Obama tries to screw up banking next

[CMike]

Oreo please read the business owner survey I posted.

 

[saveliberty]

Oreo, I would say CMike is a consultant. Specifically, a downtown business development consultant. I know of at least three that have been done in our county alone in the last two years.

 

[ConcernedCitz]

To the small, narrow minded morons that think Barack Obama should be focused on your personal struggles and your individual failures because of your own lack of foresight and planning two words for you. SHUT UP!

This country (and the President is responsible for the COUNTRY not your personal issues) was on the brink of complete COLLAPSE!! Your buddy George W. Bush PILLAGED the federal coffers and HANDED OUT billions of dollars to billionaires and corporations to run a military industrial complex and keep hidden the corruption that the financial sector had pulled on the American people since 2000.

For you less educated readers I'll walk you through what President Obama had to do. Its like an 18 wheeler having to make a u-turn in tunnel. YES it can be done but it AINT going to happen quickly.

If while that truck is making that u-turn you lose your job because you missed a meeting while you were stuck in the traffic or you wreck your car because you rear end someone YOU CANT GO BLAMING THE TRUCK BEHIND THE TRUCK MAKING THE U-TURN.

Bush is the truck MAKING THE U-TURN! Obama is the truck BEHIND THE TRUCK MAKING THE U-TURN. Just because you knew it was a truck making a U-Turn does not mean YOU blame next truck you see coming toward you.

In 2000 when George W Bush took the presidency we had a SURPLUS, a STABLE AND THRIVING ECONOMY, NO WARS! but "W" immediately began making a U-turn by having congress repeal laws and write new laws to eliminate the checks and balances on the financial sector. Then 911 happened and "W" used this to give free reign to the Industrial military complex to CLEAR THE SHELVES of all the old weapons so that new ones could be built. Before you know it, the SURPLUS WAS A DEFICIT, The economy was in DECLINE and individuals began to feel the pinch. ANYONE REMEMBER 4 DOLLAR GAS!!!?

AND just as the bubble burst, "W's" presidency was finished and he packed up his money bags and went back to texas. Then Obama came in with the air POURING out of the balloon. The very first thing he had to do was PATCH THE HOLES (and there were many) These patches were not cheap. (i.e stimulus package) but they were necessary. once he patched the holes the next responsibility is to check for cracks where other holes may occur and get those sealed (i.e bailouts) and once that was done he had to try to blow the balloon back up (i.e cash for clunkers, stimulus money to states for shovel ready projects to create jobs)

NOW slowly the balloon is beginning to inflate but YOU SORRY, SHALLOW MINDED, INSTANT GRATIFICATION INDIVIDUALS CANT SEE THIS. all you care about is YOUR DAMN SELF. Screw the WHOLE picture. I DONT HAVE A JOB!!, I LOST MY HOME! MY FAMILY WAS DESTROYED!!! and its BARACK OBAMA'S FAULT.

Barack Obama INHERITED this situation and it was so bad that ONE YEAR IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO FIX IT. It didn't GET THIS WAY IN A YEAR and it wont be FIXED IN A YEAR. but you don't care right? it may have being going to hell in a hand basket while Bush was there but IT HADN'T EFFECT ME SO I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. ALL I CARE ABOUT IS IT'S EFFECTING ME NOW AND BARACK OBAMA IS MY PRESIDENT. One question for you. ARE YOU REALLY THAT STUPID!?!

 

[oreo]

To the small, narrow minded morons that think Barack Obama should be focused on your personal struggles and your individual failures because of your own lack of foresight and planning two words for you. SHUT UP!

This country (and the President is responsible for the COUNTRY not your personal issues) was on the brink of complete COLLAPSE!! Your buddy George W. Bush PILLAGED the federal coffers and HANDED OUT billions of dollars to billionaires and corporations to run a military industrial complex and keep hidden the corruption that the financial sector had pulled on the American people since 2000.

For you less educated readers I'll walk you through what President Obama had to do. Its like an 18 wheeler having to make a u-turn in tunnel. YES it can be done but it AINT going to happen quickly.

If while that truck is making that u-turn you lose your job because you missed a meeting while you were stuck in the traffic or you wreck your car because you rear end someone YOU CANT GO BLAMING THE TRUCK BEHIND THE TRUCK MAKING THE U-TURN.

Bush is the truck MAKING THE U-TURN! Obama is the truck BEHIND THE TRUCK MAKING THE U-TURN. Just because you knew it was a truck making a U-Turn does not mean YOU blame next truck you see coming toward you.

In 2000 when George W Bush took the presidency we had a SURPLUS, a STABLE AND THRIVING ECONOMY, NO WARS! but "W" immediately began making a U-turn by having congress repeal laws and write new laws to eliminate the checks and balances on the financial sector. Then 911 happened and "W" used this to give free reign to the Industrial military complex to CLEAR THE SHELVES of all the old weapons so that new ones could be built. Before you know it, the SURPLUS WAS A DEFICIT, The economy was in DECLINE and individuals began to feel the pinch. ANYONE REMEMBER 4 DOLLAR GAS!!!?

AND just as the bubble burst, "W's" presidency was finished and he packed up his money bags and went back to texas. Then Obama came in with the air POURING out of the balloon. The very first thing he had to do was PATCH THE HOLES (and there were many) These patches were not cheap. (i.e stimulus package) but they were necessary. once he patched the holes the next responsibility is to check for cracks where other holes may occur and get those sealed (i.e bailouts) and once that was done he had to try to blow the balloon back up (i.e cash for clunkers, stimulus money to states for shovel ready projects to create jobs)

NOW slowly the balloon is beginning to inflate but YOU SORRY, SHALLOW MINDED, INSTANT GRATIFICATION INDIVIDUALS CANT SEE THIS. all you care about is YOUR DAMN SELF. Screw the WHOLE picture. I DONT HAVE A JOB!!, I LOST MY HOME! MY FAMILY WAS DESTROYED!!! and its BARACK OBAMA'S FAULT.

Barack Obama INHERITED this situation and it was so bad that ONE YEAR IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO FIX IT. It didn't GET THIS WAY IN A YEAR and it wont be FIXED IN A YEAR. but you don't care right? it may have being going to hell in a hand basket while Bush was there but IT HADN'T EFFECT ME SO I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. ALL I CARE ABOUT IS IT'S EFFECTING ME NOW AND BARACK OBAMA IS MY PRESIDENT. One question for you. ARE YOU REALLY THAT STUPID!?!

It wasn't anyone BUT Barack Obama who made the promise that the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill (that he didn't read--nor anyone else) would save us from going over 8% unemployment. We found out later it was loaded with political pay-offs--earmarks --goodies & millions of dollars in bonuses for AIG-Fannie/Freddie executives. The very next week he signed off on another 450 billion in the Ominus bill (that G.W. Bush refused to sign) that was loaded with over 9000 earmarks & goodies--this while Obama was saying--"this was the worst economic crisis since the great depression".

If Barack Obama really wanted to stimulate this economy--then why wasn't one single penny in this bill dedicated to a nuclear power plant--that would have put hundreds of thousands of Americans--especially in construction back to work. Instead--he did an FDR on roads & bridges. Back in the 1930's we needed roads & bridges. To build it took thousands of men with shovels. Today--those jobs require a couple of heavy equipment operators.

Our economy is so much more diverse than the 1930's--there is absolutely no way to stimulate all sectors of this economy without giving money back to Americans through tax-cuts, while dramatically cutting government spending. JFK & Reagan understood that & it worked for them.

To add--there is more than sufficient evidence--that more than verify that deregulation took place in the 1990's. Fannie/Freddie, AIG--Wall Street derivatives where all done & fully supported by officials in the Clinton administration. All warnings of this current collapse were ignored by all banking committees.

While I do agree that we need to go back to banking regulation & impose the Glass-Steagall act of 1933--that was also dergulated in 1999--this President has already proven himself to be an economic moron & a very good friend to special interest groups--something he promised time & time again he wouldn't be.

Massive Government spending does not create long term private sector job growth.

 

[saveliberty]

Concernedcitz,

Your convenient rewrite of history has been viewed on this board before. President's do not pass spending bills, Congress does and your party has had the majority for sometime. Further, the housing crisis in particular, caused a great deal of the financail woes. That rest squarely on the sholders of the Democrats and in particular, Barney Franks.

Since you seem to need truck references, it was like running an 18-wheeler through your bank. Massive spending by the government is not the way to economic recovery. At best it helps build some infrastructure, but mostly saps capital to build private industry jobs.

Locally, our stimulus was new road signs on break-away wooden posts. They replaced perfectly good signs and metal posts. No new jobs for local folks.

I found you more than just a little offensive with your opening comments:

"To the small, narrow minded morons that think Barack Obama should be focused on your personal struggles and your individual failures because of your own lack of foresight and planning two words for you. SHUT UP!"

I would like a clarification of just what you consider to be the public's part in the financial crisis. Most of us went to work and did our jobs. Most of us still are. The economic uncertainty was government created. Those lost jobs caused the economy to slow and result in more job losses.

Your solution is for us to shut up and let the assclown run things? Silence is not our forte. Being President isn't Obama's strength either.

 

[cawacko]

To the small, narrow minded morons that think Barack Obama should be focused on your personal struggles and your individual failures because of your own lack of foresight and planning two words for you. SHUT UP!

This country (and the President is responsible for the COUNTRY not your personal issues) was on the brink of complete COLLAPSE!! Your buddy George W. Bush PILLAGED the federal coffers and HANDED OUT billions of dollars to billionaires and corporations to run a military industrial complex and keep hidden the corruption that the financial sector had pulled on the American people since 2000.

For you less educated readers I'll walk you through what President Obama had to do. Its like an 18 wheeler having to make a u-turn in tunnel. YES it can be done but it AINT going to happen quickly.

If while that truck is making that u-turn you lose your job because you missed a meeting while you were stuck in the traffic or you wreck your car because you rear end someone YOU CANT GO BLAMING THE TRUCK BEHIND THE TRUCK MAKING THE U-TURN.

Bush is the truck MAKING THE U-TURN! Obama is the truck BEHIND THE TRUCK MAKING THE U-TURN. Just because you knew it was a truck making a U-Turn does not mean YOU blame next truck you see coming toward you.

In 2000 when George W Bush took the presidency we had a SURPLUS, a STABLE AND THRIVING ECONOMY, NO WARS! but "W" immediately began making a U-turn by having congress repeal laws and write new laws to eliminate the checks and balances on the financial sector. Then 911 happened and "W" used this to give free reign to the Industrial military complex to CLEAR THE SHELVES of all the old weapons so that new ones could be built. Before you know it, the SURPLUS WAS A DEFICIT, The economy was in DECLINE and individuals began to feel the pinch. ANYONE REMEMBER 4 DOLLAR GAS!!!?

AND just as the bubble burst, "W's" presidency was finished and he packed up his money bags and went back to texas. Then Obama came in with the air POURING out of the balloon. The very first thing he had to do was PATCH THE HOLES (and there were many) These patches were not cheap. (i.e stimulus package) but they were necessary. once he patched the holes the next responsibility is to check for cracks where other holes may occur and get those sealed (i.e bailouts) and once that was done he had to try to blow the balloon back up (i.e cash for clunkers, stimulus money to states for shovel ready projects to create jobs)

NOW slowly the balloon is beginning to inflate but YOU SORRY, SHALLOW MINDED, INSTANT GRATIFICATION INDIVIDUALS CANT SEE THIS. all you care about is YOUR DAMN SELF. Screw the WHOLE picture. I DONT HAVE A JOB!!, I LOST MY HOME! MY FAMILY WAS DESTROYED!!! and its BARACK OBAMA'S FAULT.

Barack Obama INHERITED this situation and it was so bad that ONE YEAR IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO FIX IT. It didn't GET THIS WAY IN A YEAR and it wont be FIXED IN A YEAR. but you don't care right? it may have being going to hell in a hand basket while Bush was there but IT HADN'T EFFECT ME SO I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. ALL I CARE ABOUT IS IT'S EFFECTING ME NOW AND BARACK OBAMA IS MY PRESIDENT. One question for you. ARE YOU REALLY THAT STUPID!?!

Haha... I can hear this guy in seven more years, "We need to let our Presidents serve longer than 2 terms because after all the damage George W. did Barack needs 12 years to clean it up".

 

[CMike]

I'm truly glad that things are going well for you. I'm fortunate that my business is well established and while not recession proof, is holding up well so far. Please check the following 2010 report from NFIB. The section on credit markets is enlightening.


http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/sbet201001.pdf

Thank you. I truely wish the best for Oreo's business and yours as well.

About two years ago my wife and I were broke. We lived in a tinsy apartment, and I got nervous buying food at the grocery store.

2009 we had 3 really nice vacations.

The last one we went to Cancun and stayed in a five diamond hotel. Although, disaster striked there. My wife feel down some steps and needed surgery in Mexico. It had to be redone when we got back to the US. This was about two months ago. She has been somewhat immobile, and has started physical therapy.

If you want to read more about that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/95155-my-cancun-trip-disaster-strikes.html

In any case, both my wife and both have a difficult time, still realizing how far we have gone in the last two years.

 

[CMike]

Here is a survey of business owners. They seem to disagree with you.

The Small Business Outlook for 2009 - Survey Results

What Businesses Want The Government To Do

We also asked our survey takers to comment on what, if anything, the government should do to help small businesses get through the recession. A handful of the respondents indicated they thought the government should do nothing. "Leave us alone. That means don't increase anybody's taxes and quit spending money you don't have," wrote one respondent. "The government should stay out of it and everything will work itself out," wrote another.

But, the majority of business owners commenting on this question indicated that access to capital and/or tax reductions were what was most needed to help small businesses through the recession.

Here are a just a few of the comments we got about loans and access to capital:

"Require that some of the money given to shore up the banks be used to give out small business short term loans. Require the banks getting money from the government that hand out credit cards be required to reduce their credit card percentages to customers and business owners. If the fees and percentages drop, customers and business owners alike will have more liquid cash."

"Less talk and more action about small business loans. Actually make funds AVAILABLE to qualified borrowers because right now all it is, is talk and no action."

"Loan money or force the banks to loan money so I can hire someone!"

Some, wanted bailout money to go to small business in the form of grants , either for startup businesses or for existing business, and one respondent suggested a loan program where a startup would receive a loan of up to $50,000 and not have to make the first payment on the loan for 90 days after receiving the money.

"Give us the stimulus money and we'll get the economy moving," wrote on business owner. "Big businesses and banks just use the money to clean up their balance sheets."

And another commented, "Stop handing out money to the people who caused the recession in the first place. For every beginning there is an end, even for big business. Let the backbone of the country, Small Business, do its thing and stop driving us further in debt."

Well--let's take a look at this from the bankers prospective:

An established small business owner comes in for a loan & of course the business owner will have to give 2 years worth of income tax returns--with current gross sales & profit.

Banker--why are you here:
Business Owner: to borrow $100K
Banker--What do you need $100K for
Business Owner: To pay bills with.
Banker--Your current gross sales & profit are in the tank-in relation to the last two years income statements. So do you have any future contracts--that would enable you to repay this loan.
Business Owner: Not in the foreseeable future.

Would you loan money to this small business? --

I don't think so.

Banker -- why are you here?

Business Owner -- To borrow $10,000

Banker -- Why?

Business Owner -- Because of the recession I am currently having a cash flow problem

Banker -- Do you have collateral?

Business Owner -- Yes, I have a building worth $500,000, and machinery worth $100,000

Banker -- Will you use them as collateral?

Business Owner -- Yes

Would you loan $10,000 to this owner?

I am not saying that is the ideal reason to ask for a loan, however, a lot of business owners are in this position.

 

[CMike]

Oreo, I would say CMike is a consultant. Specifically, a downtown business development consultant. I know of at least three that have been done in our county alone in the last two years.

No.

 

[CMike]

This is interesting too

Top 10 Reasons To Get A Business Loan | Information And Web Site Links

Top 10 Reasons to Get a Business Loan

Dan Chan

Business Start-Ups

Start-up companies, in most cases, often require more funds than anybody else. They are beginning from scratch, and capital is often very tight in the beginning. Businesses must prioritize expenses. For example, is the water cooler really necessary in the beginning?

Working Capital

Business loans can provide the working capital needed for a number of things that a business does. If there is a large demand placed on your business to produce in a short time, borrowing money is the thing to do.


Purchasing Business Equipment

Let's face it, for some businesses, equipment can be utterly expensive. If you own a construction company, a new backhoe can put a real dent in your pocket.

Business Marketing

A wise old businessman once said if you don't market your business, it is like winking in the dark. When you do it, no one will know because you are in the dark. It takes money to advertise and a business loan can help. Turn on the lights to your business with more marketing efforts.

Pay Payroll

If you need money just to make payroll, then you are in a real tight. But this does happen. If you can see the light at the end of the tunnel with contracts on the horizon, business financing can help.

Hire Help

A well-known need for a growing businesses is the need for employees. A loan can help with the costs of hiring employees for business start-ups, especially.

Buying Inventory

Businessmen often come across deals on inventory. You don't want to necessary overdo it, but you can buy inventory in bulk when a sale is on. The extra finances from a business loan can make this kind of deal happen.

Improve Facilities

Expanding facilities is one of the more common reasons to get a business loan. The need for more space will allow you to expand you operations and grow the business. Sometimes, the property simply gets run down, and needs renovation, such as needing a new roof.

Buy Property

Buying property goes along with improving facilities. The need for space increases most of the time as a business grows. To expand, more property is often needed.

Development of Prototype

Has your company developed an idea on a prototype invention, but needs the money to make it happen? Seeking out business financial can be essential to getting the product to market.

 

[CMike]

This too

Taking out a Business Loan - Reasons for a Small Business to get a Business Loan - Bank Loan

 

[MaggieMae]

You miss the point entirely it was the Fair Housing Act, then the Community Reinvestment Act during Clinton's years where the government put the gun to the heads of banks FORCING them to make HIGH-RISK loans or be red-lined for growth and opportunities in other neighborhoods. The GOVERNMENT started the whole melt down of the financial industry.

They are not going to loosen up credit as long as they have an economic fool in the White House, they are scared to death to do so. Each day comes a new directive from the White House. Business and banks do not like uncertainty and with this economic moron in there, there will be no assurances of what he is going to do next. They are as nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof. That's why the sell-off in the markets. The more he talks about this, the more the markets will crash.

BTW- The only reason he is doing this now, is to re-direct the focus from his failed health care initiative and the catastrophic loss of Massachusetts. If you are fool enough to fall for this non-sense-, go a-head, he is not fooling the majority though, we are on to him.

A tax on the banks is a tax on the rest of us.

Once again, the CRA did not FORCE banks to do a goddamned thing. Stop making up shit. And you're not "on to" squat. You just like to think you are. My advice is to read some unbiased history of the bank failures. If you don't trust Wikipedia, then go to any number of other online encyclopedias where most have already spelled out the historic details, going way back to the CRA which you completely mischaracterize.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote homeownership.
The very worst idea in the plan, which fortunately never gained approval, was to let first-time homebuyers freely tap their IRA and 401(k) retirement-savings plans with no penalty to scrounge up a downpayment. That, HUD estimated, would have "benefited" 600,000 families in the first five years.

Plenty of other ideas in the plan did become reality, though. Knowing what we know now about the housing bust, the earnest language in the document seems faintly ridiculous. Here's an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:

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.

Note the praise for "creativity." That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well: "It strikes me as reckless to promote home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments."

There still is absolutely zero in that bill that FORCES lending banks to do anything other than to end the practice of red-lining potential buyers in certain low-income neighborhoods. Thanks for making my case--that's all I'm saying. OF COURSE it opened the door for failed mortgages. I never claimed it didn't. But I also added that GWB exacerbated the problem in 2004, which of course none of you seems to want to acknowledge.

 

[CMike]

Once again, the CRA did not FORCE banks to do a goddamned thing. Stop making up shit. And you're not "on to" squat. You just like to think you are. My advice is to read some unbiased history of the bank failures. If you don't trust Wikipedia, then go to any number of other online encyclopedias where most have already spelled out the historic details, going way back to the CRA which you completely mischaracterize.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote homeownership.
The very worst idea in the plan, which fortunately never gained approval, was to let first-time homebuyers freely tap their IRA and 401(k) retirement-savings plans with no penalty to scrounge up a downpayment. That, HUD estimated, would have "benefited" 600,000 families in the first five years.

Plenty of other ideas in the plan did become reality, though. Knowing what we know now about the housing bust, the earnest language in the document seems faintly ridiculous. Here's an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:

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.

Note the praise for "creativity." That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well: "It strikes me as reckless to promote home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments."

There still is absolutely zero in that bill that FORCES lending banks to do anything other than to end the practice of red-lining potential buyers in certain low-income neighborhoods. Thanks for making my case--that's all I'm saying. OF COURSE it opened the door for failed mortgages. I never claimed it didn't. But I also added that GWB exacerbated the problem in 2004, which of course none of you seems to want to acknowledge.

From the law itself:

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

It's telling financial institutions to be creative in getting people into houses AND they were.

 

[MaggieMae]

I said..businesses are not clamoring for loans right now and that's exactly what I meant to say. And gas prices are certainly part of the economic uncertainty. Do you have any idea how much money an extra dollar per gallon pulls out of the general economy? Were it not for people getting their tax returns, retail sales would be completely in the toilet.

Prove that businesses are not trying to get loans right now?

Businesse's only borrow money when they have a need to expand. To expand they need demand for their products or services. Right now there is no demand--therefore they are not borrowing. I know--I am a 30+ small business owner.

It is DEMAND that is horribly lacking in this country. The "only" way demand increases is to give consumers more money to spend on the products & services they need. It's called "trickle down" economics. What we are experiencing is Obama's flood the basement economics which is not working.

Trickle down should work in theory, but it didn't. The only reason consumers spent more prior to 2009 before the economic collapse was because they were charging their stuff and maxing out credit cards. Now that they have to use cold, hard cash, suddenly there is no demand except for necessities. One of the reasons credit was used so heavily was because wages were flat, i.e., no "trickle down." While CEOs continued to make huge profits, they were not investing in their employees but rather tightening their grip on them, in some cases forcing employees out and hiring part-time replacements so that they didn't have to pay benefits. I'm not suggesting YOU did that, but it happened nationwide as a general occurrence.

 

[MaggieMae]

Businesse's only borrow money when they have a need to expand. To expand they need demand for their products or services. Right now there is no demand--therefore they are not borrowing. I know--I am a 30+ small business owner.

It is DEMAND that is horribly lacking in this country. The "only" way demand increases is to give consumers more money to spend on the products & services they need. It's called "trickle down" economics. What we are experiencing is Obama's flood the basement economics which is not working.

Businesses also borrow money if they can't meet their expenses.

Why do you think it's only for expansion? In other words, business in this country has holed up along with the American consumer.

Basically, businesses borrow money when they need money.

The only reason business or ourselves would borrow money to pay for long term expenses or debt--is if we see work coming our way--to where we would be able to repay the loan.

Currently in this economic enviroment there is no work in the foreseeable future--therefore we are not going to expense new loans--(acquire more debt) that cannot be paid back.

Expansion--coming from demand for products & services--is the #1 reason business will borrow money.

In effect, you're describing a vicious circle. You won't produce because you're scared the demand isn't be there, but if you expanded (and/or re-designed your marketing strategy), you also won't risk that your business will be more successful if you do. Seems to me that too many small businesses are simply not willing to take risks at all anymore, so when will this end? Hasn't operating a business always had its risks?

 

[MaggieMae]

Businesses also take out loans to keep things going, in the hope that they will pay it back.

The banks took out loans from the government, not to expand, but remain solvent.

Businesses do this too.

BTW I am a business owner too.

Then you're a very dissolusioned business owner-- Solid business practice dictates that you do not borrow money that you cannot afford to repay. You make cut-backs. lay off employees & dramatically cut business expenses--even selling inventory at great discounts to keep your business afloat.

Simply put, business in this country have gone into survival mode. Borrowing money at this time only defers the inevitable for a period of time & makes it much worse because now you have another monthly payment.

Small businesse's in this country were NOT on the list of the "too big to fail"--LOL And if small business operated in the same manner as the federal government they would be bankrupt 15 minutes after they had their grand opening--LOL.

That is why business is not borrowing at this time. There is no DEMAND for their products & services.

Has either of you checked recently with the Small Business Administration? This announcement, made a year ago, looks too good to ignore.

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/news_release_09-10.pdf

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Too late. He already accomplished that.

 

[MaggieMae]

It wasn't anyone BUT Barack Obama who made the promise that the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill (that he didn't read--nor anyone else) would save us from going over 8% unemployment. We found out later it was loaded with political pay-offs--earmarks --goodies & millions of dollars in bonuses for AIG-Fannie/Freddie executives. The very next week he signed off on another 450 billion in the Ominus bill (that G.W. Bush refused to sign) that was loaded with over 9000 earmarks & goodies--this while Obama was saying--"this was the worst economic crisis since the great depression".
Rather than just repeating embellished horror stories about political payoffs and such, why don't you just follow the stimulus money on one of the many websites that do this on a daily basis? There isn't anywhere near as much "waste" as alleged by right-wing bloggers, and only half of it hasn't even been spent yet.

If Barack Obama really wanted to stimulate this economy--then why wasn't one single penny in this bill dedicated to a nuclear power plant--that would have put hundreds of thousands of Americans--especially in construction back to work. Instead--he did an FDR on roads & bridges. Back in the 1930's we needed roads & bridges. To build it took thousands of men with shovels. Today--those jobs require a couple of heavy equipment operators.
Why put construction of multi-billion dollar nuclear power plants into the stimulus bill when the energy bill already proposes construction of new ones? That kind of construction is, as you say, long-term. The stimulus bill attempts to funnel money into short-term projects.
How do energy companies decide where to build nuclear power plants? - By Lydia DePillis - Slate Magazine

Our economy is so much more diverse than the 1930's--there is absolutely no way to stimulate all sectors of this economy without giving money back to Americans through tax-cuts, while dramatically cutting government spending. JFK & Reagan understood that & it worked for them.

To add--there is more than sufficient evidence--that more than verify that deregulation took place in the 1990's. Fannie/Freddie, AIG--Wall Street derivatives where all done & fully supported by officials in the Clinton administration. All warnings of this current collapse were ignored by all banking committees.
AIG was a complete shock. It is the umbrella corporation for insurance companies, but only one small department (the one responsible for making investments) decided to act like a huge independent investment bank, which it obviously was not. If AIG had not been bailed out, many of those same insurance companies now being demonized would have gone belly up.

While I do agree that we need to go back to banking regulation & impose the Glass-Steagall act of 1933--that was also dergulated in 1999--this President has already proven himself to be an economic moron & a very good friend to special interest groups--something he promised time & time again he wouldn't be.

Massive Government spending does not create long term private sector job growth.

View attachment 9299

I would totally disagree with your last paragraph, and there are plenty of examples where massive government spending projects have indeed produced long-term private sector job grown. The aerospace industry is a perfect example.

Here's a link to follow the stimulus money, state by state, project by project.
http://www.propublica.org/ion/stimulus

 

[MaggieMae]

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote homeownership.
The very worst idea in the plan, which fortunately never gained approval, was to let first-time homebuyers freely tap their IRA and 401(k) retirement-savings plans with no penalty to scrounge up a downpayment. That, HUD estimated, would have "benefited" 600,000 families in the first five years.

Plenty of other ideas in the plan did become reality, though. Knowing what we know now about the housing bust, the earnest language in the document seems faintly ridiculous. Here's an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:

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.

Note the praise for "creativity." That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well: "It strikes me as reckless to promote home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments."

There still is absolutely zero in that bill that FORCES lending banks to do anything other than to end the practice of red-lining potential buyers in certain low-income neighborhoods. Thanks for making my case--that's all I'm saying. OF COURSE it opened the door for failed mortgages. I never claimed it didn't. But I also added that GWB exacerbated the problem in 2004, which of course none of you seems to want to acknowledge.

From the law itself:

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

It's telling financial institutions to be creative in getting people into houses AND they were.

There is still no language that specifically says YOU WILL provide loans to those people... Did you think the practice of red-lining was appropriate? I've lived all over the country and known plenty of black people--some slackers but most are honest folks trying to earn an honest living and provide for their families, and simply want the same opportunities. But often those families have to live in depressed neighborhoods (and for the reasons why, let's not go there). But based on individual merits and not the neighborhood, why were they being "red-lined" as a poor risk? That is ALL that bill (the CRA) attempted to do. Ultimately did mortgage lenders go too far? Of course they did. That's not what I'm arguing about.

 

[CMike]

It's a law. Any law can have "you will" before it.

The law is telling the finanical situations that they must find creative methods to get more people into their own homes. It's a law, not a request.

Red lining is a separate issue from this.