Anybody but Obama

[J-Money]

it's the obama economy. His finger prints are all over it. Re-elect him. Make him smell the stench of his pitiful decisions and reckless policies.

Takes longer than 3 years to shit away an economy.

Could you please inform us the party of the President 3 years ago who helped get it all started?

This was a tag team efforts and the Repubs are doing everything they can to make sure it doesn't get better.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by IGBT
it's the obama economy. His finger prints are all over it. Re-elect him. Make him smell the stench of his pitiful decisions and reckless policies.

Takes longer than 3 years to shit away an economy.

Could you please inform us the party of the President 3 years ago who helped get it all started?

This was a tag team efforts and the Repubs are doing everything they can to make sure it doesn't get better.

He won't answer you.

You can't educate the UN-educatable.

 

[Jhhnn]

it's the obama economy. His finger prints are all over it. Re-elect him. Make him smell the stench of his pitiful decisions and reckless policies.

Too much Limbaugh, obviously.

I suppose it was Obama in charge, whistlin' Dixie, when the greatest credit bubble in the history of finance inflated & then popped.

Musta been Obama who insisted on the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, illegal domestic snooping & the creation of Gitmo as a political prop for re-election.

Musta been Obama at the head of the SEC when they gave the investment banks the green light to leverage up to 40:1 in the creation of the Ownership Society, and who demanded that the GSE's buy more "affordable loan" paper from those bankers. Musta been Obama who bailed 'em out, too.

Musta been Obama who said "deficits don't matter", cut federal taxes & federal revenue to the lowest since WW2 while spending more money.

And it's obviously Obama screaming Cut, cut, cut! at the top of his lungs trying to drive the economy deeper into recession/ depression. He's also working to raise middle class taxes while cutting taxes on the top .1% to nearly nothing.

Yep- it's the Obama economy, only if you believe in Kenyan voodoo time warp mind control, which you clearly do...

 

[MacLeod1592]

Too much Limbaugh, obviously.

I suppose it was Obama in charge, whistlin' Dixie, when the greatest credit bubble in the history of finance inflated & then popped.

No, that was a result of liberal policies when the government told bankers that they had to give people making $30,000 a year a $300,000 loan or face punishment. Gotta help those low income people get houses too.

Musta been Obama who insisted on the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, illegal domestic snooping & the creation of Gitmo as a political prop for re-election.

Nope, and the world is a better place and we're a safer country because of all that.

Musta been Obama at the head of the SEC when they gave the investment banks the green light to leverage up to 40:1 in the creation of the Ownership Society, and who demanded that the GSE's buy more "affordable loan" paper from those bankers. Musta been Obama who bailed 'em out, too.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to be exact along with Bill Clinton.

Musta been Obama who said "deficits don't matter", cut federal taxes & federal revenue to the lowest since WW2 while spending more money.

Yeah it was Obama that increased the debt more in 2 years than was accumulated since the founding of the country. And lowering taxes INCREASES revenue to the treasury. Reagan proved it when he cut taxes from nearly 70% down to the 20's. By the end of his term, revenue to the treasury had double.

And it's obviously Obama screaming Cut, cut, cut! at the top of his lungs trying to drive the economy deeper into recession/ depression. He's also working to raise middle class taxes while cutting taxes on the top .1% to nearly nothing.

No he's screaming SPEND SPEND SPEND which is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. And spare me the class warfare. The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes. 50% of the US population pay zero taxes. The top 50% pay 97% of the taxes. So any tax cut will benefit the wealthier because theyre the ones paying all the taxes. And thats good, cause the private sector does a much better job of spending its money than the government does. The government cant deliver the mail. They couldnt run the Cash for Clunkers temporary program without running it broke 3 times. Leave the money in the private sector where it can do some good.

Yep- it's the Obama economy, only if you believe in Kenyan voodoo time warp mind control, which you clearly do...

Guess I do cause this is most definitely Obama's economy.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, that was a result of liberal policies when the government told bankers that they had to give people making $30,000 a year a $300,000 loan or face punishment. Gotta help those low income people get houses too.

That's not what happened. CRA loans and CRA institutions had almost nothing to do with the housing bubble. You believing it did shows how well propagandized you are-

http://www.businessweek.com/investi...t_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis.html

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to be exact along with Bill Clinton.

Your ignorance is showing. Bush's SEC allowed an enormous increase in leverage by investment banks, 3 of whom failed form over exuberance-

http://www.nysun.com/business/ex-sec-official-blames-agency-for-blow-up/86130/

Yeah it was Obama that increased the debt more in 2 years than was accumulated since the founding of the country. And lowering taxes INCREASES revenue to the treasury. Reagan proved it when he cut taxes from nearly 70% down to the 20's. By the end of his term, revenue to the treasury had double.

Obama hasn't increased the debt nearly so much as his repub predecessors. Numbers here-

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

RR & GHWB more than quadrupled the debt, and GWB doubled it again. Obama has a long way to go to match those achievements.

If that bit about taxes were true, revenues should be at an all time high, because taxes are at historical lows. But that's not true, is it?

No he's screaming SPEND SPEND SPEND which is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. And spare me the class warfare. The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes. 50% of the US population pay zero taxes. The top 50% pay 97% of the taxes. So any tax cut will benefit the wealthier because theyre the ones paying all the taxes. And thats good, cause the private sector does a much better job of spending its money than the government does. The government cant deliver the mail. They couldnt run the Cash for Clunkers temporary program without running it broke 3 times. Leave the money in the private sector where it can do some good.

Spare you the class warfare? why? because the Rich have been waging and winning it for the last 30 years, and few noticed until just recently? Federal income taxes aren't the whole story- total taxes are. By that honest metric, poor people don't get much of a break-

http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/184166.html

Corporate profits and cash reserves are at record highs, along with unemployment, too. All that money is doing a lot of good stuffed into corporate coffers, huh?

You go, Job Creators!

Credit bubbles, financial looting sprees, have long lasting negative consequences which we're living today. It wouldn't be any better wiht McCain in the Whitehouse- probably worse if he followed the actions of his party in Congress. Blaming Obama is like blaming the guy who drove in on one side of town for the tornado that just left on the other. It's total hogwash, something that only fools would even begin to believe, let alone defend.

 

[Matt1970]

That's not what happened. CRA loans and CRA institutions had almost nothing to do with the housing bubble. You believing it did shows how well propagandized you are-

http://www.businessweek.com/investi...t_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis.html

That study is a joke. 9.2% of all High $$ loans were under the CRA. If you don't see a problem with nearly 10% of all high value loans being made to low income familes, then I have some land I want to sell you.

 

[HendrixFan]

That study is a joke. 9.2% of all High $$ loans were under the CRA. If you don't see a problem with nearly 10% of all high value loans being made to low income familes, then I have some land I want to sell you.

9.2% of all high $$ loans does not make a bubble.

Edit: I just googled to see where you got that 9.2% figure from, and that isn't the true number. That is only for the top 15 metro areas. While certainly making a large portion of the loans, I can bet that the total number is much much lower.

 

[Jhhnn]

That study is a joke. 9.2% of all High $$ loans were under the CRA. If you don't see a problem with nearly 10% of all high value loans being made to low income familes, then I have some land I want to sell you.

Where did that 9.2% number come from?

 

[HendrixFan]

Where did that 9.2% number come from?

I googled it and came back to the commentary in your own link:

Sample facts: 1) In the 15 most populous MSAs CRA covered banks originated only 9.2% of all subprime ("high cost") home loans. 2) Overall, CRA Banks were 58 percent less likely than other lenders [non-CRA covered banks and other mortgage lenders] to originate high cost [subprime] loans to LMI [Low and Moderate Income] borrowers.

 

[Jhhnn]

I found it. Matt's cherry picking of the study is entirely inaccurate and deliberately obfuscational. Here's the whole thing, which points entirely in the opposite direction-

http://dailydish.typepad.com/files/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

 

[Matt1970]

I found it. Matt's cherry picking of the study is entirely inaccurate and deliberately obfuscational. Here's the whole thing, which points entirely in the opposite direction-

http://dailydish.typepad.com/files/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

If I was going to cherry pick I would have picked Detroit where 32.3% of loans where CRA. That's in the second graph in that link. I just used the overall average in the first graph.

I am not claiming CRA was the main reason for the bubble/crisis, I just call out the BS when stories claim it had NOTHING to do with it like that one linked to that says "Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis"

 

[Jhhnn]

That study is a joke. 9.2% of all High $$ loans were under the CRA. If you don't see a problem with nearly 10% of all high value loans being made to low income familes, then I have some land I want to sell you.

Classic misinterpretation. CRA institutions are banks, and they lend to the whole spectrum of people, not just those with low incomes. Their issuing of high value loans doesn't mean those loans went to low income borrowers, at all.

It's a great example of confirmation bias. Matt believes that the CRA caused the housing bubble & subsequent collapse, so he interprets even contradictory information in a way that supports what he already believes. His rationality is simulated rather than real because he believes in lies in the first place. That makes him more likely to accept more lies based on the ones he already holds dear.

For the talking heads of the Right who create & then pander to such misconceptions, it's a golden opportunity to earn their keep. When the Ownership Society started to implode, there was a huge hole in public perception as to the why's & wherefores, which they rushed to fill with obfuscational bullshit, eagerly accepted by their devotees. Now that the hole has been filled, the bullshit has to be dug out before it can be filled with anything else. Righties will resist, of course, because they see that the hole has already been filled...

 

[Jhhnn]

DP.

 

[soundforbjt]

Who's responsible for the housing bubble?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=player_embedded

On December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Initiative,

December 2003 house numbers
Republican 228
Democrats 205

Senate 2003 numbers
Republicans 51
Democrats 48

Nov 24, 2003: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.
Dec 8, 2003: This bill passed in the House of Representatives without objection. A record of each representative’s position was not kept.

Cosponsors:
Samuel Brownback [R-KS]
Conrad Burns [R-MT]
Ben Campbell [R-CO]
Michael Crapo [R-ID]
Michael Enzi [R-WY]
Charles Hagel [R-NE] Lisa Murkowski [R-AK]
Richard Santorum [R-PA]
Jefferson Sessions [R-AL

 

[marvdmartian]

Hopefully one day you will realize they are all the same. Republican Democrat is just an illusion. In the end we are all slaves to the same people/entities.

This. They are, every one of them, regardless of their party affiliation, in it solely for themselves. How much power they can attain, how much money they can get away with, how many political favors they can earn, all the while they're working on our dime, spending their time writing their best selling book they'll make millions more from.

They don't give a damn about you, what you want, or how you feel, so long as they can get plenty of face time in the news, so they can tout how they're fighting for you, to win your vote every X number of years. They realize the average voter will vote either the party line, or the way they're told to vote, in order to keep what little they have left, and they know exactly how to manipulate the voters to make them vote their way.

When this country was first born, it was considered a privilege to go to Congress, to represent your neighbors. Now, the shills we have in DC don't even know who the hell they're representing anymore. :\

 

[MacLeod1592]

Who's responsible for the housing bubble?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=player_embedded

On December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Initiative,

December 2003 house numbers
Republican 228
Democrats 205

Senate 2003 numbers
Republicans 51
Democrats 48

Nice try but thats not the cause. All that did was help people with their down payments. Not saying that it was a good idea, but it hardly cause the collapse of the housing market. Thats not the policy that forced lenders to give big housing loans to people that plainly couldnt afford it. That has been going on since the late 70's and was started under Carter and boosted by Clinton. Not to be fair, the GOP had control of both housed of Congress during Clinton's terms and couldve stopped it but didnt. However, Bush warned of the collapse of Fannie and Freddie and the housing market collapse around 2003 and couldnt get anything done thru congress about it. Barney Frank is on record saying Freddie and Fannie are fine. Nothing to see here. Bunch of chicken littles running around saying the sky is falling. Both parties are to blame for the collapse but its liberal policies and their attempts at social engineering that caused it.

That's not what happened. CRA loans and CRA institutions had almost nothing to do with the housing bubble. You believing it did shows how well propagandized you are-

http://www.businessweek.com/investin...me_crisis.html

One mans editorial doesnt make it so. But I can post an editorial too that says Im right.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-true-origins-of-this-finan

Your ignorance is showing. Bush's SEC allowed an enormous increase in leverage by investment banks, 3 of whom failed form over exuberance-

http://www.nysun.com/business/ex-sec...blow-up/86130/

Bush is on record as of 2003 warning that Freddie and Fannie were headed for trouble and their current state was unsustainable. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Charles Schumer are all on record dismissing this saying that Fannie and Freddie were just fine and people were just running around trying to scare people.

Obama hasn't increased the debt nearly so much as his repub predecessors. Numbers here-

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm

RR & GHWB more than quadrupled the debt, and GWB doubled it again. Obama has a long way to go to match those achievements.

If that bit about taxes were true, revenues should be at an all time high, because taxes are at historical lows. But that's not true, is it?

Obama has increased the debt more in his 2.5 years than from George Washington to G.W. Bush COMBINED!

Taxes are not at a historical low. Our corporate tax rate is the 2nd highest in the world, 2nd only to Japan at nearly 40%. Even then, revenue are still pretty high but when you have an administration that spends MORE THAN ALL THE OTHER PRESIDENTS COMBINED, its hard to take in enough money to cover it.

Spare you the class warfare? why? because the Rich have been waging and winning it for the last 30 years, and few noticed until just recently? Federal income taxes aren't the whole story- total taxes are. By that honest metric, poor people don't get much of a break-

http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/184166.html

Corporate profits and cash reserves are at record highs, along with unemployment, too. All that money is doing a lot of good stuffed into corporate coffers, huh?

You go, Job Creators!

Credit bubbles, financial looting sprees, have long lasting negative consequences which we're living today. It wouldn't be any better wiht McCain in the Whitehouse- probably worse if he followed the actions of his party in Congress. Blaming Obama is like blaming the guy who drove in on one side of town for the tornado that just left on the other. It's total hogwash, something that only fools would even begin to believe, let alone defend.

Thanks for proving my point. That graph shows that the top 20% have 58% of the income yet pay 65% of taxes.

Now if youre using that to refute the point that half the country doesnt pay taxes, its flawed. Its not that 51% of tax payers pay no taxes, its 51% of the population (actually its 49%) that pay no income taxes. Yes they pay sales tax but theyre getting a lot more tax paid services than they ever pay in with sales tax.

Im with you on bitching about loop holes and deductions. I would like to see a 10% flat tax across the board for personal and business and no deductions. You make $10000 a year, you pay $1000. If you make a million, you pay a hundred grand. Nice, simple and fair.

The reason why companies are sitting on their cash reserves right now is because you have an administration that is openly waging war on the private sector accusing them of being responsible for everything that is wrong with this country, threatening to regulate them into oblivion (in the case of the coal industry, actually stating he wants to run them out of business) and tax them endlessly and with Obamacare looming, nobody really knows how much thats going to cost them. When you have an anti-business socialist in power, youre not filled with a lot of confidence and youre not going to risk large chunks of your cash.

Youre probably right that McCain wouldnt have fixed things by now cause he's not that much better than Obama. But this couldve been fixed easily by now. If in 2008 we had a pro business capitalist in office along with a republican congress and they passed sweeping tax cuts, slashing the corporate tax rate from the 2nd highest in the world at nearly 40% down to something like 10%, refused to bail out all these failed industries and a few other things, we wouldnt be sitting in the crap we're in now. Reagan took office in 1981 with pretty much the same circumstances we're in right now and thru simple, tired and true, capitalist supply and demand policies, he had us out of it and up and running again within a few years and created an economic recovery that lasted 2 decades.

 

[Matt1970]

The reason why companies are sitting on their cash reserves right now is because you have an administration that is openly waging war on the private sector accusing them of being responsible for everything that is wrong with this country, threatening to regulate them into oblivion (in the case of the coal industry, actually stating he wants to run them out of business) and tax them endlessly and with Obamacare looming, nobody really knows how much thats going to cost them. When you have an anti-business socialist in power, youre not filled with a lot of confidence and youre not going to risk large chunks of your cash.

That's what I was saying about why the stimulus didn't do well. You have a president threatening to raise taxes on those who will be doing the lion's share of investing. He was also threatening Obamacare, CEO pay regulations, Cap & Tax, out of control Government growth & spending, etc...etc..etc I don't see how that will spark investor & consumer confidence during a recession.

 

[Craig234]

This. They are, every one of them, regardless of their party affiliation, in it solely for themselves.

Wrong.

Go get your torch and start marching against your imaginary monsters, peasant.

 

[soundforbjt]

Taxes are not at a historical low. Our corporate tax rate is the 2nd highest in the world, 2nd only to Japan at nearly 40%.

But you leave out that most corps don't pay that rate and 35% don't pay at all and get money back, paying a negative tax. The rates have never been lower for the rich in over 60 years, yet the Teabaggers say they're "tax enough already", give me a break.

 

[Rainsford]

Anybody but Obama is as dumb a strategy as Anybody But Bush was 8 years ago, but for some reason the Republicans don't seem to remember what happened in 2004.

The problem is that the strategy relies on you convincing the electorate that ANYBODY really would be better than Obama. Sure, people like MacLeod1592 are convinced...but they didn't need convincing. And for some reason, "anybody but X" campaigns seem to choose candidates that make it clear why we should probably be a bit more specific with the alternatives. Bush would have lost running unopposed, Kerry was just terrible enough of a candidate to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And the Republicans are shaping up to make exactly the same kind of crummy choice. Romney? Perry? CAIN? Really?

And just like with Bush, the strategy here seems to be trying to convince people that not only is Obama a bad choice, but he's a TERRIBLE choice who's responsible for everything that's gone wrong ever...even the stuff that happened before he was President. The "Anybody But X" campaign approach encourages this kind of absolutist thinking, but it ends up coming off a little unglued to anyone who wasn't already on board. Blaming Obama for a failure to help the economy would be a reasonable point of view. Blaming Obama for the downturn in the economy sounds a little ridiculous. And it's not likely to endear the Anybody But Obama folks to people who haven't already made up their minds.

 

[Jaskalas]

vote third party

I did last time.

This time I'm reconsidering. Not to support anyone, but to ensure gridlock. Prop up the walls of the failed system to ensure it comes crashing down. I'm trying to reconcile how that can best be reflected in a vote.

Anybody but Obama

Terrible notion. Romney is much worse than Obama.

 

[Carmen813]

No, that was a result of liberal policies when the government told bankers that they had to give people making $30,000 a year a $300,000 loan or face punishment. Gotta help those low income people get houses too.



Nope, and the world is a better place and we're a safer country because of all that.



Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to be exact along with Bill Clinton.



Yeah it was Obama that increased the debt more in 2 years than was accumulated since the founding of the country. And lowering taxes INCREASES revenue to the treasury. Reagan proved it when he cut taxes from nearly 70% down to the 20's. By the end of his term, revenue to the treasury had double.



No he's screaming SPEND SPEND SPEND which is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. And spare me the class warfare. The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes. 50% of the US population pay zero taxes. The top 50% pay 97% of the taxes. So any tax cut will benefit the wealthier because theyre the ones paying all the taxes. And thats good, cause the private sector does a much better job of spending its money than the government does. The government cant deliver the mail. They couldnt run the Cash for Clunkers temporary program without running it broke 3 times. Leave the money in the private sector where it can do some good.



Guess I do cause this is most definitely Obama's economy.

Holy Christ, Bush ran stating one of his goals was for every American who wanted to owning their own home. Good lord people have terrible memories. The rest of your numbers are laughable bullshit.

 

[Jaskalas]

Holy Christ, Bush ran stating one of his goals was for every American who wanted to owning their own home. Good lord people have terrible memories. The rest of your numbers are laughable bullshit.

Bush was doing his very best to out-Democrat the Democrats. His handouts were the biggest. Medicare Part D, your own home, expansive war efforts. The man knew how to dole out cash.

 

[fskimospy]

Nice try but thats not the cause. All that did was help people with their down payments. Not saying that it was a good idea, but it hardly cause the collapse of the housing market. Thats not the policy that forced lenders to give big housing loans to people that plainly couldnt afford it. That has been going on since the late 70's and was started under Carter and boosted by Clinton. Not to be fair, the GOP had control of both housed of Congress during Clinton's terms and couldve stopped it but didnt. However, Bush warned of the collapse of Fannie and Freddie and the housing market collapse around 2003 and couldnt get anything done thru congress about it. Barney Frank is on record saying Freddie and Fannie are fine. Nothing to see here. Bunch of chicken littles running around saying the sky is falling. Both parties are to blame for the collapse but its liberal policies and their attempts at social engineering that caused it.

You have a lot of very basic factual errors in your post. If you're going to write about these things you should really learn more about them first.


On the CRA:

One mans editorial doesnt make it so. But I can post an editorial too that says Im right.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-true-origins-of-this-finan

Dueling editorials might not be particularly illuminating, but then again we don't need editorials. Economic analysis by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the CBO, independent international banking organizations like the Bank for International Settlements, etc, etc etc have all concluded that the CRA had very little to do with the crash. So you know, like, actual experts say you're wrong.


On the debt:

Obama has increased the debt more in his 2.5 years than from George Washington to G.W. Bush COMBINED!

Taxes are not at a historical low. Our corporate tax rate is the 2nd highest in the world, 2nd only to Japan at nearly 40%. Even then, revenue are still pretty high but when you have an administration that spends MORE THAN ALL THE OTHER PRESIDENTS COMBINED, its hard to take in enough money to cover it.

You misread your own link, and it leaves out a lot of very important information. What your link says is that he made more debt than every president from Washington to George H.W. Bush This is convenient because not only does it avoid inflation, but it leaves out the debts of Clinton, and the huge amount of debt run up under George W. Bush. (on a related note, Reagan personally also ran up a great deal more debt than every president before him combined)

Additionally, total tax burden as a percentage of GDP (you know, the way you actually measure it) is in fact at the lowest percentage in decades. So basically, both your assertions here are simply factually false.

The reason why companies are sitting on their cash reserves right now is because you have an administration that is openly waging war on the private sector accusing them of being responsible for everything that is wrong with this country, threatening to regulate them into oblivion (in the case of the coal industry, actually stating he wants to run them out of business) and tax them endlessly and with Obamacare looming, nobody really knows how much thats going to cost them. When you have an anti-business socialist in power, youre not filled with a lot of confidence and youre not going to risk large chunks of your cash.

There is absolutely zero evidence for what you just wrote, it's just fact free emotional ranting.

Youre probably right that McCain wouldnt have fixed things by now cause he's not that much better than Obama. But this couldve been fixed easily by now. If in 2008 we had a pro business capitalist in office along with a republican congress and they passed sweeping tax cuts, slashing the corporate tax rate from the 2nd highest in the world at nearly 40% down to something like 10%, refused to bail out all these failed industries and a few other things, we wouldnt be sitting in the crap we're in now. Reagan took office in 1981 with pretty much the same circumstances we're in right now and thru simple, tired and true, capitalist supply and demand policies, he had us out of it and up and running again within a few years and created an economic recovery that lasted 2 decades.

Fact free, emotional rant. Also showing a pretty shocking ignorance of the causes and solutions to the late 1970's recession.

 

[zsdersw]

With the Republican primary and candidates reminding me more and more of the 2004 Democratic primary and candidates... it seems more and more likely that Obama is going to win almost as handily as Bush did.