War Powers Act

There was considerable debate about this law in 2001. There was no doubt that forces in Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11, (except within the minds of a few who believe Bush wired the twin towers, and the Pentagon and killed over 4,000 Americans.) So Bush was free to immediately deploy significant forces to Afghanistan.

But there was a much weaker case with respect to Iraq. They had not attacked us, but the question of if they were a threat to us was a hot debate topic. Initially Bush argued that he didn't need Congressional Authorization to attack Iraq, as they were a threat. But they ultimately acceded to the point that the Iraq war might actually take longer than the 100 hour ground attack in Desert Storm, and perhaps even longer than the 60 days provided in the War Powers Act to complete, and thus Congress would have to approve the action sooner or later. That led to the presentations to Congress so hotly debated ever sense. Specifically that Saddam was trying to establish a WMD capability, or already had one.

Ultimately, despite the head in the sand view of the left who still believe we found no WMD, we found that Iraq did indeed possess a very large amount of partially enriched uranium, specifically 550 tons of it, enough for a large nuclear weapons program, similar to Iran's. This material was shipped to Canada two years ago. Just as we are facing in Iran today, there really can be only one reason for such an oil rich nation as Iraq and Iran to have such a large amount of uranium.

Having already approved the deployment of troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan under the War Powers Act/Resolution, I am not sure that Congress can revoke its action. But most certainly they can choose not to fund it in the next fiscal year, starting October 2010.

Tom B

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I was quite correct when I wrote:
Practically speaking, his unilateral powers are only really for a small period of time, That time period is only 60 days without approval from congress.

I suggest you read up on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548).

The War Powers Act has never been put into play, and never confirmed as constitutionally valid.

To claim it has any bearing on Presidential actions is a stretch.

It goes back to Teddy - 'whether you fund me or not, I have enough money to send the battleships over. You decide if you want them to come back.' We've had troops in the field for over 60 days on several occasions already.

[d16842 0]

Quote

The War Powers Act has never been put into play, and never confirmed as constitutionally valid.

To claim it has any bearing on Presidential actions is a stretch.

It goes back to Teddy - 'whether you fund me or not, I have enough money to send the battleships over. You decide if you want them to come back.' We've had troops in the field for over 60 days on several occasions already.

Cite your examples where we had troops in the field more than 60 days in sufficient numbers and tempo where the cost exceeds his already Congressionally approved slush funds for minor incidents. Without the cash, it can't happen.

Sure we have had smaller issues, but even the president can't move money from a Congressionally designated purpose to another without their approval. The courts would block it if Congress squeeled.

I agree with your concerns of the Constitutionality of the War Powers act, but where does the cash come from for a war like Iraq, without Congress granting it? The tooth fairy?

Tom B

[kelpdiver 2]

Cite an example where Congress prevented the President from doing his thing.

[d16842 0]

Quote

Cite an example where Congress prevented the President from doing his thing.

So that is is your way of saying you can't cite any of the many recent examples you claimed, where Presidents ignored Congress, and used unilateral powers that don't exist, to make extended war without Congressional approved funding for it. Though so.

It has been entertaining, but you are full of it.

Tom B

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Cite an example where Congress prevented the President from doing his thing.

Just because they didn't, doesn't mean they couldn't.


Too many negatives but whatever.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Cite an example where Congress prevented the President from doing his thing.

So that is is your way of saying you can't cite any of the many recent examples you claimed, where Presidents ignored Congress, and used unilateral powers that don't exist, to make extended war without Congressional approved funding for it. Though so.

It has been entertaining, but you are full of it.

It's your bullshit assertion, not mine. You claim the President has limited power to deploy and Congress can force them back.

It's never actually happened, of course.