Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1995 clinton (through his chief of HUD (Henry Cisneros and later his second chief andrew coumo)) eased the rules on obtaining mortgages allowing more 'exotic' mortgages and 'no-doc/low doc' mortgages-----the consequence ......housing SKYROCKETED causing low inventories causing a 'not normal' increase in home prices, sellers got greedy, buyers got even greedier (looking to PROFIT in a skyrocketing market by flipping) and bought THINKING that prices would still increase and their ADJUSTABLE mortgage would pay it self off in MINIMUMAL years...EVEN THOUGH THESE INCREASES IN HOME VALUES WERE TOTALLY UNHEARD OF, AND MORTGAGE RATES WERE AT 40 YEAR LOWS( what did they think an adjustable mortgage gotten at 40 year lows would do in the term(3 months-3years) when it adjusted...of course it would go up, their CONTRACT even said after the term it would be 6% PLUS PRIME)))
For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership."
The above is the start of the mortgage meltdown: Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy
I am looking at spending increases. Medicare is not new, SS is not new, the military is not new. Spending is at an all time high, but Obama's increase is a very small percentage and the single driver of budget increases is Medicare.
Again, you are looking at raw spending increases, not spending increases proportional to the size of the equivalent economy. Obama's increases are very high when you look at them proportional to the economy under each president.
And they have no idea of any history that happened prior to 2008.
So their opinion on this and any other topic of economics is irrelevant.
In order to make it look like Mr. President is competent, they're letting him spend whatever he likes without the usual inconvenience of governing with the cooperation of Congress.
Bernanke will pass the printing baton to Ole Yeller.
When the spending party is over and everyone has to take a bite of the reality sandwich, be ready.
They will be sure to BLAME the next president whoever he is for "wrecking the economy" eventhough it was an artificial one instead of placing the blame where it belongs which is with Barack Hussein.
You are looking at raw dollars, which is a worthless statistic. As a percent of GDP, Obama's spending is higher than any president over the last 60 years. If an economy shrinks, you need to look at spending relative to the new size of the economy.
You are posting manipulated data.
So what are you advocating, cutting spending during recessions to bring spending:GDP in line? That is what Herbert Hoover did, with disastrous results.
So what are you advocating, cutting spending during recessions to bring spending:GDP in line? That is what Herbert Hoover did, with disastrous results.
actually it was coolage that did that..hoover tried to spend, spend, spend...its didnt work....not to mention he was up against an obstructionalist democrat congress
from wiki:
When the Wall Street Crash of 1929 struck less than eight months after he took office, Hoover tried to combat the ensuing Great Depression with government enforced efforts, public works projects such as the Hoover Dam, tariffs such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, an increase in the top tax bracket from 25% to 63% and increases in corporate taxes. These initiatives did not produce economic recovery during his term, but served as the groundwork for various policies incorporated in Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.
hoover was actually quite liberal
Last edited by workingclasshero; 09-19-2013 at 09:38 AM..
Again, you are looking at raw spending increases, not spending increases proportional to the size of the equivalent economy. Obama's increases are very high when you look at them proportional to the economy under each president.
No they aren't because the 2009 budget was already set and that is the base that you use for comparison. Spending relative to GDP went up because the GDP went down and safety nets were utilized, but the only way to accurately attribute spending to Obama is to look at his actual spending increases. Future increases due to Obamacrap is another issue, but current increases just aren't there.
So what are you advocating, cutting spending during recessions to bring spending:GDP in line? That is what Herbert Hoover did, with disastrous results.
Long term Hoover worked out very well. You have to force deeper recessionary trends to correct an economy. I am all for short term pain to have a sustainable system in the long term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
No they aren't because the 2009 budget was already set and that is the base that you use for comparison. Spending relative to GDP went up because the GDP went down and safety nets were utilized, but the only way to accurately attribute spending to Obama is to look at his actual spending increases. Future increases due to Obamacrap is another issue, but current increases just aren't there.
Again...you are looking at raw numbers, not something that is actually meaningful. If GDP does down, you need to adjust spending accordingly, which Obama did not do. If my household income drops by 30% and I don't cut my spending by the same amount, that is poor financial planning by myself. Why do you hold Obama to a different standard?
costs are going up on almost everything..especially food (which is NOT counted in the 'inflation rate')
Junk fish called Tauplia which was selling in 2008 for 1.28 a pound is now close to 5.00 a pound...Catfish that averaged between 3.49 and 3.99 at 6.00 plus.... Not just one store, they are all similar in price. Paper towels are highway robbery.....deli ham/turkey which I used to get for 2-4 a pound...now 6-9 a pound
last Thanksgiving,,Sweet potatoes they were 49 cent/pound...now $1.79/pound
breyers icecream HALF GALLON, was (2008) 2for 5...now its 1.5 quarts and its 4/each
Even cooking oil 48 fl oz... went from $2.99 (reg. p about 6 months ago) to $3.69 (sale)... from $4.29 (reg. price).
I can and do appreciate the prices in some areas where there is little competition. I was blown away by prices in the greater Ft. Myers, Fl. area, dominated by one grocer chain.
In those areas where there is substantial competition amongst grocers, it is quite possible to buy in bulk when stuff is on sale. A gallon of milk can be had for less than $2 in my neck of the woods, any day of the week. I have not spent more than $1 on eggs, yet. The cost of living is highly dependent on location.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
