I just want to make sure

[Curmudgeoness]

this is where we can get information to counter arguments in those stupid emails that are constantly sent to us.

Just got an email and I don't have a good response, and I do not like being left without a response. I also try to answer with a civil manner that I do not feel. Facts, not attacks.

If this is not where I come for help with this, just ignore this.

Here is the email:

First Story

The day the democrats took over was not January 22, 2009, it was actually January 3,2007. This is the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103 rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", remember the day,

(January 3, 2007) the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember, that day? Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

THANK YOU DEMOCRATS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things), dumping $5-6 TRILLION of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

(GEORGE BUSH ASKED CONGRESS 17 TIMES TO STOP FANNIE & FREDDIE - STARTING IN 2001 - BECAUSE IT WAS FINANCIALLY RISKY FOR THE US ECONOMY).

And who took the THIRD highest campaign pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA!!!!!

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress.

So when someone tries to blame Bush...

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving.

Set the record straight on Bush!

"It's not that liberals aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so" -Ronald Reagan

But it's Bush's Fault!

As president Reagan said (paraphrasing): "The facts can be stubborn realities to deal with."

PLEASE KEEP THIS ONE GOING IN HOPES THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND WHOSE FAULT THIS HUGE DEFICIT ACTUALLY IS!!!!!!!!!

Second Story

The Washington Post babbled again recently about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough,

a lots of people swallow this BULL.

So once more, a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress - since

January 2007, it has been the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008, 2009, as well as 2010 and 2011.

DURING THAT TIME THERE HAS BEEN NO BUDGETS PASSED!

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush

somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For fiscal year 2009, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid by-passed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government

running until Obama could take office. Then they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Obama during this time? He was a member of the very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills.

And then, as President, he signed the omnibus bill into law!

Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in
five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is: "I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I have expanded that deficit four-fold since
I took office".

[JoePhilly]

1. Ask the idiot who sent you that which bill the Dem House passed in 2007, whcih

then passed the GOP Senate ... and that Bush signed into law, caused this!

Then watch them stutter and swallow their tongue.

The ACTUAL bill that caused the collapse is named the Gramm-Leach-Bliely Act of 1999.

Ask them what they know about that bill.

[Curmudgeoness]

2. The email states that the Dems took control

of the House and the Senate in 2007, which was true. So it was not a GOP Senate.

But yes, I have to agree that the Gramm-Leach-Bliely Act is a good one to hit them with.

God, I hate when I get an email that starts with "read it and weep---the cold hard facts"!!!!

[JoePhilly]

3. Yes ... but again ... ask them which Bill the Dem House passed in 2007

to cause the collapse.

They can't name one. Because it did not happen.

[LiberalAndProud]

4. There is much material here. Too much for me to distill into an email, as that is not my talent.

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html

I particularly liked this line: Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote

[Curmudgeoness]

5. Thanks. That is a great resource to have available.

I like that line too. And to think that this impasse did not just start recently!

[Jon_Trevathan]

6. Debunking the Propaganda

The starting date that the article identifies was January 3, 2007 when the Democrats took over Congress - which the article goes on to claim was 15 months before the meltdown. However, it is very important to remember that between January, 2001 to January 2003, the Republican Party controlled the House of Representatives (where budgets originate) and between January, 2003 to January 2007, the Republican party controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The article then claims that Bush warned Congress 17 times and implies that the Democrats failed to heed this warning.

As the Article suggests:
"Don't just skim over this, it's not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!"

Here is a list of Bush's warnings:

** 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 again highlights 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)

Do you see what happened?/b]
Bush was "warning" a Congress that the Republican Party controlled.
Who failed to listen?
It was the members of Bush's own Party - the Republicans.
Who allowed the bubble to inflate - the Republicans.

Next, the Article gives the impression that the Democrats had 15 months after they began to control both houses of Congress fix the problem. Sooooo... Let's see what happened in 2007

** 2007**

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

First, the crash began only 7 months after the Democrats took control.
Second, the reason Bear Stearns failed was due to their investment in toxic mortgages which in most cases were originated long before January 3, 2007.

It was not until after the crash had started that Bush communicated a warning to a Democratically controlled Congress:

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)

However, by August 2007, it was too late. A house of cards had been built in an environment of Republican led deregulation and Bear Stearns marked the beginning of its inevitable and devastating collapse.

As a side note, the reforms that Bush asked for were eventually embodied in comprehensive financial reform legislation that President Obama and Democrats in Congress were, over significant Republican opposition, able to get through Congress.
What is galling is that Romney and the Republicans now propose to largely undo this legislation.
Really think about this.
1. Republican deregulation policies contributed to the financial disaster.
2. The article (which I found out was actually a Republican chain letter) blames the Democrats for this lack of regulation.
3. Republicans now oppose the regulations that would keep history from repeating itself.

[Curmudgeoness]

7. Welcome to DU, Jon Trevathan.

Very informative. Every one of these Republican emails have so much untruth or misleading half-facts that it makes my head spin. And sorting through it all is difficult. This is why I love DU....well thought out and researched debunking.

Thanks.

[echo216610]

8. what an e-mail

from my recollection it's all true, hard to debunk the truth

[Curmudgeoness]

10. Truth is a very difficult thing to pin down.

Nothing is really black and white, as you stated in your post below. Someone can say that our spending is too high compared to our GDP. I can say that our GDP is too low because of the economic problems brought on by the collapse that Bush brought us.

And if we are to blame the Democrats in charge from 2007 for the economy instead of blaming the President, doesn't it follow that we can blame the Republicans for the mess we still have today instead of blaming the President. That sword cuts both ways. In searching for "truth", no one should be able to pose one truth in one instance, but turn that upside-down when it suits their agenda.

Welcome to DU, echo.

[progree]

11. "Welcome to DU, echo" - oops, he has been PPR'd, someone doesn't want him around, LOL n/t

[Curmudgeoness]

13. I suppose that I should have used the sarcasm smilie

since I could see where that was going. But sometimes, I am just in the mood to goad....and be friendly.

[progree]

14. I know you meant it tongue-in-cheek n/t

[echo216610]

9. it also leaves out a lot of stuff

like the increase spending from the bush admin. the patriot act that was bad then and worse now. the warrant less wiretaps on foreign calls which now includes domestic communications of all types. everything bush did bad has gotten worse since.

[progree]

12. "the increase spending from the bush admin" - umm, a 0.62% increase over 3 years

The Debt Held By The Public (as a % of GDP) superimposed on a chart of which party held the presidency, the House, and the Senate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png


{#} Budget Deficits and Surpluses

# The U.S. Federal Deficit By Year - There were surpluses in the last 4 Clinton years: FY 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 (well, the last 8 months of FY 2001 fell into the G.W. Bush administration). Anyway G.W. Bush inherited a string of surpluses and managed to turn that around into 8 straight years of deficits and to nearly double the national debt.
# URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Note: although there were 4 straight years of surpluses during the last 4 Clinton years, the national debt went up every year, thanks to (I think) trust funds accounting, -- FFI: http://www.democraticunderground.com/111621802#post12

Some righties telling you that Obama doubled the last Bush deficit, from less than 500 B$ to more than a trillion dollars?

They are trying to make you think that the last Bush year was Fiscal Year 2008. Actually, the last Bush budget (FY 2009) contained a projected deficit of $1.2 Trillion. Fiscal Year 2009 covers 10/1/08 - 9/30/09 -- the last 3 2/3 months of the Bush Administration plus the first 8 1/3 months of the Obama administration. The budget for FY 2009 was signed into law by Bush. It contained a projected $1.2 trillion deficit according to FactCheck.org:

Shortly before Obama assumed office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office {on January 7, 2009} projected that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 would be $1.2 trillion ( http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/MainText.3.1.shtml ). {Bush left office and Obama assumed office on January 20, 2009 at noon}

The fiscal year ended on Sept. 30, 2009, with the deficit at $1.4 trillion. But only some of that was Obama’s doing. We conducted an exhaustive study of the spending bills Obama signed for that year, and concluded that Obama can be fairly assigned responsibility for a maximum of $203 billion in additional spending for fiscal 2009. Others put the amount lower: Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion.

More: http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-obama-court-moms-distort-facts/

{#} ACTUAL Federal Spending and Deficits - Fiscal Years 2008 - 2012

Note: all figures in this section are actual, not budgeted. I only point out that Bush signed the FY 2009 budget.

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] v-last Bush budget was FY 2009 (all figures are actuals, not budgeted)
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Year
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] 2,979.7 3,518.0 3,456.0 3,598.0 3,540 Total Outlays
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] (455.7) (1,414.0) (1,294.0) (1,296.0) (1,091) Surplus (deficit)

Source of FY 2008 through FY 2011: http://www.issuewonk.com/gov.asp?ID=Spending%20History%202008-2012
. . . who in turn says the source is the CBO (Congressional Budget Office)
Source of FY 2012 (September 2012 is preliminary so FY 2012 is preliminary):
. . . http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43656 which links to the complete document at
. . . http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2012_09_MBR.pdf

[font color=brown]So FY 2012 federal spending (prelim) is only a $22 billion increase (0.62% increase) over FY 2009 (the last Bush budget)

Since the nominal GDP increased by 13.34% between FY 2009 (a recession low point) and FY 2012 (see next paragraph), which is more than the 0.62% increase in federal spending, that means federal spending as a percentage of GDP actually dropped during those 3 years -- from 25.24% of GDP to 22.41% of GDP (calculations below)[/font]

In Current Dollars: GDP FY 2009 = 13,937.5 . GDP FY 2012 = 15,797.4 -- an increase of 13.34% over FY 2009.
Source of GDP figures: http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
where FY 2009 = Q4 2008 through Q3 2009. And FY 2012 = Q4 2011 through Q3 2012.

FY 2009: Spending / GDP = 3518/13938 = 25.24% . FY 2012: Spending / GDP = 3540/15797 = 22.41%

See the previous section that explains that the Fiscal Year 2009 budget (Oct. 1, 2008 - Sept 30, 2009) was signed into law by G.W. Bush, and how the CBO on January 7, 2009 (13 days before Bush left office) projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2009. So all but about $200 billion of FY 2009 spending and deficits was "baked in" before Bush left office.

# Federal workforce If some rightie claims that Obama increased the federal workforce (as if that was bad), well that is true: Obama increased the federal workforce by 9,000 employees which is a 0.32% increase (over nearly 4 years). But note that Romney as governor increased the number of Massachusetts state employees by 5.5% (over 4 years). Also note that Bush II increased the federal workforce by 1.34% (over 8 years -- a much faster growth rate per year than under Obama so far)

. . # Source of the Romney figure: "Government Job Loss: President Obama’s Catch 22", ABC News, 6/6/12 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/government-jobs-loss-president-obamas-catch-22/
. . # Source of the Obama and Bush II figures: BLS data series: Federal employees, seasonally adjusted: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9091000001
. . . . It includes postal workers. I'm 99.9% certain it excludes military
. . . . Jan 2009: 2,790,000 , Oct 2012: 2,799,000 (preliminary) , Increase: 9,000 (this is just a 0.32% increase)

======================================================================

..... Much more on the national debt and deficits under Clinton, Bush II, and Obama at http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post5

The federal workforce stuff came from http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post1