Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Obama administration oversight of the banking industry

Tags:
  • Politics
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
August 24, 2012 12:49:28 PM

This is some of the banking industry oversight that Obama is so proud of:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/1663-65-collapse-bank...

More about : obama administration oversight banking industry

September 8, 2012 11:48:27 PM

So, in essence, not reducing spending isnt a problem, which the president has turned down, and blamed the opposition for? All the while having total control of the democratically controlled congress? Which is what these numbers point to, these last 2 years.
Undersand something, no one is crying for a Bush return, as he is seen as a parallel to Obama in some things.
Understand also, if the economy has fallen greatly in income, you dont go asking for more, and certainly dont grow it, and lets see, who was the last president before FDR during the depression, where growth was down, even tho spending was as well, thus the weakness in your link, as they fail to make several of the connections of then and now
Related resources
September 9, 2012 1:08:14 AM

I was quite surprised that Obama's spending has been so low in fact.

It tends to dispell a few myths ...
September 9, 2012 4:38:40 AM

Lets put it this way, Bush was ballistic for a repub, and Obama is outspending him.
The main concerns are, poor business savvy/direction, and a smaller, less costly gov.

PS, I dont have the numbers, but acrediting Bush for all the military spending without a peep from your link shows the lean, and not as in beef
September 9, 2012 11:13:04 AM

Where do the stats show Obama outspending bush?

September 10, 2012 9:55:40 AM

Note this as of March
When revenues goes down, spending and wanting to take credit for the stimulus, without bipartisan support, which isnt fully seen in the numbers.

He wants to spend his way out of this economy, has said as much, and while everything else is slowing, everything else is failing, he wants to continue to create more debt, not srop it, and certainly not slow it to the point of having higher revenues than monies spent.
Its no myth, this isnt made up, and its a subject many just wont address
September 10, 2012 1:32:18 PM

The idea being that if the gov't puts $1000 in the market, eventually that money will be taxed and taxed and taxed to the point where it all comes back into the gov't. I think it takes 24 times of spending that $1000 to get 100% of it back into the gov't. The ROI is slow and not great because in order for the gov't to make their money back on that loaned money, the consumer needs to spend even more money which they're already doing.. the ROI is really like 80%, taking a 20% loss, instead of the on-paper thought of getting 110-120% return.
September 10, 2012 9:52:45 PM

Truth is, Obama has no reason to spend more than previous president's.

Regardless of how much the national debt increased as a result of the leftover Bush policies, Obama has been the President for 3.5 years and can not make any claim to successfully reversing the trend.

If anything, Obama's direction and policies have only exacerbated America's fiscal problems and social issues.

Demagogue, divide, and deride...OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA!!!!
September 11, 2012 9:59:26 AM

But the Republicans put him in a no win situation?

Shouldn't we hold them accountable for the State of the Nation?

I say tax all of the imports and that will kickstart the local manufacturing base ... screw the free market economy ... you have got to protect your own people's jobs and economy.
September 11, 2012 11:27:40 AM

When he shut them out , then claimed it was the repubs not compromising, it was him putting them in a no win, read Woodards book, and that man has no reason to like repubs.
September 11, 2012 1:39:31 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
A Democrat controlled Congress and George Bush did.

I will not give Obama a pass on 2009 though. Every budget he has submitted has been rejected by Congress. Even when his party controlled Congress.

The fact remains that Obama has added more to the national debt than all previous Presidents combined since the country's founding. Both parties are to blame, including the "empty chair" in the white house.


Correct me if Im wrong but the budget isnt enforceable by law. Its more of a guideline of where the parameters of spending and discretionary caps.

Wouldn't the Budget control act (Bipartisan) have fulfilled those needs in 2009?
September 11, 2012 1:57:21 PM

Obama's budget and his spending are two different things. His actions have long term impacts. He's spending on future credit.

The future presidents are going to be faced with the problems he has created. I don't think he really wants to win a second term because by the end of it, that's when all the poopoo will hit the fan.
September 11, 2012 6:25:03 PM

Let's quote NPR.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-stan...

The graph wanamingo points out forecasts 2013 budget which hasn't been spent, plus takes 2009 back to Bush, giving Obama's spending only on 2 years really as the numbers aren't necessarily out for 2012 yet.

On top of that, it is GROWTH.. so it's 1.4 MORE than what Bush has spent on that chart, adjusted for inflation.
September 11, 2012 7:22:05 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
When he shut them out , then claimed it was the repubs not compromising, it was him putting them in a no win, read Woodards book, and that man has no reason to like repubs.
I didn't read Woodward's book (yes Woodward has no reason to like Republicans) but the excerpts provided painted a pretty clear picture that Boehner got all the tax increases out of the House Repubs they were willing to give. Boehner was not going to be able to deliver the House Republican vote if Obama pushed for more tax increases and Boehner made that fact very clear to Obama and Reid. So, Obama and Reid were faced with a make or break choice; take the standing debt/spending deal or get no House vote at all. So, instead of acting in the spirit of compromise and looking out for the best interest of the American people, Obama and Reid doubled down on stupid and pushed Boehner for more tax cuts. That action on Obama's part effectively closed the door with House Republicans for further debt/spending negotiations and kicked the can until 12/31/2011.

When a leader, Obama, is unable to recognize that he has squeezed all the blood out of the rock but only tries to squeeze it harder, it is the epitome of poor leadership.
September 11, 2012 9:11:16 PM

Facts are, either giving money directly, as in Solyndra, or tax breaks, they essentially are meant for the same purpose.
Once the monies given tho, theres no turning back, unlike undoing tax breaks, so a wiser direction there.
Supply side, as in revenues needs to be raised, and by Obama handing out money and refusing tax breaks and demanding more taxes isnt the right direction, adds immediately to the debt, and so far hasnt worked, all the while saying tax breaks are the wrong direction, instead of shrinking government, and lowering demand
September 12, 2012 12:04:19 PM

Im confused now I thought republicans like tax cuts?

What taxes would Romney lower to improve the economy?
September 12, 2012 1:06:26 PM

My only concern (And you put a lot of faith into it) is why should a person who is collecting capital gains create jobs?

Romney made 15 million last year off cap gains. He didn't create any jobs.

So why does it matter if he has 15 million or 20 million. Most of it is going to accounts overseas anyway :pt1cable: 
September 12, 2012 1:39:23 PM

There is no guarantee that he did or will. He is an old man, most in his shoes will probably retire soon. Will he continue to receive millions every year for past investments and then sit on it? Probably.

I was simply using him as an example. Getting capital gains does not make you a job creator.
September 12, 2012 2:19:21 PM

But then why is there no correlation to the cap gains tax rate and the economy?

Clinton made a profit off oh high cap gains, Bush lowered them (debatedly) and still ran an economy fine (*Cough* Unfunded wars *Cough*).

I also fail to see how buying a gold ring for 5000$ and then selling it for 6000$ later creates a single job.
September 12, 2012 2:44:13 PM

Yes but lower numbers are easier to relate to. Im also interested in this.

So if I make 1000$ off the sale of that ring and pay a 35% tax rate where was the job created?

Logically it would make sense to have the consumer have the buying power. Look at it like this.

Mitt Romney doesnt really have any buying power. Sure he could buy a lot of homes but its not like he buys 25,000 TV's every year.

What needs to happen is we need to make it easier for the consumer base to purchase. So more money in the pocket of the average Joe consumer (You and me) means more products being sold, even at the expense of the wealthy (Keeping cap gains high). If people purchase more Widgets because they have additional income to spend the company producing Widgets needs to make more. That more material purchased, and personnel for the increase in demand. More people working the registers, more people creating products and most importantly a higher profit for those initial investors. So Romney would make money either way.

Economics 101 says that if you dont have customers you dont need workers. So lets bump up the number of customers by giving purchasing power back to the middle class.

Arent corporations sitting on trillions of dollars at this very moment waiting for the investment spring to come? So how would it make sense that business all at the same time would start hiring because capital investment is down?

September 12, 2012 3:03:41 PM

wanamingo said:
Correct me if Im wrong but the budget isnt enforceable by law. Its more of a guideline of where the parameters of spending and discretionary caps.
Incorrect.

While the Constitution does not specifically establish a procedure for a federal budget, it does give Congress the "powers of the purse". However, the Congressional Budget Control Act of 1974 REQUIRES BY LAW for the President to submit a budget on or by the first Monday in February each calendar year. It is worth noting that the budget is is not self-enforceable by the Act but enforced by Congressional Points of Order. The Points of Order, require by law, that the Congress follow the timeline of the BCA. The BCA also requires the Senate Budget Committee to report on budget resolutions (i.e.; submit their version of the budget) to the full Senate. And, the BCA requires the House and Senate to reach a agreement (i.e.; vote on the budget) on the budget resolutions.

The fact is the Senate has not submitted a budget on over 1,200 days.

Moody's has stated they too will downgrade America's credit rating, just like the S&P did, if a DEFICIT REDUCTION budget deal is not reached.

Oh, and btw...reducing government spending by $X over the next ten years DOES NOT EQUAL a deficit reduction, a deficit reduction implies an budget that immediately reduces federal spending and pays down the national debt.

We are witnessing the Cloward-Piven Strategy take place before our very eyes.
September 12, 2012 4:37:10 PM

Well wouldnt that fall under long term investments anyway which is already taxed lower? I think its 15%.

The ring analogy is just a really simple example of purchasing a product then selling it for more in the future. I would also be wary of writing off precious metals trading, many people make a lot of money there. So it could be a gold ring or gold bullion doesn't matter. A commodity is being sold with a net profit. Or really any kind of trading that gets a quick profit (35%).

Because in the situation you just gave there is an almost certainty that the investor isnt going to pull his money out in the first year. I also fail to see how paying 15% on long term capital gains would keep anyone from investing.

What you described seems like you could fill with a loan.....

September 12, 2012 5:01:11 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
What if you didn't want to take on any debt?

What if strategic sales planning is telling the decision makers that corporate bonds and private investment makes much more sense in the long term rather than taking on more debt?

Back to the precious metals. Ok, you need traders, advisors, customer service reps., security to guard the gold supply, etc etc. So yes, gold trading does create jobs.


But how come increased buying power could accomplish the exact same thing? If the general public is buying more widgets from your company then you make more profit and the whole system needs to hire to keep up with demand.

How does a person collect their money from capital gains? By selling their stock or creating a contract before hand? - Honest question.
September 12, 2012 6:02:33 PM

You think the free market would support giving money to the actual consumers. The way it is now a company can be inflated overnight and crush competition. A better way would to be let people decide with purchases, at least in a capitalistic society. Because then the product would be the focal point and not just sales.

If you had a successful investment that you didn't start collecting on for more than 1 year it would be a long term investment, if the company reached a point where it could start giving out quarterly dividends then its making so much money it doesn't need to reinvest for growth. But even in such a case it would only take 15% longer to recoup the taxation. So its really just increasing the amount of time it takes to get a return.

This is an interesting debate that I think can be described as follows.

Is it better for the investor to have more money in their pocket or the consumer?
September 13, 2012 11:15:24 AM

wanamingo said:
Im confused now I thought republicans like tax cuts?

What taxes would Romney lower to improve the economy?


The previous republican govt tax cuts are what put your economy in the toilet in the first place ... being unable to raise enough revenue to cover the budget ... successive blowouts causing the massive rise in debt.

Your country needs to raise taxes.

Jeez your economists are as stupid as ours are.

Did they all dodge the same classes?

Somebody should listen to Mr Clinton (no ... the other one) ... that old geezer seems on the right track.

:) 
September 13, 2012 1:44:08 PM

Reynod said:
The previous republican govt tax cuts are what put your economy in the toilet in the first place ... being unable to raise enough revenue to cover the budget ... successive blowouts causing the massive rise in debt.

Your country needs to raise taxes.

Jeez your economists are as stupid as ours are.

Did they all dodge the same classes?

Somebody should listen to Mr Clinton (no ... the other one) ... that old geezer seems on the right track.

:) 
You are right by saying the previous republican tax cuts are why our economy is in the toilet, but the tax cuts are only partially to blame. We can also count Medicare Part D, TARP, the Obama stimulus packages, and the ACA. The irony is, if the Congress had cut spending and scaled back the billions in foreign aid, there would have been no reason to borrow money from China and continue deficit spending.

You are partially correct in that America needs to raise taxes, more importantly, American needs to totally overhaul it's tax code.

The Democrat/Progressive narrative is to raise taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" (actually people who make over $250,000 annually) based on the subjective lie that they "need to pay their fair share" and continued by the lie that by raising the taxes on that income level it will raise enough revenue to solve America's financial problems. As Clinton said, do the math, the Democrat/Progressive narrative does not add up any more than the Republican narrative.

The irony about the "pay their fair share" narrative is the fact that about 50% of Americans have a 0% federal tax liability; which means that while they do pay federal taxes, they get all of it returned to them as a tax return. There are even documented instances where that 50% of Americans actually get more returned to then than they paid in. So, when is comes to the narrative of "pay their fair share", those who make a fair wage have no choice but question WTF Democrats and Progressives are talking about!

So, if the narrative is that everyone "pay their fair share" then it is fair to have the 50% increase their federal tax liability along with having higher income people pay more in taxes. But that would be politically impossible under the current tax code.

There is where overhauling the American tax code becomes necessary. It is the current tax code that allows the rich to get richer, the poor to remain poor, and is causing the middle class in America to lose decades worth of hard earned wealth.
September 13, 2012 2:07:40 PM

Some good points there chunky.
September 13, 2012 3:23:48 PM

Herman Cain anyone?
September 13, 2012 3:42:19 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Herman Cain anyone?
The biggest appeal, to me, of the "9-9-9" plan was the 9% sales tax was only on new durable goods, which meant that all used goods were not subject to sales tax, that's friggin' awesome because I buy mostly used stuff anyway!

The 9-9-9 plan had a better chance of becoming law than a flat/fair tax ever will. :( 

Sadly, now, neither will ever have a chance to become law... :cry: 

!