I don't have a fancy finance degree, so one of you smarter posters will have to help me understand. My reference is Fox News, so it may not be accurate.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/12/us-states-forecast-highest-tax-revenue-in-5-years34520/print
Published June 12, 2012
WASHINGTON – U.S. states expect to collect higher tax revenue in the coming budget year that combined would top pre-recession levels, according to a survey released Tuesday. The increase could reduce pressure on states to cut budgets and lay off workers. A slowly healing job market and modest growth have boosted sales and income taxes, which provide nearly three-quarters of state revenue. Overall corporate income taxes are also growing.
Still, many states continue to struggle with budget shortfalls. And some states, such as California, are seeing greater revenue only after raising taxes to stem deficits. Total tax revenue is forecast to rise 4.1 percent to $690.3 billion in the 2013 budget year, according to a twice-yearly survey by the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers. It's the third straight year of revenue growth and $10 billion more than the budget year that ended June 2008. The recession began in December 2007.
Total state spending would increase only 2.2 percent and remain below pre-recession levels, the report said.
"The thing we're definitely seeing is stability," said Scott Pattison, executive director of the budget officers' group. Only eight states were forced to close unexpected mid-year budget gaps this year, he said, compared to 39 states two years ago. Arizona, Ohio and Michigan are anticipating some of the biggest increases in tax revenue next year.
Michigan has already benefited from higher revenue. Last year the state had its first surplus in a decade. That enabled state officials in February to cancel plans to require 37,000 state workers to take four days of unpaid leave.
In Ohio, tax revenue is projected to rise to $17.6 billion next year. That's an 8.6 percent increase from the current budget year. Democrats in the state legislature have responded by pushing for more school funding. GOP Gov. John Kasich has downplayed the improved forecast, saying year-to-date tax receipts are only modestly above estimates.
Others states are seeing less improvement. Iowa, Illinois and Arkansas are among those forecasting small increases.
Just what the graphs are showing.
Do you think maybe reality is starting to impinge on Fox??
Nawww...can't happen.
Actually you should be asking: "why are tax receipts up without a tax increase?"
Reaganomics at work.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 14, 2012, 10:08:01 AM
Actually you should be asking: "why are tax receipts up without a tax increase?"
Reaganomics at work.
Do you mean to tell me that when corporate profits rise, tax receipts go up?
Poppycock!
Only tax increases on the rich can do that!
Like the other posters are saying, just because A has happened does not necessarily mean that B caused it. Just because tax receipts are up does not mean that increases in income were the only reason, or a reason at all. It is a dynamic system, which is how reducing taxes appears to lead to increases in tax receipts. It is not a one to one relationship.
Quote from: erfalf on June 14, 2012, 12:46:17 PM
Like the other posters are saying, just because A has happened does not necessarily mean that B caused it. Just because tax receipts are up does not mean that increases in income were the only reason, or a reason at all. It is a dynamic system, which is how reducing taxes appears to lead to increases in tax receipts. It is not a one to one relationship.
Shhhh! They've been trying to establish that increases in corporate profits do not translate into revenue increases or act as any from of economic stimulus. Anyone knows that only tax increases on fat cats can do that. You're ruining it!
What's really happening is that the economy has returned to pre-recession levels. In all areas except employment. Gee, I wonder if wholesale exportation of jobs had anything to do with that. Or working people an extra 20%?
Reality sure does take a bite out of the Murdochian dogma about how the economy is crashing around our heads.
One side effect is now Fox has to re-spin to try to get around to the other side of it. Probably will create hurricane strength winds in the process, so what out for wind storms!
I have already heard a little piece of it about two weeks ago from a guy - one of the Fox Faithful - when talking about something related to Fed spending. The actual comment was, "but how will we pay for it...?"
I laughed my a$$ off at him - I was completely stunned by his comment. Asked him when, and where did he suddenly come up with THAT??? (I already knew, I just had to make sure he understood that he wasn't gonna sneak that by.)
I still haven't heard an explanation. Aren't tax receipts a good economic indicator?
Tax receipts up, Dow up 40% under Obama, 20 plus consecutive months of private job growth...I know there are many other indicators, but these sound pretty important to me.
I don't know about other industries, but my business is way up. Recycling is up 10% across America in the last two years and we have seen dozens of new jobs created to handle recyclables in Tulsa this year.
Someone explain to me again why the economy is so bad.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 14, 2012, 02:28:13 PM
I still haven't heard an explanation. Aren't tax receipts a good economic indicator?
Tax receipts up, Dow up 40% under Obama, 20 plus consecutive months of private job growth...I know there are many other indicators, but these sound pretty important to me.
I don't know about other industries, but my business is way up. Recycling is up 10% across America in the last two years and we have seen dozens of new jobs created to handle recyclables in Tulsa this year.
Someone explain to me again why the economy is so bad.
I believe GDP is trending upward so technically we are not in a recession. However, unemployment remains over 8% which is bad by any yardstick unless you are comparing it to 9% unemployment.
Really, we've bobbed along like this for awhile. Corporate profits have been steadily rising, yet unemployment has barely inched downward. Funny, I sense a change of message happening here. This was evil, greedy corporatists profiting on the backs of the poor and hoarding cash just months ago. Now the message is changing that Obama has fixed the economy!
That's a tough sell to the 14 million or so who remain unemployed.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 14, 2012, 02:28:13 PM
I still haven't heard an explanation. Aren't tax receipts a good economic indicator?
Tax receipts up, Dow up 40% under Obama, 20 plus consecutive months of private job growth...I know there are many other indicators, but these sound pretty important to me.
I don't know about other industries, but my business is way up. Recycling is up 10% across America in the last two years and we have seen dozens of new jobs created to handle recyclables in Tulsa this year.
Someone explain to me again why the economy is so bad.
Because real unemployment is somewhere between 14% and 20%. It's wonderful that receipts and corporate profits are up, but the sad part is that the recession that ended 3 years ago this month, took so much longer to recover from than any recession in history, and because of that corporations learned to operate with fewer people. I sell ERP systems, and the primary purpose of what I sell is to automate processes and functions that people used to manage. My business is booming, and I am happy about that, but it's not because of new companies seeking technology, it's because of old companies looking reduce risk, and the #1 risk right now is the employee. It's insane! No company has any idea how much Joe Blow is going to cost over the next 10 years. Without being able to forecast that hiring will not pick up.
Unfortunately the only way to change that at this point is to reduce the risk in hiring so that it is more intelligent to increase workforce than it is to decrease it. We've come so far down the road that I seriously doubt we will ever get back to corporations viewing employees with the same value again.
So, if you want to judge the economy only based on corporate revenue and tax receipts than fine, but the average Joe is going to judge the economy based on whether he has a job and can pay his bills. That's precisely why the president's words the other day proved a glaring example of his economic myopia.
It's still Bush's fault apparently.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/14/us-usa-campaign-economy-bush-idUSBRE85D0XI20120614 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/14/us-usa-campaign-economy-bush-idUSBRE85D0XI20120614)
QuoteAbout two-thirds of Americans believe Republican former U.S. President George W. Bush is responsible for the nation's struggling economy, with a smaller percentage blaming Democratic President Barack Obama, a Gallup poll showed on Thursday.
Quote from: Townsend on June 14, 2012, 02:51:33 PM
It's still Bush's fault apparently.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/14/us-usa-campaign-economy-bush-idUSBRE85D0XI20120614 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/14/us-usa-campaign-economy-bush-idUSBRE85D0XI20120614)
That is certainly the hope that the commentators on MSNBC subscribe to.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/06/13/mika-brzezinski-im-hoping-blaming-bush-will-work
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2012, 02:55:17 PM
That is certainly the hope that the commentators on MSNBC subscribe to.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/06/13/mika-brzezinski-im-hoping-blaming-bush-will-work
According to Gallup, it's a fact. Not a hope.
Quote from: Townsend on June 14, 2012, 02:56:42 PM
According to Gallup, it's a fact. Not a hope.
Well that should certainly help the president. Perhaps he can shift his message back to Blame Bush.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2012, 03:02:32 PM
Well that should certainly help the president. Perhaps he can shift his message back to Blame Bush.
That's the thing. According to Gallup, he doesn't need to. A majority of Americans blame Bush without anyone having to tell them.
Quote from: Townsend on June 14, 2012, 03:04:21 PM
That's the thing. According to Gallup, he doesn't need to. A majority of Americans blame Bush without anyone having to tell them.
But you know Gallup has a known liberal bias!
:D
Quote from: Hoss on June 14, 2012, 03:05:13 PM
But you know Gallup has a known liberal bias!
:D
If Fox posted these findings the crazies would say Fox had a liberal bias.
Reality never matters as long as perception rules the populous.
Quote from: Townsend on June 14, 2012, 03:08:19 PM
If Fox posted these findings the crazies would say Fox had a liberal bias.
Reality never matters as long as perception rules the populous.
I'd seize on that if I were President Obama. Wouldn't you? Lets see if he does. . .
Well he didn't in today's "reset" speech, though he did admonish himself a bit for making the comment about the private sector even though we all know that he, and even some of the poster on this forum believe his original words reflected his true belief and understanding. Today he said:
"Over the next five months, this election will take many twists and many turns, polls will go up and polls will go down, there will be no shortage of gaffes and controversies that keep both campaigns busy and give the press something to write about. You may have heard I recently made my own unique contribution to that process."
So it's clear that he understands he has a weak message and needs to rewind, retool, reset, and find focus. Perhaps his speechwriters hadn't had a chance to review the Gallop poll before his speech and perhaps he may adopt "Blame Bush" as his new theme.
I'm not a real smart guy, but somthing tells me using "Blame Bush" again, three years (almost to the day) after the end of the Bush recession ended is not going to provide momentum he needs.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2012, 03:22:48 PM
I'm not a real smart guy, but somthing tells me using "Blame Bush" again, three years (almost to the day) after the end of the Bush recession ended is not going to provide momentum he needs.
I think it might work. After all, these are the same people who believed someone without any sort of leadership experience was fit to lead the country at such a crucial juncture in US history.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2012, 03:22:48 PM
I'd seize on that if I were President Obama. Wouldn't you? Lets see if he does. . .
Well he didn't in today's "reset" speech, though he did admonish himself a bit for making the comment about the private sector even though we all know that he, and even some of the poster on this forum believe his original words reflected his true belief and understanding. Today he said:
"Over the next five months, this election will take many twists and many turns, polls will go up and polls will go down, there will be no shortage of gaffes and controversies that keep both campaigns busy and give the press something to write about. You may have heard I recently made my own unique contribution to that process."
So it's clear that he understands he has a weak message and needs to rewind, retool, reset, and find focus. Perhaps his speechwriters hadn't had a chance to review the Gallop poll before his speech and perhaps he may adopt "Blame Bush" as his new theme.
I'm not a real smart guy, but somthing tells me using "Blame Bush" again, three years (almost to the day) after the end of the Bush recession ended is not going to provide momentum he needs.
I guess you missed my previous post.
Quote from: Townsend on June 14, 2012, 03:28:45 PM
I guess you missed my previous post.
Gas? Miss something? Say it isn't so!
Quote from: Townsend on June 14, 2012, 03:28:45 PM
I guess you missed my previous post.
Nope, got it, just think it's sad that his defining achievement that resonates with the voters after 3 years is that he is not Bush.
Brilliant!
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2012, 03:36:47 PM
Nope, got it, just think it's sad that his defining achievement that resonates with the voters after 3 years is that he is not Bush.
Brilliant!
Look everyone. There's that perception thing.
Isn't anyone going to note the disastrous reduction in Federal, State and local employment as a factor in the both employment stats and the poor economy? I forecasted two years ago that if we were to follow the dictates of the Republican mantra of eliminating government "waste" by chopping jobs that this would happen. But did anyone listen? Noooooooo. Now we must suffer. ::)
Seriously, a recession is usually lessened by increased federal, state and local employment efforts. Its a good way to pump money into the economy as a jump start till the next cycle begins. It was done under both Bushes and was effective. Unfortunately, it is being ignored this time in favor of T-party doctrine which chokes government while blood letting to get the bad demons out of the sick patient. It hdoesn't help that its an election year and the party out of office wants to make the one in office look powerless.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 14, 2012, 10:08:01 AM
Actually you should be asking: "why are tax receipts up without a tax increase?"
Reaganomics at work.
Threadwinner. Shut it down.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2012, 03:36:47 PM
Nope, got it, just think it's sad that his defining achievement that resonates with the voters after 3 years is that he is not Bush.
Brilliant!
Bush is running against Obama this year?
Quote from: guido911 on June 14, 2012, 04:00:19 PM
Bush is running against Obama this year?
A quantity of his excretions left over the years have piled up in the FOX newsroom. Those excretions are running against Obama this year and every year. They will continue to do so as long as he holds office.
Quote from: Townsend on June 14, 2012, 04:03:16 PM
A quantity of his excretions left over the years have piled up in the FOX newsroom. Those excretions are running against Obama this year and every year. They will continue to do so as long as he holds office.
Okay. I'm all for drinking and posting. Problem is I am sober right now. Can you help me? ;D
Quote from: AquaMan on June 14, 2012, 03:42:38 PM
Isn't anyone going to note the disastrous reduction in Federal, State and local employment as a factor in the both employment stats and the poor economy? I forecasted two years ago that if we were to follow the dictates of the Republican mantra of eliminating government "waste" by chopping jobs that this would happen. But did anyone listen? Noooooooo. Now we must suffer. ::)
Seriously, a recession is usually lessened by increased federal, state and local employment efforts. Its a good way to pump money into the economy as a jump start till the next cycle begins. It was done under both Bushes and was effective. Unfortunately, it is being ignored this time in favor of T-party doctrine which chokes government while blood letting to get the bad demons out of the sick patient. It hdoesn't help that its an election year and the party out of office wants to make the one in office look powerless.
So if Obama is such an astute leader, why did he not follow the "conventional wisdom" the Bushes used? His first two years in office he had majorities in the House and Senate. Obama simply put together a dumpster full of temporary projects and apparently never even spent the whole allotment for the "stimulus". Yet, spending is still, by most accounts, 20% higher than prior to the recession yet government employment is lower? Where is all the money going?
Secondly, shrinking local and state employment are the direct result of shrinking incomes and spending and is a far better indicator of the overall economy. Most states can't spend to oblivion like the feds can.
Quote from: Townsend on June 14, 2012, 04:03:16 PM
A quantity of his excretions left over the years have piled up in the FOX newsroom. Those excretions are running against Obama this year and every year. They will continue to do so as long as he holds office.
I won the thread. Quit it.
Quote from: AquaMan on June 14, 2012, 03:42:38 PM
Isn't anyone going to note the disastrous reduction in Federal, State and local employment as a factor in the both employment stats and the poor economy? I forecasted two years ago that if we were to follow the dictates of the Republican mantra of eliminating government "waste" by chopping jobs that this would happen. But did anyone listen? Noooooooo. Now we must suffer. ::)
Seriously, a recession is usually lessened by increased federal, state and local employment efforts. Its a good way to pump money into the economy as a jump start till the next cycle begins. It was done under both Bushes and was effective. Unfortunately, it is being ignored this time in favor of T-party doctrine which chokes government while blood letting to get the bad demons out of the sick patient. It hdoesn't help that its an election year and the party out of office wants to make the one in office look powerless.
But if you actually look at the unemployment numbers by industry, according to the Government's own numbers Government unemployment is only at 4.2%. In fact, it's the lowest of any industry. Construction still shows the highest rate at 14.2%
Now if you throw out government workers and unpaid workers the adjusted unemployment rate is 8.7%
When you add in government unemployment it actually improves the rate to 8.1%
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5195/7372907000_22183215df_b.jpg)
So to blame President Obama's failures on a decrease in government employment is rather silly.
Quote from: guido911 on June 14, 2012, 04:05:53 PM
Okay. I'm all for drinking and posting. Problem is I am sober right now. Can you help me? ;D
I'm referring to the FOX talent as meadow muffins dropped by W.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 14, 2012, 04:08:28 PM
I won the thread. Quit it.
Just lobbin' night soil.
Quote from: guido911 on June 14, 2012, 04:00:19 PM
Bush is running against Obama this year?
He is far easier to run against than Romney, so it may indeed be the wisest strategery.
Despite guido and conan declaring that the thread should be over because they have spoken, the thread continues.
Conan: you wrote this "shrinking local and state employment are the direct result of shrinking incomes and spending and is a far better indicator of the overall economy."
Income tax collections are up, even with less local and state government jobs. More income from people employed in the private sector, yet less government jobs. Why is that a bad thing?
Gaspar: Why are you obsessed with what Obama should be saying? You would probably be the last person in America that he would listen to. You have posted time and time again all about Obama's message, his campaign strategies, even what all his advisors are saying. It just seems odd to me that you are constantly trying to put words in his mouth, then attacking anything he does say.
I think it is time to admit that you have a mancrush on Obama.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 14, 2012, 04:39:26 PM
I think it is time to admit that you have a mancrush on Obama.
He's an Obamaboy?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 14, 2012, 04:39:26 PM
I think it is time to admit that you have a mancrush on Obama.
Meh, he'd probably just tell me whatever I want to hear without really appreciating me as a person.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2012, 04:10:24 PM
But if you actually look at the unemployment numbers by industry, according to the Government's own numbers Government unemployment is only at 4.2%. In fact, it's the lowest of any industry. Construction still shows the highest rate at 14.2%
Now if you throw out government workers and unpaid workers the adjusted unemployment rate is 8.7%
When you add in government unemployment it actually improves the rate to 8.1%
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5195/7372907000_22183215df_b.jpg)
So to blame President Obama's failures on a decrease in government employment is rather silly.
Yeah, that professor of economics on MSNBC who used his stats to prove the opposite, was just silly. Maybe you could send him your phone number.
Quote from: AquaMan on June 14, 2012, 04:46:40 PM
Yeah, that professor of economics on MSNBC who used his stats to prove the opposite, was just silly. Maybe you could send him your phone number.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/228/248/129033851144539231.jpg)
Who classifies themselves as a government worker? Details matter. If 4.2% of the government workers are unemployed does that mean they can no longer work anywhere but the government? Not likely. Teachers jobs have been cut but they find work elsewhere. Also one wonders that if a job that is totally eliminated through no funding is it really a job. If a tree falls in the forest and no hears it does it make any noise? ;D
Why did you ignore the rest of the post? A reasonable solution might be to follow the path of predecessors who lessened the impact of business cycles by increasing government investment in jobs during down cycles and diminish them during growth periods. As Chauncey Gardner might say, "It is prudent to prune the garden while it is growing not while it is dying".
I wonder how Romney feels about business cycles and government employment used to manipulate them.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 14, 2012, 04:39:26 PM
Despite guido and conan declaring that the thread should be over because they have spoken, the thread continues.
Conan: you wrote this "shrinking local and state employment are the direct result of shrinking incomes and spending and is a far better indicator of the overall economy."
Income tax collections are up, even with less local and state government jobs. More income from people employed in the private sector, yet less government jobs. Why is that a bad thing?
Gaspar: Why are you obsessed with what Obama should be saying? You would probably be the last person in America that he would listen to. You have posted time and time again all about Obama's message, his campaign strategies, even what all his advisors are saying. It just seems odd to me that you are constantly trying to put words in his mouth, then attacking anything he does say.
I think it is time to admit that you have a mancrush on Obama.
As state income tax collections heading up and sales tax collections, chances are we will start to see state and local employment begin to increase again as budgets increase. That is unless the Tea Baggists figure out we didn't need those furloughed workers in the first place. I was merely explaining in general that when the economy shrinks, local and state governments have to react much quicker to laying people off. Clearly tax receipts increasing is a sign of advancing recovery. The main problem is, there are at least 14 plus million people who are not presently sharing in that recovery.
Obama has a hard sell for those people.
Quote from: AquaMan on June 14, 2012, 05:00:09 PM
Who classifies themselves as a government worker? Details matter. People who are paid by federal or state government.
If 4.2% of the government workers are unemployed does that mean they can no longer work anywhere but the government? Nope.
(http://media.reason.com/mc/mriggs/2012_06/CLUELESS.jpg?h=454&w=600)
Quote from: Gaspar on June 15, 2012, 01:13:45 PM
(http://media.reason.com/mc/mriggs/2012_06/CLUELESS.jpg?h=454&w=600)
You finally found something you have in common with the president then.
The spin never ends eh?
Of course you blame Obama for lower house prices. Maybe you should look up actual facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble
National home sales and prices both fell dramatically in March 2007 — the steepest plunge since the 1989 Savings and Loan crisis. According to NAR data, sales were down 13% to 482,000 from the peak of 554,000 in March 2006, and the national median price fell nearly 6% to $217,000 from a peak of $230,200 in July 2006.
Chief economist Mark Zandi of the economic research firm Moody's Economy.com predicted a "crash" of double-digit depreciation in some U.S. cities by 2007–2009. In a paper he presented to a Federal Reserve Board economic symposium in August 2007, Yale University economist Robert Shiller warned, "The examples we have of past cycles indicate that major declines in real home prices—even 50 per cent declines in some places—are entirely possible going forward from today or from the not-too-distant future."
It must be comforting to simply blame Obama for everything, even for things that happened before he even announced his campaign for the Presidency.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 15, 2012, 03:45:53 PM
Of course you blame Obama for lower house prices. Maybe you should look up actual facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble
National home sales and prices both fell dramatically in March 2007 — the steepest plunge since the 1989 Savings and Loan crisis. According to NAR data, sales were down 13% to 482,000 from the peak of 554,000 in March 2006, and the national median price fell nearly 6% to $217,000 from a peak of $230,200 in July 2006.
Chief economist Mark Zandi of the economic research firm Moody's Economy.com predicted a "crash" of double-digit depreciation in some U.S. cities by 2007–2009. In a paper he presented to a Federal Reserve Board economic symposium in August 2007, Yale University economist Robert Shiller warned, "The examples we have of past cycles indicate that major declines in real home prices—even 50 per cent declines in some places—are entirely possible going forward from today or from the not-too-distant future."
It must be comforting to simply blame Obama for everything, even for things that happened before he even announced his campaign for the Presidency.
Who are you talking to. I don't blame him for lower house prices. We were in a bubble and housing prices were and still are way overinflated. Lending was cheap and our friends at Freddy and Fanny made it easy for first home buyers that could barley afford their apartments to go buy 200K houses. The only person I blame for that is Bawney.
It was the impetus for the recession.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 15, 2012, 03:51:38 PM
Who are you talking to. I don't blame him for lower house prices. We were in a bubble and housing prices were and still are way overinflated. Lending was cheap and our friends at Freddy and Fanny made it easy for first home buyers that could barley afford their apartments to go buy 200K houses. The only person I blame for that is Bawney.
It was the impetus for the recession.
I'm currently reading "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis (of Liar's Poker & Moneyball fame). You should give it a read. It's pretty entertaining (the personalities that is), but it will make your blood boil when you realize how clueless all of these people were when it came to sub-prime securities. They either weren't smart enough or they were so ignorant to let it happen. I lean toward the latter. Boggles the mind that our government not only didn't see this coming and didn't set up proper regulation, but it bailed them out after the fact, like it was their fault or something. Nauseating.
Quote from: erfalf on June 15, 2012, 04:01:44 PM
I'm currently reading "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis (of Liar's Poker & Moneyball fame). You should give it a read. It's pretty entertaining (the personalities that is), but it will make your blood boil when you realize how clueless all of these people were when it came to sub-prime securities. They either weren't smart enough or they were so ignorant to let it happen. I lean toward the latter. Boggles the mind that our government not only didn't see this coming and didn't set up proper regulation, but it bailed them out after the fact, like it was their fault or something. Nauseating.
They were warned 17 times starting in 2001 of exactly what would happen. Each time that warning was countered by Mr. Bawney Frank assuring congress and the American people that there was "NO BUBBLE."
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.
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 againhighlights 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.
You know who I blame as much as if not more than Fannie & Freddie (Bahnee)... S&P & Moody's. There was even a story in this book that Moody's just used the model that Goldman gave them to rate a bond that Goldman wanted rated AAA. Mind boggling.
Figured this thread would work for this dumb@ssed opinion from a lib on PBS. This sort of thinking is why that POS PBS needs to be taken out back and put out of our misery.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/07/mark-shields-republicans-havent-raised-taxes-21-years-and-irresponsib
Yes, PBS should be canned because they dare to represent a slightly wider spectrum of political thought than Fox News. You're in top form today, Guido.
Quote
The fact of the matter is that only the Left and their media minions want higher taxes; the vast majority of Americans don't.
This could be rephrased as "only the Left and their media minions want to pay the bill for what we consume; the vast majority of Americans don't." Of course, that would be almost as much of a lie. The fact is that most Americans don't even know what they pay, so they have no basis on which to form an opinion about the level of taxation. They, quite accurately, feel unsteady financially. After all, they make less (after inflation) now than they did before Reagan took office. Hell, they make less in real terms than they did when Bush II took office! Unfortunately for them, the Bush tax cuts were not nearly enough to offset this loss in income.
So yeah, they feel squeezed. Perhaps someday the media might let them in on the little secret as to why they feel that way, but that wouldn't do well for any of the media conglomerates.
Quote from: guido911 on July 07, 2012, 04:33:54 PM
Figured this thread would work for this dumb@ssed opinion from a lib on PBS. This sort of thinking is why that POS PBS needs to be taken out back and put out of our misery.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/07/mark-shields-republicans-havent-raised-taxes-21-years-and-irresponsib
Noel Sheppard is the one who should be put out of our misery by taking his carp of the net. He obviously has no understanding of the budget and spending bill process. He made a snide and completely ignorant statement about Mark Shields not knowing when Bush raised taxes - saying it was 1990 rather than Shields statement of 1991.
The bill he signed in Nov 1990, was for the fiscal year 1991 -earliest effective date in the bill was Jan 1, 1991. Which means the bill he signed raised taxes in 1991. So Shields actually was correct and Sheppard shows us how he is so eat up with the Kool-Aid, that he is either lying intentionally, or just the typical ignorant we hear from that side.
And many of the provisions took effect after Sep 30, 1991, and some in 1992, so I guess Shields was a little bit wrong because some of that was later in 1992 and beyond.