Barack Obama: A Historic President

[Jman47]

Nice piece Merlot.

I for one can't wait to hear from Sarah and her posse of pundits. Should be fun.

It is amazing to read the facts in the figures and see that a man with no political bloodlines or heritage can design and implement a policy that shows positive results after 18 short months. And to think he did it all by surrounding himself with a diverse team of people, each of whom has strengths and perhaps views different from the other, but ultimately work together to achieve a positive result for the common good.
Hmmm....somewhere in there is a microcosm of America...

This of course in contrast to the political thoroughbred who preceded him, Mr Bush II. The "political giant" and "genius" Dubya, who in 96 months did absolutely everything he could to destroy the nearly perfect economic picture that was handed to him by Bill Clinton. Lest we all forget the national debt we all are worried about right now was not there when Mr. Bush took office. He handed it to Mr. Obama. BTW, he achieved his accomplishments by surrounding himself with a bunch of like thinking, yes men political appointees, and favors to daddy. Then of course he handed the key to the White House to Dick Cheney while he vacationed for 6 of those 8 years in Texas.

Do you mean to actually say that the "know nothing" Obama has actually managed in a short 18 months to begin to seriously repair what it took the "genius" Bush 96 months to destroy?

I simply ask "What in the hell is taking him so long?"

Have fun,

Jman


PS BTW, does anyone know...Does John McCain still think the economy is fundamentally sound?

 

[Below500k]

PS BTW, does anyone know...Does John McCain still think the economy is fundamentally sound?

Depends (sort of pun intended) on the day and the audience to whom he is speaking. McCain seems to have lost what was left of his morals, and there 'aint much left of his marbles neither. As each news day passes having to hear him and that shitForBrainsHillbillyWhore of a running mate speak, I am very thankful that there are still enough sane people in the states that decided to vote.

 

[daydreamer41]

Nice piece Merlot.

I for one can't wait to hear from Sarah and her posse of pundits. Should be fun.

It is amazing to read the facts in the figures and see that a man with no political bloodlines or heritage can design and implement a policy that shows positive results after 18 short months. And to think he did it all by surrounding himself with a diverse team of people, each of whom has strengths and perhaps views different from the other, but ultimately work together to achieve a positive result for the common good.
Hmmm....somewhere in there is a microcosm of America...

This of course in contrast to the political thoroughbred who preceded him, Mr Bush II. The "political giant" and "genius" Dubya, who in 96 months did absolutely everything he could to destroy the nearly perfect economic picture that was handed to him by Bill Clinton. Lest we all forget the national debt we all are worried about right now was not there when Mr. Bush took office. He handed it to Mr. Obama. BTW, he achieved his accomplishments by surrounding himself with a bunch of like thinking, yes men political appointees, and favors to daddy. Then of course he handed the key to the White House to Dick Cheney while he vacationed for 6 of those 8 years in Texas.

Do you mean to actually say that the "know nothing" Obama has actually managed in a short 18 months to begin to seriously repair what it took the "genius" Bush 96 months to destroy?

I simply ask "What in the hell is taking him so long?"

Have fun,

Jman


PS BTW, does anyone know...Does John McCain still think the economy is fundamentally sound?

It's it amazing. One positive article and you libs are jumping up and down and ready to Obama the Nobel Prize for Economics.

The unemployment rate is still 9.7 percent. Many of the 160,000 jobs added were hired as temps for the Census.

The economy did show improvement in March 2010. But what exmplains the 460,000 (an increase over the previous weeks) of first time unemployment registration?

The economy will probably improve, as expected after a long recession. The ecomomy usually does improve after recessions. The government has also spent a huge amount on stimulus - $765 million. Some of it is working its way thru the economy. As Larry Kudlow of CNBC has written, the data for the first quarter 2010 shows that the economy is improving.

But Obama's long term policies will wreck the US economy. It will take some time, a couple of years at least. Hopefully, the Congress will change (become Repulican) before they try to pass Cap and trade. The Bush tax cuts will expire and that will not be good for the economy. The immediate costs of the Healthcare bill are not known, except for the ending of the tax write-off for prescription drugs for employees of companies who give their retirees this benefit. This will be costly to these companies bottom line and will end up costing the government in some instances.

Let's see how the economy is performing this time next year. In the short term, though, the US economy will get better after the recession.

 

[Jman47]

But Obama's long term policies will wreck the US economy. It will take some time, a couple of years at least. Hopefully, the Congress will change (become Repulican) before they try to pass Cap and trade. The Bush tax cuts will expire and that will not be good for the economy. The immediate costs of the Healthcare bill are not known, except for the ending of the tax write-off for prescription drugs for employees of companies who give their retirees this benefit. This will be costly to these companies bottom line and will end up costing the government in some instances.

Let's see how the economy is performing this time next year. In the short term, though, the US economy will get better after the recession.

Heeerrrreeeesssss Sarah...

Someone PLEASE help me remember WWWhos economic policies got us into this mess in the first place? Who Was president for the 8 years prior to Obama?

Oh and dd41 for future reference:
1. I don't consider liberal a four letter word like the idiots on the right...who when all else fails just throw it out there thinking its gonna scare people.
2. If you must know I am registered as an Independent...and I actually vote on ISSUES.

Apology accepted.

Have fun,
Jman

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Between January of 2008 and February of 2009, my retirement account lost 60% of its value. In the last 13 months, it's regained 85% of the losses. Thank you, Barack Obama.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

But Obama's long term policies will wreck the US economy.

Yeah, just like Bill Clinton did. Oh, wait. I forgot. He paid off the mess that Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush left behind.

 

[daydreamer41]

Heeerrrreeeesssss Sarah...

Someone PLEASE help me remember WWWhos economic policies got us into this mess in the first place? Who Was president for the 8 years prior to Obama?

Oh and dd41 for future reference:
1. I don't consider liberal a four letter word like the idiots on the right...who when all else fails just throw it out there thinking its gonna scare people.
2. If you must know I am registered as an Independent...and I actually vote on ISSUES.

Apology accepted.

Have fun,
Jman

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Franklin Pierce, Rahm Emanuel, Alan Greenspan, and George Bush could all share some blame of the Housing Bubble which was the real culprit of the near economic collapse. Do some research on the issue Mr. Independent before you make any uneducated statements shooting down what I just said.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Franklin Pierce, Rahm Emanuel, Alan Greenspan, and George Bush could all share some blame of the Housing Bubble which was the real culprit of the near economic collapse. Do some research on the issue Mr. Independent before you make any ignorant statements shooting down what I just said.

There are a lot of culprits including some, but not all of those you mention. You do, however, fail to mention the primary culprit: Ronald Reagan.

 

[daydreamer41]

There are a lot of culprits including some, but not all of those you mention. You do, however, fail to mention the primary culprit: Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan? You got to be kidding. Explain that one. You won't and you can't. And the names I mentioned are accurate. Learn the history, not the history you think you know or you make up.

 

[Jman47]

Ronald Reagan? You got to be kidding. Explain that one. You won't and you can't. And the names I mentioned are accurate. Learn the history, not the history you think you know or you make up.

Wwweeelll....dd41 read your history. RR was presiding when the regulations were lifted...deregulation was one of the pillars of Reaganomics.

And oh yeah, and he never met a deficit he didn't like either...

 

[daydreamer41]

Wwweeelll....dd41 read your history. RR was presiding when the regulations were lifted...

Several deregulatory moves made by the federal government in the 1980s diminished the distinctions among various financial institutions in the United States. Two major changes were the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (1980) and the Depository Institutions Act (1982), which allowed savings and loan associations to engage in often-risky commercial loans and real estate investments, and to receive checking deposits. By 1984, banks had federal support in buying discount brokerage firms, and commercial banks were beginning to acquire failed savings banks; in 1985 interstate banking was declared constitutional.
Such deregulation was blamed for the unprecedented number of bank failures among savings and loan associations, with over 500 such institutions closing between 1980 and 1988. The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), until it became insolvent in 1989, insured deposits in all federally chartered—and in many state-chartered—savings and loan associations. Its outstanding insurance obligations in connection with savings and loan failures, over $100 billion, were transferred (1989) to the FDIC.

You are mixing apples and oranges. This had NOTHING to do with the Housing Bubble.

Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act. It gave the Federal government the power to force banks to loan to people of less than modest means ... meaning those who could not afford to pay the mortgage and had bad credit ratings. The Reagan and Bush I administrations ignored the Community Reinvestment Act.

The Clinton Administration also ignored it until Janet Reno who in the second term of Clinton's Administration threatened banks with the CRA. The banks were forced to make bad loans. The Dot Com bubble happened on Clinton's last term. He was in no way responsible for it, but becasue ot the Dot Com stock bubble and a short recession that followed, Greenspan lowered interest rates. Congress got involved. Freddy MAC and Fanny Mae, etc. People bought houses with no money down and low interest rates, 5-year ARMS. Everybody was having a good time with the rising price of houses. And it burst. The banks who were forced to lend came up with the odd derivatives sold by AIG to protect themselves from the bad paper that they were forced to underwrite.

It was the Community Reinvestment Act signed by Carter and enforced by Renor that got the ball rolling on the Housing Bubble, not the legislation that you listed.

 

[Jman47]

You are mixing apples and oranges. This had NOTHING to do with the Housing Bubble.

Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act. It gave the Federal government the power to force banks to loan to people of less than modest means ... meaning those who could not afford to pay the mortgage and had bad credit ratings. The Reagan and Bush I administrations ignored the Community Reinvestment Act.

The Clinton Administration also ignored it until Janet Reno who in the second term of Clinton's Administration threatened banks with the CRA. The banks were forced to make bad loans. The Dot Com bubble happened on Clinton's last term. He was in no way responsible for it, but becasue ot the Dot Com stock bubble and a short recession that followed, Greenspan lowered interest rates. Congress got involved. Freddy MAC and Fanny Mae, etc. People bought houses with no money down and low interest rates, 5-year ARMS. Everybody was having a good time with the rising price of houses. And it burst. The banks who were forced to lend came up with the odd derivatives sold by AIG to protect themselves from the bad paper that they were forced to underwrite.

It was the Community Reinvestment Act signed by Carter and enforced by Renor that got the ball rolling on the Housing Bubble, not the legislation that you listed.

Holy crap,

You are absolutely right and we agree....almost. You just forgot a few things.

The part you forgot was Reagan pushed through the early deregulation legislation. And later on during the Clinton administration a deal was brokered with the Republican controlled Congress (many of whom profited significantly) to further deregulation. Then while the results were causing many to sound the bells about the bubble and predicting the economic disaster...Bush, Cheney and Co stood by (busy chasing WMD's instead), collected profits on the way out and handed the mess to Obama. Now he has to clean it up and all you and the rest of the right can do is criticize. Fact is if Bush had his eye on the ball instead of chasing ghost WMD's and trying to make up for his fathers screw up in Iraq, he may have recognized the signs and started to fix them. Aw, what the hell am I thinking...forget that last dreamburst...

Have fun,

Jman

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Right on the mark, jman. Keep writing, maybe some of your wisdom will "trickle down" to daydreamer.

 

[CS Martin]

You are mixing apples and oranges. This had NOTHING to do with the Housing Bubble.

Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act. It gave the Federal government the power to force banks to loan to people of less than modest means ... meaning those who could not afford to pay the mortgage and had bad credit ratings. The Reagan and Bush I administrations ignored the Community Reinvestment Act.

The Clinton Administration also ignored it until Janet Reno who in the second term of Clinton's Administration threatened banks with the CRA. The banks were forced to make bad loans. The Dot Com bubble happened on Clinton's last term. He was in no way responsible for it, but becasue ot the Dot Com stock bubble and a short recession that followed, Greenspan lowered interest rates. Congress got involved. Freddy MAC and Fanny Mae, etc. People bought houses with no money down and low interest rates, 5-year ARMS. Everybody was having a good time with the rising price of houses. And it burst. The banks who were forced to lend came up with the odd derivatives sold by AIG to protect themselves from the bad paper that they were forced to underwrite.

It was the Community Reinvestment Act signed by Carter and enforced by Renor that got the ball rolling on the Housing Bubble, not the legislation that you listed.

Finally a post that makes some sense. A Senior VP of what was First Union a/k/a Wachovia (yup, failed) once specifically commented the only reason he was making certain loans was because the Clinton Administration (Janet Reno) was following them around with the CRA. His comment on one specific loan was "these people would never qualify on credit, but the house is in a Census Tract Area where the bank needs loans in order not to be accused of "red lining". This was the sole reason he made some loans. Been there, done that....

Now the big thing is Foreign Nationals who obtained their green card during the boom years, bought properties with scant credit, going back to their countries now that the American Dream has gone bust. The lenders are being forced to take deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure just before they scamper out of the country. Yup, Latins are going back to Central & South America, Asians are going back to Asia, etc..etc..

It's really quite funny when I get a frantic call from an Michigan Banker telling me his Middle Eastern customer is flying out on Friday and he has to get a deed on his condo before he leaves to permanently go back to his country. And the tax payer looses another $60K on that one.

Sometimes I look at the loan application and marvel at how the maid at the Days Inn could buy a $289K townhome with no money down and two mortgages.

 

[daydreamer41]

Holy crap,

You are absolutely right and we agree....almost. You just forgot a few things.

The part you forgot was Reagan pushed through the early deregulation legislation. And later on during the Clinton administration a deal was brokered with the Republican controlled Congress (many of whom profited significantly) to further deregulation. Then while the results were causing many to sound the bells about the bubble and predicting the economic disaster...Bush, Cheney and Co stood by (busy chasing WMD's instead), collected profits on the way out and handed the mess to Obama. Now he has to clean it up and all you and the rest of the right can do is criticize. Fact is if Bush had his eye on the ball instead of chasing ghost WMD's and trying to make up for his fathers screw up in Iraq, he may have recognized the signs and started to fix them. Aw, what the hell am I thinking...forget that last dreamburst...

Have fun,

Jman

Blah, Blah, Blah

The first words out of your Liberals's mouth when you were babies were "Blame Bush" and that's all you say now.

What you say is empty and not true. Bush did go to Congress and raised his concerns about the subprime problem. The Dems response was "Nothing is wrong."

Watch this video in 2004 where the Republicans were asking for Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae to be regulated. And who were the ones saying that it was a political move?

The DEMOCRATS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg


And the last youtube on Barney Frank saying "What Bubble?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE&NR=1


And Rumples, you are no match to my wisdom.

 

[Jman47]

Hello dd41,

Denial is the first stage. You may be morphing into anger though...but that's good because its the second stage.
I am sure if you want to go toe to toe on stupid video quotes I could spend my life filling this page with Dubyaisms, Cheneyisms, McCainisms and lord help us Sarahisms and other stupidities ... But fortunately for you, I have a life and don't have time for such nonsense.

What I find totally ironic about the entire philosophy the right portrays is that you guys are the first to break balls when loans are given to "red liners" and personal debt is run up - blaming that for the downfall of the economy. You break Obama's balls for adding to the national debt now that there is no other choice. YET all of the recent Republican presidents (RR, HWB, W) faithfully drove the US into catastrophic debt as a country as the basis for their "economic recovery" plans. Then after your men do that, you turn around and blame everything on someone else.

<Insert large rolling eyes smiley here>

Your wisdom is short sighted and one sided. Sometimes you just have to open your mind.

Would you like to talk about the Bush education plan now. You know the one that forced schools to raise test scores in Math and Reading at the expense of all other studies. Flash forward 9 years...Oh yeah, test scores never went up and now we have an entire generation of kids who have no idea what the 48 states are nor can they write an essay. Or perhaps you want to talk about his awesome foreign policy plan...the one that endeared our country to the world...LOL.

Have fun,

Jman

 

[Jman47]

Finally a post that makes some sense. A Senior VP of what was First Union a/k/a Wachovia (yup, failed) once specifically commented the only reason he was making certain loans was because the Clinton Administration (Janet Reno) was following them around with the CRA. His comment on one specific loan was "these people would never qualify on credit, but the house is in a Census Tract Area where the bank needs loans in order not to be accused of "red lining". This was the sole reason he made some loans. Been there, done that....

Now the big thing is Foreign Nationals who obtained their green card during the boom years, bought properties with scant credit, going back to their countries now that the American Dream has gone bust. The lenders are being forced to take deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure just before they scamper out of the country. Yup, Latins are going back to Central & South America, Asians are going back to Asia, etc..etc..

It's really quite funny when I get a frantic call from an Michigan Banker telling me his Middle Eastern customer is flying out on Friday and he has to get a deed on his condo before he leaves to permanently go back to his country. And the tax payer looses another $60K on that one.

Sometimes I look at the loan application and marvel at how the maid at the Days Inn could buy a $289K townhome with no money down and two mortgages.

Imagine that...a SR VP from a failed bank blaming the government for the failing of his institution while he sits at home managing his portfolio comprised of HUGE bonus earnings he collected while his bank was failing...cry me a river.

 

[Below500k]

DD, you are intelligent enough to know why people are quick to point and blame Bush.

The liberal outrage over Bush is not just because he increased the debt, it is the reason why he was spending, and the amount of space that it occupied in his agenda (planned at the time or not). What was the cost of that increase. Most thinking people are tolerant if the reasoning is sound, but as we all now know, it was not, hence the outrage.

He took a surplus, and almost fully balanced budget, then instead of working with that and adjusting it to also secure the future by regulation (as you claim was his intention), decided to instead focus on the situation HE was handed (terrorist attack), politicize it, and go to a war of choice. That was the beginning of a the demise of the country you now live in. It made things 1000x worse, domestically, internationally, financially, moralistically. His cowardly posturing, dishonesty, and who-knows-what-pipe-dream-of-oil agenda, are the reason that the surplus, balanced budget, and mood of the country began going south.

Now don't get me wrong, I really believed that was something that he believed was best for the country. It just wasn't. But even that is not the point.

Judgment on the success of past administrations can be made by the state of the country when they arrived, and when they left. To say that "well he tried to raise a concern" is not good enough, that's pussy talk, not one of a competent leader. If he was serious, he would do whatever it took to - at the very least - scream it at any given opportunity, so that everyone knew what was going on and that he was serious in stopping it (you know just like Obama is doing).

But that was not the case, not even close, he was too busy covering up his bullshit and scaring the shit out of the country. At a time when cash was being bled into the war, he was lowering taxes, artificially forcing low interest rates, and telling people to buy homes, and in fact buy anything they can (State of the Union address). Again, all to distract from a very weak decision, his war of choice.

As you love to point out, he was supported in his agenda at the time by many liberals. Why was that? Because that was the right (you may even say patriotic) thing to do, give the man a chance to prove his worth, instead of stonewalling for pure political gain as the right is doing now.

You cannot have the argument both ways where it suits you, nor can you even begin to speculate with any accuracy what will be when Obama leaves office. He was handed what he was handed and will only remind people of it because at the times when he is already being blamed for something that he has not had the chance to complete.

The funniest of all things that I've watched and read in the last 8 months are the people who are vocally protesting the debt. These vocal people, (as most of the country) do not have an iota of knowledge when it comes to their own finances (hence the insane amount of personal debt), let alone the complications of a federal budget, and the impacts of programs in 10 yrs. time. It is highly amusing.

 

[Jman47]

Hello Below500k,

Very well said and summarized. I had to add a few more comments below. As we can all see this subject can bring out passionate beliefs from both sides of the aisle. Fortunately or unfortunately at some point, when things get so bad - people need to put the partisan bickering aside and unite.

DD, you are intelligent enough to know why people are quick to point and blame Bush.

The liberal outrage over Bush is not just because he increased the debt, it is the reason why he was spending, and the amount of space that it occupied in his agenda (planned at the time or not). What was the cost of that increase. Most thinking people are tolerant if the reasoning is sound, but as we all now know, it was not, hence the outrage.

He took a surplus, and almost fully balanced budget, then instead of working with that and adjusting it to also secure the future by regulation (as you claim was his intention), decided to instead focus on the situation HE was handed (terrorist attack), politicize it, and go to a war of choice. That was the beginning of a the demise of the country you now live in. It made things 1000x worse, domestically, internationally, financially, moralistically. His cowardly posturing, dishonesty, and who-knows-what-pipe-dream-of-oil agenda, are the reason that the surplus, balanced budget, and mood of the country began going south.

He adopted the Reagan philosophy that balanced budgets do not win elections. Reduced taxes at any costs do. The belief is no one will care about a deficit if it means money in their pockets.

And you are right, man up and admit your mistake when you screw up...don't cover 'em up with bullshit. I am still waiting, even after the overwhelming proof to hear anyone from the Cheney/Bush administration admit that there were no WMD's.

Now don't get me wrong, I really believed that was something that he believed was best for the country. It just wasn't. But even that is not the point.

Judgment on the success of past administrations can be made by the state of the country when they arrived, and when they left. To say that "well he tried to raise a concern" is not good enough, that's pussy talk, not one of a competent leader. If he was serious, he would do whatever it took to - at the very least - scream it at any given opportunity, so that everyone knew what was going on and that he was serious in stopping it (you know just like Obama is doing).

But that was not the case, not even close, he was too busy covering up his bullshit and scaring the shit out of the country. At a time when cash was being bled into the war, he was lowering taxes, artificially forcing low interest rates, and telling people to buy homes, and in fact buy anything they can (State of the Union address). Again, all to distract from a very weak decision, his war of choice.

As you love to point out, he was supported in his agenda at the time by many liberals. Why was that? Because that was the right (you may even say patriotic) thing to do, give the man a chance to prove his worth, instead of stonewalling for pure political gain as the right is doing now.

You cannot have the argument both ways where it suits you, nor can you even begin to speculate with any accuracy what will be when Obama leaves office. He was handed what he was handed and will only remind people of it because at the times when he is already being blamed for something that he has not had the chance to complete.

The funniest of all things that I've watched and read in the last 8 months are the people who are vocally protesting the debt. These vocal people, (as most of the country) do not have an iota of knowledge when it comes to their own finances (hence the insane amount of personal debt), let alone the complications of a federal budget, and the impacts of programs in 10 yrs. time. It is highly amusing.

We should be happy we have someone who at least has the vision to TRY to do something about the problems.

Let's try to work together or our children's children will wake up working for ???

Have fun,

Jman

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Now don't get me wrong, I really believed that was something that he believed was best for the country.

Actually, I'm one of those who believe that the Bush presidency was one of the most successful in the history of the USA. It's my belief that George W. Bush, when he took office, had one goal in mind: make his rich friends even richer, rich beyond their wildest dreams. With that goal in mind, he cut their taxes and started a war from which they could profit primarily be looting the US Treasury under the guise of rebuilding the country through both unbid contracts and hiring such companies as Blackwater to act as mercenaries. I don't believe for a second that he ever had the best interests of the country in mind. But while he was tremendously successful at enriching his fat-cat buddies, he left the national economy in shambles.