For All Those Who Continue To Deny Clinton's Surpluses

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Cammmpbell, Sep 9, 2012.

  1. Cammmpbell
    Offline

    Cammmpbell Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    5,095
    Thanks Received:
    517
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +517
    From the congressional record:


    H.RES.490 -- Save Our Surplus for Debt Reduction and Tax Rebate Resolution of 2000

    HRES 490

    106th CONGRESS

    To ensure that the fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus is used to reduce publicly-held debt and provide tax relief to American taxpayers.
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    May 4, 2000
    Mr. WELDON of Florida (for himself, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. DELAY, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. COBURN, and Mr. STEARNS) submitted the following resolution:

    RESOLUTION

    To ensure that the fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus is used to reduce publicly-held debt and provide tax relief to American taxpayers.
    Resolved,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the `Save Our Surplus for Debt Reduction and Tax Rebate Resolution of 2000'.

    SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

    (a) FINDINGS- Congress finds that--

    (1) the Office of Management and Budget estimated in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget submission that the Government will have a $19,000,000,000 nonsocial security surplus (on-budget surplus) in fiscal year 2000;

    (2) it is expected that in the summer of 2000, the Office of Management and Budget will estimate an even larger budget surplus for fiscal year 2000;

    (3) Government spending in fiscal year 2000 will increase faster than the rate of inflation for a total of over $1,750,000,000,000;

    (4) the public debt has been paid down by $51,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1998, $88,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1999, and current estimates are that $163,000,000,000 will be paid down in fiscal year 2000;


    AND THEN ALONG CAME GEORGE
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  2. ecinicola
    Offline

    ecinicola Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2012
    Messages:
    551
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +77
    Click here: The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
     
  3. kyzr
    Offline

    kyzr Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,447
    Thanks Received:
    450
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +630
    No one is disputing the Clinton surpluses. Much of it was due to Newt cutting spending as well as the Clinton Tax Rates.

    What you need to admit is that the financial collapse was due to the Clinton "Community Reinvestment Act" whereby the dems forced banks to give mortgages to the unqualified, and that led directly to the financial collapse when the dead-beats defaulted on their mortgages.
     
  4. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,672
    Thanks Received:
    3,087
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,732
    Another mindless drone parroting the drivel from GOP hate radio. The CRA had nothing to do with the Bush housing crash. First of all, CRA loans were made to QUALIFIED borrowers. You have it confused with Bush's ADDI, American Dream Downpayment Initiative, that changed the rules to allow no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into.

    Secondly, 80% of the subprime loans were made by institutions who were not subject to CRA standards.

    And finally, no bank has ever been forced to comply with government mandates about mortgage lending. There are no government mandates, and there never were. In order to qualify for government-backed deposit insurance, a benefit that banks aren’t forced to accept but enjoy having, the Community Reinvestment Act and similar measures designed to prevent discrimination in lending to qualified individuals, only encourage banks to lend in all of the areas where they do business. And Section 802 (b) of the Act stresses that all loans must be “consistent with safe and sound operations.” The opposite of requiring that lenders write risky mortgages.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Seawytch
    Offline

    Seawytch Information isnt Advocacy

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    28,998
    Thanks Received:
    3,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Peaking out from the redwoods
    Ratings:
    +7,043
    No, actually, we don't need to admit that...since that canard has already been debunked 12 ways to Sunday.

    Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

    The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

    Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley
    (PDF Here)
     
  6. healthmyths
    Offline

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,251
    Thanks Received:
    2,045
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,857
    I'm DISPUTING IT!!!
    How can you have a surplus when in the Next 30 years the same "Dot.com" bubble busted costing the treasury $166 billion a year in 2002?
    FACT:

    Clinton CAUSED $ 5 trillion alone in lost market value
    The Stock Market Crash of 2000-2002 caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002.
    Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  7. kyzr
    Offline

    kyzr Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,447
    Thanks Received:
    450
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +630
    Skip down to the "Government Policies" section, and read between the lines, about "affordable housing" and then read the CRA link that follows
    Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This is the WSJ's take on the financial crisis causes
    How Government Stoked the Mania - WSJ.com


    If you have alternate theories as to why we had the financial collapse, please provide credible links. IMHO it was the CRA and those who benefited from Fannie & Freddie...follow the money,

    Forbes Explains the causes of the meltdown
    A Poisonous Cocktail - Forbes.com

    Wiki explains its not the 1977 CRA Law, its the revisions that followed...
    Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  8. kyzr
    Offline

    kyzr Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,447
    Thanks Received:
    450
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +630
    Good post, thanks. The ADDI just helped with the down payment up to $10,000. It does not account for all of the bad loans to the unqualified, only the CRA can explain that.

    The cause of the financial crisis can be debated. IMHO banks would not lend to unqualified borrowers unless the government forced them to. Just look at Fannie & Freddie and their "donations" to politicians, and you'll see what caused the crash.
     
  9. kyzr
    Offline

    kyzr Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,447
    Thanks Received:
    450
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +630
    Please scroll down and see the actual surplus at the end of Clinton's 2nd term. The line explodes up during Bush and Obama.
    History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  10. Seawytch
    Offline

    Seawytch Information isnt Advocacy

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    28,998
    Thanks Received:
    3,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Peaking out from the redwoods
    Ratings:
    +7,043
    It was NOT the CRA. What it was was mixing good mortgages with bad mortgages and NO FUCKING SUPERVISION. People playing with obscene amounts of money do not play fair. They play to get more money and need adult supervision. Regulations were eased, done away with, not funded, ignored...THAT is what led to this goddamn mess, not a few minorities getting houses.

    Just another "Welfare Queens in Cadillacs" dog whistle.
     

Share This Page