Bush Tried to Stop this Mortgage Meltdown in 2003

Keeko

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2008
932
1
0
Chicago
Note the last three paragraphs. Guess who was against this? The ranking dem on the Financial Services Committe, Barney Frank and Melvin Watt (NC-D). Barney Franks sayong "''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'' And Pelosi is trying to blame Bush. She needs to get her facts straight.

New York Times
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies.

And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional

Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
63
Syracuse ny, usa
Note the last three paragraphs. Guess who was against this? The ranking dem on the Financial Services Committe, Barney Frank and Melvin Watt (NC-D). Barney Franks sayong "''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'' And Pelosi is trying to blame Bush. She needs to get her facts straight.

New York Times
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies.

And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional

Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

one question ... do you really believe it ?? it being, he tryed gto stop it... come on ! put the pipe down, take a deep breath and take your meds ! PLEASE :mj07: bush/cheney never thought it would come to this... If it wasn't for the iraq war spending, housing bubble, no jobs, no energy policy he may have gotten out of washington before the shit hit the fan....
 

Blitz

Hopeful
Forum Member
Jan 6, 2002
7,540
46
48
57
North of Titletown AKA Boston
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional

Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

:poke :nutkick :00x3
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
I could be wrong but didn't Bush and the Republicans control everything for SIX years? Just a question because I know Bush took bows for there being so many new home owners. That being said Spin away.:0corn
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,424
128
63
Bowling Green Ky
I could be wrong but didn't Bush and the Republicans control everything for SIX years? Just a question because I know Bush took bows for there being so many new home owners. That being said Spin away.:0corn

Remember other post where I told you what liberals do when they have no answer--You never disappoint. :)

Fact of the matter both sides are quilty--

Blame Game

Some Democratic lawmakers are taking Republicans to task for the current economic climate, saying the repeal of part of the Glass-Steagall Act under a Republican Congress in 1999 is to blame. The Glass-Steagall Act was a depression-era law that, among other things, separated commercial and investment banking, but by the 1990s, those were seen as unduly burdensome regulations in a modern economy.

Former Republican Senator Phil Gramm sponsored a law that opened competition among commercial and investment banks as well as brokerage firms. Senator Harry Reid, Wednesday, took a shot at Gramm, who is now a McCain economic adviser. Reid says, "This is the same Phil Gramm who pushed through the legislation that... now allows Wall Street traders to bid up the price of oil without oversight."

What Reid fails to mention is that he ? and 37 other Democratic senators ? voted in favor of the final version of Gramm's bill to overturn much of Glass-Steagall. It passed by a 90-to-8 margin in 1999 and was signed into law by President Clinton.
 
Last edited:

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
Remember other post where I told you what liberals do when they have no answer--You never disappoint. :)

Fact of the matter both sides are quilty--

Blame Game

Some Democratic lawmakers are taking Republicans to task for the current economic climate, saying the repeal of part of the Glass-Steagall Act under a Republican Congress in 1999 is to blame. The Glass-Steagall Act was a depression-era law that, among other things, separated commercial and investment banking, but by the 1990s, those were seen as unduly burdensome regulations in a modern economy.

Former Republican Senator Phil Gramm sponsored a law that opened competition among commercial and investment banks as well as brokerage firms. Senator Harry Reid, Wednesday, took a shot at Gramm, who is now a McCain economic adviser. Reid says, "This is the same Phil Gramm who pushed through the legislation that... now allows Wall Street traders to bid up the price of oil without oversight."

What Reid fails to mention is that he ? and 37 other Democratic senators ? voted in favor of the final version of Gramm's bill to overturn much of Glass-Steagall. It passed by a 90-to-8 margin in 1999 and was signed into law by President Clinton.

I am honored that you highlighted my blurb to point out that the Libs like to play the blame game. Funny how you missed the first post in this thread. You know, the one the thread is about. I think CTown would take offense of you calling him a liberal. :142smilie I gotta admit it DTB you never fail to disappoint either. Clearly this is the fault of deregulation. No doubt that Clinton set everything up for Bush but to say that Bush "tried" to stop it is a lie of a pornographc nature. Let us not forget that for the SIX Long misereable years Bush got every thing he wanted. Everything. Pelosi and Reid should be fried too but let us not make Bush out to be an innocent in all this. If he wanted to stop it he could have.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,424
128
63
Bowling Green Ky
No prob Stevie your by far not the worst offender.

That would be O himself--as noted in other thread
-in his speeches--in his advocates debates-and media in general--

How many times in a day are their only rebuttles -8 more years or GW, Hell they can't attack McCain on merits--let alone use their own credentials as positives.

Next time you hear 8 more years--mark it down--they have no answer.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
No prob Stevie your by far not the worst offender.

That would be O himself--as noted in other thread
-in his speeches--in his advocates debates-and media in general--

How many times in a day are their only rebuttles -8 more years or GW, Hell they can't attack McCain on merits--let alone use their own credentials as positives.

Next time you hear 8 more years--mark it down--they have no answer.

I will if you mark down the next time you hear McCain promise change.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I would say they should go with last 4 years. And for anyone to think we got to where we are today just because of fred & fan. It's not worth talking about.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,424
128
63
Bowling Green Ky
The proof is in the pudding.

We entered GW terms in recession--shortly after 911 -market took biggest hit in years dropping additional 1,500 points in month of Sept.

We came back with market gaining over 5000 points to hit all time high--and what rhetoric (I like that word) did you get from Liberal leaders--"worst economy since great depression" :)

Now you could have done 2 things after drop--took your money out and hid screaming the sky is falling and missed out on one of greatest periods of gains in history--or pick up some stocks at bargain basement prices and reaped the rewards.

I wonder what the "worst economy since great depression" advocates did?
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
63
Syracuse ny, usa
The proof is in the pudding.

We entered GW terms in recession--shortly after 911 -market took biggest hit in years dropping additional 1,500 points in month of Sept.

We came back with market gaining over 5000 points to hit all time high--and what rhetoric (I like that word) did you get from Liberal leaders--"worst economy since great depression" :)

Now you could have done 2 things after drop--took your money out and hid screaming the sky is falling and missed out on one of greatest periods of gains in history--or pick up some stocks at bargain basement prices and reaped the rewards.

I wonder what the "worst economy since great depression" advocates did?

at the end of the day.... what real wealth has middle america gained these last eight years ? is the working man better off than he was eight years ago ??? jobs ? ret accounts ? home values ? savings ? peace of mind ? buying power ?
 

Cie

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 30, 2003
22,391
253
0
New Orleans
at the end of the day.... what real wealth has middle america gained these last eight years ? is the working man better off than he was eight years ago ??? jobs ? ret accounts ? home values ? savings ? peace of mind ? buying power ?

I'm a common man in a better position now than 2000. Why not take poll? I bet that most contributors to the GDP are better off.

For the most part, we reap what we sow. If you make a habit of drinking 32 oz bottles of beer at 8am on your front porch, then you will not likely find yourself in a strong position in the socioeconomic chain. I find that a large part of our woes today are the result of a large class of non-producers.

Extenuating circumstances aside, it is hard for me to believe that some increase in quality of life has not befallen someone who has worked smartly for the past 8 years.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
I'm a common man in a better position now than 2000. Why not take poll? I bet that most contributors to the GDP are better off.

For the most part, we reap what we sow. If you make a habit of drinking 32 oz bottles of beer at 8am on your front porch, then you will not likely find yourself in a strong position in the socioeconomic chain. I find that a large part of our woes today are the result of a large class of non-producers.

Extenuating circumstances aside, it is hard for me to believe that some increase in quality of life has not befallen someone who has worked smartly for the past 8 years.

stop cie...you making too much sense...
 
Last edited:

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Let's be clear. It wasn't Bush who predicted the GSE's would eventually cause a mortgage industry meltdown, it was RON PAUL.

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul in the House Financial Services Committee, September 10, 2003

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Treasury Department?s views regarding government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for taking time out of their busy schedules to appear before the committee.

I hope this committee spends some time examining the special privileges provided to GSEs by the federal government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone. Today, I will introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act, which removes government subsidies from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board.

One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase GSE debt. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government?s interference in the housing market, the government?s policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the Financial Services Committee for holding this hearing. I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for their presence here today. I hope today?s hearing sheds light on how special privileges granted to GSEs distort the housing market and endanger American taxpayers. Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope this committee will soon stand up for American taxpayers and investors by acting on my Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
 
Last edited:

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
63
Syracuse ny, usa
I'm a common man in a better position now than 2000. Why not take poll? I bet that most contributors to the GDP are better off.

For the most part, we reap what we sow. If you make a habit of drinking 32 oz bottles of beer at 8am on your front porch, then you will not likely find yourself in a strong position in the socioeconomic chain. I find that a large part of our woes today are the result of a large class of non-producers.

Extenuating circumstances aside, it is hard for me to believe that some increase in quality of life has not befallen someone who has worked smartly for the past 8 years.

I couldn't agree with you more, on the obvious things you say... my gross is better, not my net.....the cost of living & doing business is the highest its ever been the last 15 yrs.. there are people in America that are working just as hard as they were 8yrs ago and have less to show... I have friends that are working in an auto plant here that have taken 2 pay cuts the last 2 years and they want them to take a 3rd + they have given up benefits..... the plant will close in the next yr by all accounts..... I'm sure everyone knows someone like that.... I'm glad I'm self employed...not as many good paying jobs out there........If you don't think the masses are hurting:shrug: ..........all of my freinds work, I talk to small business owners and self employed people every day.... It's tough out there...money is tight.
 

Cie

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 30, 2003
22,391
253
0
New Orleans
I couldn't agree with you more, on the obvious things you say... my gross is better, not my net.....the cost of living & doing business is the highest its ever been the last 15 yrs.. there are people in America that are working just as hard as they were 8yrs ago and have less to show... I have friends that are working in an auto plant here that have taken 2 pay cuts the last 2 years and they want them to take a 3rd + they have given up benefits..... the plant will close in the next yr by all accounts..... I'm sure everyone knows someone like that.... I'm glad I'm self employed...not as many good paying jobs out there........If you don't think the masses are hurting:shrug: ..........all of my freinds work, I talk to small business owners and self employed people every day.... It's tough out there...money is tight.

When is it the responsibility of the laborer to put in his time in the evening to work towards a degree, vocational certification, etc. to make themselves more marketable within their field or another field. If I am a line worker in the auto industry, which is clearly weakening, I would do my part to re-position myself in the growing service industry.

Let's say a 35 year old auto plant laborer makes $20/hour and finds this is not enough to feed his family. He sees there are possible wage cuts looming. He can either whine about it, or he can get off his ass and begin to work smartly towards a career shift.

For example, this man can wait tables while attending local university full time to earn a business degree with a concentration on hotel, restaurant and tourism. Within 5 years, this individual should have earned his degree and reached management level in the restaurant industry. IMO, the options are out there for the working poor , but many are too dumb or lazy to do anything about it.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
If you make a habit of drinking 32 oz bottles of beer at 8am on your front porch, then you will not likely find yourself in a strong position in the socioeconomic chain.

I agree with most of what you say, however, ripping this is going too far. Since I've recently started working at home a couple days a week, I won't hesitate to fire up a Colt 45 or two for breakfast. Why does everyone have to blame alcohol for behavioral problems in society?
:toast:
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
If you are a young guy who was just starting out 8 years ago then you should be doing much better.
 
Last edited:

Hard Times

Registered
Forum Member
Jan 17, 2005
809
0
0
If you are a young guy who was just starting out 8 years ago then you should be doing much better.

Is this a joke, oh, you mean if I were an illegal alien and I was making 2.00 a day then I should be in high cotton.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
Is this a joke, oh, you mean if I were an illegal alien and I was making 2.00 a day then I should be in high cotton.
:142smilie

No, all these guys on here are saying that they are doing better under Bush. I am just trying to point out that if they were young and just starting out 8 years ago they should be doing better now. Promotions, experience, all mean more when you are young. Your salary tends to go up faster when young then after you have been settled into a job for awhile.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top