Obama +6 million jobs vs Bush -600,000 jobs

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Life is a matter of (alternative) choices, assuming more than one choice even truly exists. Knowing the alternatives, Obama's record on the economy is unassailably stellar given the shit sandwich he inherited. We saw the direct results of the alternatives (Repubs running the shop) which more or less can be summed up with horrid oversight of brokers/TPO's/lenders that ignored federal underwriting standards between 2004-2007, oversaw the weakening of securities regs in the form of weakened SEC rules and a diminished budget for oversight, we saw insanely irresponsible (budget-wise) tax cuts (especially on capital gains) and of course disastrous foreign policy if we're talking purely in terms of dollars and cents (to say nothing of the worldwide damage it did).

So indeed, knowing the alternatives, which is Repubs running the place, (or worse, Tea Partiers) it's simply common sense that Obama's record is the best you can pretty much hope for given the economic circumstances inherited and the political realities of record filibusters in the Senate or basically nutters in the House. On substance, certainly the CFPB, Dodd-Frank and ACA go a hell of a long way toward preventing further hollowing out of the middle class, as without these reforms consumers have far fewer protections and recourse when unfair and/or fraudulent practices are committed. Banks are far less able to run wild with the reserve requirements that are now a prerequisite for banks large enough to qualify for in the stress tests.

Basically, Repubs don't stand as a reasonable alternative given their most recent record of rule (2001-2009), and certainly they'd done absolutely zero positive, noteworthy things since taking the House in 2010. Not one thing that the Obama administration didn't bless, that is, given the veto.

EDIT: syntax

So we have gone from Obama being the knight in shining armor who was going to ride in and save the economy, fix the government and make life worth living again, to Hey, it could have been worse. Gotcha.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
So we have gone from Obama being the knight in shining armor who was going to ride in and save the economy, fix the government and make life worth living again, to Hey, it could have been worse. Gotcha.

lulz troll. It's cute how flustered you get by campaign promises. Do you call Colgate and complain to them for falsely advertising that 9 out of 10 dentists recommend their toothpaste, too?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
lulz troll. It's cute how flustered you get by campaign promises. Do you call Colgate and complain to them for falsely advertising that 9 out of 10 dentists recommend their toothpaste, too?

Shame on me for wanting to take a person for his word. My bad. And I think you are thinking of Crest.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Shame on me for wanting to take a person for his word. My bad. And I think you are thinking of Crest.

You take campaigning politicians at their word? No matter you're always so confused. lol

EDIT: Nice wimpout on the substance btw. We can always count on you for intellectually impotent responses. ;)
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
You take campaigning politicians at their word? No matter you're always so confused. lol

EDIT: Nice wimpout on the substance btw. We can always count on you for intellectually impotent responses. ;)

I am still waiting for you to post some real substance that isn't so clouded in partisan hack it it's laughable at best. Your posts are starting to lean towards the the McOwned, bshole Phokus territory.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
I am still waiting for you to post some real substance that isn't so clouded in partisan hack it it's laughable at best. Your posts are starting to lean towards the the McOwned, bshole Phokus territory.

Posted plenty about various laws and regs Obama admin put into place, and the ones the Bush admin, well, didn't. Feel free to refute any of them.

Meh, 'nother weak wimpout coming. I'll be here to poke fun at you for it.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Posted plenty about various laws and regs Obama admin put into place, and the ones the Bush admin, well, didn't. Feel free to refute any of them.

Meh, 'nother weak wimpout coming. I'll be here to poke fun at you for it.

See you think people are wimping out on you when reality is hacks like you just aren't worth debating. The fact that you squarely blame the mess we got into on the Republicans when the general consensus is both parties share the blame proves it. We have the same odds of getting an honest debate out of you as we do having $100 bills shoot out my ass every 20 seconds. But live in your little world of you posting your nonsense and the lack of people responding being proof you won.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
See you think people are wimping out on you when reality is hacks like you just aren't worth debating.

Something an intellectual dunce with nothing to contribute would say.

The fact that you squarely blame the mess we got into on the Republicans when the general consensus is both parties share the blame proves it.

Link to "general consensus"? K thanks.

We have the same odds of getting an honest debate out of you as we do having $100 bills shoot out my ass every 20 seconds. But live in your little world of you posting your nonsense and the lack of people responding being proof you won.

The fact that you cannot refute a single thing I said proves to everyone here you're out of your league posting in this topic. Or hell, just P&N generally. Everyone honest here knows what your deal is.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
So we have gone from Obama being the knight in shining armor who was going to ride in and save the economy, fix the government and make life worth living again, to Hey, it could have been worse. Gotcha.

lulz troll. It's cute how flustered you get by campaign promises. Do you call Colgate and complain to them for falsely advertising that 9 out of 10 dentists recommend their toothpaste, too?

Hell, those weren't even campaign promises, just his way of heaping derision.

He points out that the Admin is limited by separation of powers (nothing intentional on his part) but tomorrow or the day after, he'll be raving about Obama the Dictator! OMG!

And he'll see nothing contradictory in calling Obama a pussy for not starting WW3 over Ukraine.

After that, it'll be cheerleading some right wing HOR proposal that doesn't have a prayer of becoming law, and then on to Benghazi! or better yet, Bergdahl-gazi!

How many ways are there to spell partisan obstructionism? Or circuses to entertain the Faithful? If Repubs can find a new one, they'll use it, having worn out the rest.

They don't want smaller govt- they just want to tear it down, let International Corporatism take over.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Hell, those weren't even campaign promises, just his way of heaping derision.

He points out that the Admin is limited by separation of powers (nothing intentional on his part) but tomorrow or the day after, he'll be raving about Obama the Dictator! OMG!

And he'll see nothing contradictory in calling Obama a pussy for not starting WW3 over Ukraine.

After that, it'll be cheerleading some right wing HOR proposal that doesn't have a prayer of becoming law, and then on to Benghazi! or better yet, Bergdahl-gazi!

How many ways are there to spell partisan obstructionism? Or circuses to entertain the Faithful? If Repubs can find a new one, they'll use it, having worn out the rest.

They don't want smaller govt- they just want to tear it down, let International Corporatism take over.

So now they aren't even promises. Maybe Obama forgot to pinky-swear on them? How many ways are there to spell partisan obstructionism? How about the no fewer than 171 jobs bills waiting to get to the Senate floor that Reid flat out ignores.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
How about the no fewer than 171 jobs bills waiting to get to the Senate floor that Reid flat out ignores.

Lol. The falsehood is strong with this one.

The sad thing is; the pussy won't man up and link to an aggregate list of those 171 bills and actually stand by that bullshit number.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Link to "general consensus"? K thanks.

I know you will find some data on the net that will contradict it and that is good enough for you but one of the leading causes of the financial crisis was the repeal of Glass-Steagall which was a largely bi-partisan bill signed into law by a Democratic President.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/s354

The act is "often cited as a cause" of the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis "even by some of its onetime supporters."[26] President Barack Obama has stated that GLB led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression.[citation needed] Its passage, critics also say, cleared the way for companies that were too big and intertwined to fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Let the denying of reality begin.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Lol. The falsehood is strong with this one.

The sad thing is; the pussy won't man up and link to an aggregate list of those 171 bills and actually stand by that bullshit number.

And you wonder why people won't debate you.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
See you think people are wimping out on you when reality is hacks like you just aren't worth debating. The fact that you squarely blame the mess we got into on the Republicans when the general consensus is both parties share the blame proves it. We have the same odds of getting an honest debate out of you as we do having $100 bills shoot out my ass every 20 seconds. But live in your little world of you posting your nonsense and the lack of people responding being proof you won.

The general consensus has been astroturfed to Hell & back by Faux News & the other well fina nced right wing propaganda generators you call news. Hell, your hero, Limbaugh, was blaming Obama before he was inaugurated. The truth is that we're living in the aftermath of the greatest looting spree in the history of finance, brought about by serial deregulation & adoption of Repub policy over a period of 30 years. 2008 was just the culmination of those efforts.

Whatever part Dems may have played, it was because many have become too much like Repubs & too willing to compromise to save the economic hostages Repubs have taken since this depression began.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I know you will find some data on the net that will contradict it and that is good enough for you but one of the leading causes of the financial crisis was the repeal of Glass-Steagall which was a largely bi-partisan bill signed into law by a Democratic President.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/s354

The act is "often cited as a cause" of the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis "even by some of its onetime supporters."[26] President Barack Obama has stated that GLB led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression.[citation needed] Its passage, critics also say, cleared the way for companies that were too big and intertwined to fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Let the denying of reality begin.

So, uhh, Dems fucked up when they abandoned their New Deal roots & went with the Repubs?

No Shit, Sherlock. Where do we go from here? Do we want more of the same that got us here, or something different?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
I know you will find some data on the net that will contradict it and that is good enough for you but one of the leading causes of the financial crisis was the repeal of Glass-Steagall which was a largely bi-partisan bill signed into law by a Democratic President.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/s354

The act is "often cited as a cause" of the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis "even by some of its onetime supporters."[26] President Barack Obama has stated that GLB led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression.[citation needed] Its passage, critics also say, cleared the way for companies that were too big and intertwined to fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Let the denying of reality begin.

At least this is an attempt, appreciate it. Btw, I love how your primary linked criticism has no footnoted source to support it.

Anyway, in the exact same link you have clear arguments that far more convincingly state the following:

According to a 2009 policy report from the Cato Institute authored by one of the institute's directors, Mark A. Calabria, critics of the legislation feared that, with the allowance for mergers between investment and commercial banks, GLB allowed the newly-merged banks to take on riskier investments while at the same time removing any requirements to maintain enough equity, exposing the assets of its banking customers.[33][non-primary source needed] Calabria claimed that, prior to the passage of GLB in 1999, investment banks were already capable of holding and trading the very financial assets claimed to be the cause of the mortgage crisis, and were also already able to keep their books as they had.[33] He concluded that greater access to investment capital as many investment banks went public on the market explains the shift in their holdings to trading portfolios.[33] Calabria noted that after GLB passed, most investment banks did not merge with depository commercial banks, and that in fact, the few banks that did merge weathered the crisis better than those that did not.[33]
In February 2009, one of the act's co-authors, former Senator Phil Gramm, also defended his bill:
f GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass–Steagall requirements to begin with. Also, the financial firms that failed in this crisis, like Lehman, were the least diversified and the ones that survived, like J.P. Morgan, were the most diversified. Moreover, GLB did not deregulate anything. It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies. All activities of financial institutions continued to be regulated on a functional basis by the regulators that had regulated those activities prior to GLB.[34]
Bill Clinton, as well as economists Brad DeLong and Tyler Cowen have all argued that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act softened the impact of the crisis.[35][36] Atlantic Monthly columnist Megan McArdle has argued that if the act was "part of the problem, it would be the commercial banks, not the investment banks, that were in trouble" and repeal would not have helped the situation.[37] An article in the conservative publication, National Review, has made the same argument, calling liberal allegations about the Act “folk economics.”[38] A New York Times financial columnist and critic of GLB conceded that GLB had little to do with the failed institutions.[39]


So in other words, the lines between securities/insurance/commercial entities were already blurring by the time the late 90's rolled around. For example, the CitiGroup behemoth that was created through the Travelers acquisition helped accelerate something that was already occurring naturally. They got waivers. GLBA simply enshrined it into law. The issue with repealing Steagall in place of GLBA was there wasn't enough actual, strong CFR (regulation) that federal agencies had actually written out to regulate complex financial instruments like OTC derivatives. Now we're talking about regulating insurance companies more closely given the complete failure of AIG and how often insurance is required and intertwined with business.

So while I appreciate your effort, you're still a partisan attempting to do anything possible to re-enforce your worldview. But sorry, it ain't going to come true. Crying wolf over the Steagall repeal is far left myth that isn't really taken all that seriously.
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
At least this is an attempt, appreciate it. Btw, I love how your primary linked criticism has no footnoted source to support it.

Anyway, in the exact same link you have clear arguments that far more convincingly state the following:



So in other words, the lines between securities/insurance/commercial entities were already blurring by the time the late 90's rolled around. For example, the CitiGroup behemoth that was created through the Travelers acquisition helped accelerate something that was already occurring naturally. They got waivers. GLBA simply enshrined it into law. The issue with repealing Steagall in place of GLBA was there wasn't enough actual, strong CFR (regulation) that federal agencies had actually written out to regulate complex financial instruments like OTC derivatives. Now we're talking about regulating insurance companies more closely given the complete failure of AIG and how often insurance is required and intertwined with business.

So while I appreciate your effort, you're still a partisan attempting to do anything possible to re-enforce your worldview. But sorry, it ain't going to come true. Crying wolf over the Steagall repeal is far left myth that isn't really taken all that seriously.

You will have to take the lack of a footnoted source up with Wikipedia. And I never said the main cause was the repeal of Glass-Steagall, I said it was one of the leading causes and because of the many contributing factors, the general consensus is both parties share the blame.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
So, uhh, Dems fucked up when they abandoned their New Deal roots & went with the Repubs?

No Shit, Sherlock. Where do we go from here? Do we want more of the same that got us here, or something different?

Weren't you one of the ones citing too much money at the top as a problem? Hoe is the $85 billion a month QE any different in your mind then? And true to form that we didn't learn our lesson you have Obama pushing banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
So, uhh, Dems fucked up when they abandoned their New Deal roots & went with the Repubs?

No Shit, Sherlock. Where do we go from here? Do we want more of the same that got us here, or something different?

Weren't you one of the ones citing too much money at the top as a problem? Hoe is the $85 billion a month QE any different in your mind then? And true to form that we didn't learn our lesson you have Obama pushing banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

Quote the question, dodge it, blame Obama. Then point out that you're insane, which we already knew.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Quote the question, dodge it, blame Obama. Then point out that you're insane, which we already knew.

No, you are trying to make it sound like the left has some new magical solution when all they are doing is more of the same.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
You will have to take the lack of a footnoted source up with Wikipedia.

A good deal of your argument seemed to hinge on the Wiki quote that was unsourced, though since you didn't explain your argument in your own words I can't really guess what you meant. That's because you don't really know much about the topic firsthand.

And I never said the main cause was the repeal of Glass-Steagall, I said it was one of the leading causes and because of the many contributing factors, the general consensus is both parties share the blame.

No, again, your link and explanation both fail to meet the criteria for a well thought-out response. Steagall was nowhere near approaching a main cause of the 08 collapse. Most of the law itself was an over-reaction based on everything we know about the Great Depression. There's nothing inherently wrong with investment firms and insurance companies being under the same umbrella corp is they subject to explicit regulation.

Again, your response is 99% partisan, 1% Wikipedia shit you just googled, and would pretty much fail any intro to securities history course.
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
A good deal of your argument seemed to hinge on the Wiki quote that was unsourced, though since you didn't explain your argument in your own words I can't really guess what you meant. That's because you don't really know much about the topic firsthand.



No, again, your link and explanation both fail to meet the criteria for a well thought-out response. Steagall was nowhere near approaching a main cause of the 08 collapse. Most of the law itself was an over-reaction based on everything we know about the Great Depression. There's nothing inherently wrong with investment firms and insurance companies being under the same umbrella corp is they subject to explicit regulation.

Again, your response is 99% partisan, 1% Wikipedia shit you just googled, and would pretty much fail any intro to securities history course.

You are going to see exactly what you want to see which is why people refuse to debate with you. There are plenty of sources that site the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as a contributing factor in the financial crisis. Go argue with them. If you think they don't exist then use Google.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
No, you are trying to make it sound like the left has some new magical solution when all they are doing is more of the same.

Hogwash. What's been done by the Govt & by the FRB is precisely what wasn't done in 1930-1932. Debt-deflation spirals benefit only the Uber Wealthy. It's the best time to be Rich- when everybody else is broke, busted & begging. That's when you can really put the bone to 'em.

And there's Dodd-Frank. Weak as it is, Repubs fought it every inch of the way, still are.

Even more stringent provisions were stripped from it to gain Centrist Dem & Repub support. The "Left" would have done more had we been able.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
You are going to see exactly what you want to see which is why people refuse to debate with you. There are plenty of sources that site the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as a contributing factor in the financial crisis. Go argue with them. If you think they don't exist then use Google.

No one is seriously making this argument, nor does it support your theory that the crisis was "bi-partisan". Sorry, it wasn't. One ideology and one party overwhelmingly decided not to put any teeth into securities regs, banking regs and fought tooth and nail against Dodd-Frank, CFPB, Fair Housing, et al. This is a matter of record you wouldn't be able to refute if your life depended on it, and won't here in this thread for the usual lame reasons ("I can't debate with you First!").

You can argue all you want that some lefties were in the pockets of finance, but that doesn't matter a lick compared to the overwhelming majority that weren't. Something has to be quantitatively close for you to call it "bi-partisan", otherwise the word loses all meaning and politicians would call legislation passed with 50 of X Party and 1 of Y Party in the Senate "bi-partisan" (sadly, that's been done). It's not bi-partisan. Sorry to shatter your partisan worldview.
 
Last edited: