Obama is the GREATEST President in HISTORY

Obama is the Greatest (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) in History.

 

He certainly may be the greatest at getting malcontents alienated from America in a snit, but the American people that twice elected him their nation's leader regard him as rather mediocre overall, clearly better than his predecessor, but not nearly as good as his.

Obama's approval/disapproval numbers are just about even according to Gallup and most surveys, whereas Bush was at 32% approval/65% disapproval at this stage of his tenure, and Clinton was at 65% approval/33% disapproval.

A strident, radical fringe often likes to fantasize that its aberrant views are typical, but it deludes itself, of course, as a direct, comparative, objective assessment readily exposes its errant assumption.

When presented with the facts, they are strongly disposed to snivel.

.

 

It was a lie in November when it was written, it is still a lie in February and will continue to be a lie...

 

You noticed that in my appraisal of Obama's foreign policy, I left out his handling of negotiations with Iran. He made a statement that he will not let Iran build a nuclear weapon. While I'll wait and see if he keeps that promise, I won't hold my breath that he will do anything more than use hot air to stop them.

 

Are you serious. this is ridiculous. Obama has tripled our debt and sides with MOD EDIT - Rule 7 criminals who cross the border. wake up!

 

What utter BS. The house passed dozens of bills in fact hundreds. The Senate during the same time frame passed fifty. It was the restraint that the Republicans inflicted upon Democratic craziness that allowed the economy to recover to what little extent it has. and no president not Bush not Obama not any control Regulators. In fact all that crap you just cited goes back to the rewrites of the fannie and Freddie charters wherein The clinton cronies running them were rewarded for writing as many loans as possible not for insuring that said loans were good. Congress not the president is charged with Oversight. Bush did what he could to rein in this charade beginning as early as 2003 when he tried to reform fannie and freddie but the Dems weren't having any and filibustered any attempts to change those rules. By the way Banks don't generally write mortgage notes they buy them. And it was the secondary markets, (i.e. the banks) who had no idea that mortgage loans were suddenly becoming toxic at rates not seen ever in this country, that took the biggest hit.

But go ahead and keep ignoring reality and voting Democrat. Maybe this time the Koolaid won't be laced with anything toxic.

 

I'm trying to remember when I've seen this much unfounded, untrue hyperliberal gush in a single post, which was little more than one more tattered, old race card thrown for the millionth time at people -- because the further we go down to the dying days of this socialist Obama regime, your hollow war-whoops of "RACISM" are all that remains for you on the Left!

One note you might at least consider: your wonderful "recovery" (which has really only had the true bottom-line effect making the 1% even richer than they were before) is a fiction produced entirely by the Federal Reserve combine! Starting in August 2007, before your "messiah" even took the stage, the Federal Reserve started to destroy the free-market enterprise system, and stage a massive rescue for investment bankers and Wall Street gamblers -- who are the very people you on the Left profess to hate so much! The whole "recovery" you want to give Obama a laurel wreath for is nothing but a gigantic FRAUD BALLOON floated aloft by "quantitative easings" I, II, and III, along with all the other economic bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that Fed. Chairman Ben Bernanke pulled during the time he ran the entire economy (and his successor, Janet Yellen, is nothing more than another Bernanke, without a beard).

I know... I didn't even make a dent in your perception. But I would ask you this -- if we on the Right are nothing but callow "RACISTS", then why is it that so many of US are so passionately in favor of a presidential and vice-presidential ticket to be made up of Dr. Ben Carson (100% Black), and Condoleezza Rice (100% Black). If there were any truth to your ugly slurs about us all being racists, wouldn't we hate these two twice as much as Obama, who, after all, is only 50% Black and 50% White Trash...?!
Ben Carson for President in 2016 -- the first honorable, intelligent Black President of the United States!

 

It would seem Democrat need to listen to something more than Liberal lies, especially when it comes to the housing collapse that they are trying to blame all on Bush and who economics say caused the crash of our economy. Not Bush's wars or his tax cuts. It was the housing industry. So lets look at it as it really was and not how these lying Democrats are telling you. When did it start and who caused it? It sure wasn't after Bush got elected, it started years before that. It started with Clinton, forcing banks to make a percentage of all their mortgage loans to the poor.

Here was the very start of the fall of the banks, by pushing banks to make loans to the poor, when they couldn't afford them.

Please catch the date of this article.



U.S. To Push Banks on Credit in Poor Areas

December 09, 1993|ROBERT A. ROSENBLATT and CHRIS KRAUL | TIMES STAFF WRITERS


WASHINGTON — The Clinton Administration, hoping to generate billions of dollars in new loans for small businesses and residents in poor and minority neighborhoods, on Wednesday unveiled proposed new rules requiring banks and thrifts to aggressively seek new customers in all parts of their communities.

Federal regulators will now be much tougher in demanding that financial institutions make credit available to the poor as well as the affluent, said Comptroller of the Currency Eugene A. Ludwig, whose recent travels have taken him from South-Central Los Angeles to a reservation in North Carolina to hear complaints about the lack of credit in low-income areas.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-...ommunity-banks

 

Notice this happened 7 years before Bush took office. So now we know the banks were forced to give out a certain percentage of their home mortgages to the poor. But how can they begin to do that with the lending standards of that time? They couldn't, so they had to come out with a whole new bunch of leanding standards and they did. Interest only loans for X amount of years, no money down loans, variable interest rate loans, balloon payment loans, where you have to refinance after a period of years, or pay the balance owed in full. Loans where you no longer allowed to pay more than 25% of your monthly salary and etc. Needless to say many of these loans came back to bit the banks in the ass. But they weren't to worried, they could bundle up these bad loans and peddle them to the government backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Well as it turned out F/M and F/M were glad to get them, made money for them, but as they kept going farther and farther in debt with these bad loans, the new Bush government was afraid F/M and F/M could go under and stick the tax payer with billions of dollars of their debt, so he asked Congress to put heavy regulations on F/M and F/M to prevent them from taking anymore of these bad loans. As a matter of fact, Bush and Republicans warned Democrats in congress about a dozen times that strong regulations must be put on them but Democrats kept denying it, afraid it would cut down on loans to the poor. Hearings were held and the problem was pointed out by Republicans and Federal regulators that these banks and F/M and F/M must be regulated, but Democrats call the regulators liars, there was nothing wrong with F/M and F/M.

 

So for years the Democrats refused to put strong regulations on F/M and F/M. So did Obama inherit a collapsed economy that Bush caused. I don't think so. While it's true, Bush wanted to get millions of poor into homes too, and he offered to help by paying a percentage of the down payment to help the poor to get them. But what Bush did was require the poor to qualify for the bank loans before the government would pay the down payment. Democrats didn't do that, they just wanted the banks to make a certain percentage of the loans to the poor and they didn't care how they did it. Do the Democrats ever point this out, or do they just blame the whole thing on Republicans? Lets see.

[video=youtube;hxMInSfanqg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Here was the difference with Bush and giving help with the down payment for the poor. He said a person must show they can qualify for the loan first and come up with a partial down payment the government will help.

" Housing: Use HUD rental vouchers for first home purchase
Creation of an “American Dream Downpayment Fund,” which would allow low-income families to use up to a year’s worth of HUD Section 8 rental vouchers to make a down payment on a home.“When a low-income family is qualified to buy a house but comes up short on the down payment, we will help them,” Bush said. “If they and the bank can come up with 25% of the down payment, the government will pay the rest, up to $1,500.” Section 8 vouchers can already be used to help with mortgage payments.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Geo..._+_Poverty.htm

 

Well was Pelosi lying? you bet she was, even Bill Clinton said she lied. But the Democrats kept pushing home ownership under their terms but they even denied doing this. Barney Frank said they were pushing rental housing, not home ownership and kept refusing to put on strong regulations till it was way to late.

[video=youtube;BMPPGlOpUiM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BMPPGlOpUiM[/video]


[video=youtube;GRVIeCYAJFk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRVIeCYAJFk[/video]

 

This isn't to say that any of the mortgages given out by Bush didn't come back to bit the banks and F/M and F/M. I am sure their were. When your poor, thing always seem to come up to knock you down. But was it mostly Bush's fault for the crash of this economy? not by a long shot. Democrats also played a big part in bring it down. But they won't be honest and admit their part. Nothing new. Obama never takes the blame either and what he has done and planning to do, we will be lucky if it doesn't come crumbling down again.

 

Obama is the greatest screw up.

 

DESTROYED you with links to counter my argument, and you use this BS? LOL


This thread Bubba, TRY to defend your BS

How do Americans who know American history defend George W. Bush's presidency?

 

WEIRD which BRANCH HAS OVERSIGHT WITH sec, hud, fbi, etc? hINT executive branch

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf


Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.

(now this was gov't policy???? lol)




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. And then they sold the loan and risk to investors and GSEs clamoring for the loans. Actually banks, pension funds, investment banks and other investors clamored for them. Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to buy an additional $440 billion in mortgages in the secondary market.






Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!






June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

- - - Updated - - -

OUT OF CONTEXT VIDS? lol

 

wow...lol...I mean...wow.

 

Sorry I forgot, the conservatives/GOP are for MORE regulation/regulators Dems are for less, THAT'S your posit? lol


STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers".


And here's what the House Republican Mike Oxley, Chairman of the House Financial Services committee said

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

 

So you can't critically think OR be honest? I already showed you the link from the feds study that said Clinton's 93 CRA change had ZERO to do with a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. One Dubya cheered on in the US

ONCE MORE:

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush's President's Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

 

Praised be Thy name, our Lord and Deliverer!

 

An old thread, but when I saw the title again it was so absurd that I laughed, Obama has become such a farce that saying he is the greatest President in history is hilarious.

 

LOL, SURE BUBBA, SURE


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust. 9CRA??, LOL)



Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.
(CALLED WALL STREET)

Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.


Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006



These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.


LOL

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/1...ow-the-facts-of-the-economic-crisis-stack-up/

 

Out of context my ass. Both of those videos showed how Pelosi and Franks lied about pushing home loans on how they fought putting on strong or any regulations. How they lied and said they had no idea F/M and F/M were in trouble. How democrats were calling regulators liars. I walked you through the whole thing and showed when and who started it. I put up three videos so you could hear all their lies from their own mouth. No, what I put up showed that Bush required home owners to qualify for a home loan and had to come up with at least a partial down payment before the government would help them. It's all there. I didn't put anything up I couldn't prove.

 

Clinton’s contribution to the crisis lay in his appointment of Cuomo to HUD. Cuomo became HUD secretary in 1997 after becoming assistant secretary in 1993. In a heavily researched 2008 article in the Village Voice, Wayne Barrett writes,

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that — in combination with many other factors — helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

Barrett continues,

Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics. HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were their instruments, and, as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth.…

Cuomo … did more to set these forces of unregulated expansion in motion than any other secretary and then boasted about it, presenting his initiatives as crusades for racial and social justice. [Emphasis added.]

Bill Clinton gave Cuomo that power and backed his aggressive policies to the hilt. Bill Clinton, then, shares responsibility for the Great Recession. When will he be held accountable?

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/14/clintons-legacy-the-financial-and-housin

 

I was truly amused and a bit befuddled by the OP.

Obama is one of the more "significant" U.S. Presidents in history. I will give him that.

 

Is Obama taking us down the same road?

If there was ever any doubt that the lesson of the financial crisis has not been learned, it was dispelled last month, when the six federal regulatory agencies charged by the Dodd-Frank Act with defining the terms of a high-quality prime mortgage backed away from the idea.

Instead, they issued a final rule that equates a prime mortgage with a loan that has no minimum down payment and no required minimum credit score.

The final rule emerged in October. In it, the agencies allowed that while solid underwriting standards were “useful factors in determining the probability of mortgage default,” they were concerned about “imposing potential additional constraints on mortgage credit availability at this time, especially as such constraints might disproportionately affect [low and moderate income], minority, or first-time homebuyers.”

Thus did sound underwriting standards take a back seat to the priority of increasing the sale of homes, especially for favored groups. And it was done by government regulators who are supposed to protect the taxpayers.

Unfortunately, this was not the only recent indication of politically motivated policymaking in housing finance. In May 2014, Mel Watt, then the new director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency — the conservator and regulator of the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — complained that banks and other lenders were adding underwriting standards to their loans that were stricter than those Fannie and Freddie themselves demanded when they acquired mortgages.

It’s no mystery why banks were adding these additional restrictions. FHFA had sued many of the banks for allegedly sending them substandard mortgage-backed securities before the financial crisis.

Last month, Watt also announced that he will limit the conditions under which Fannie and Freddie could seek refunds for mortgages that default, and will also allow down payments as low as 3 percent in mortgages that are sold to Fannie and Freddie. In other words, don’t worry about poor-quality mortgages, just make the loans.

Who was responsible for all those bad mortgages that caused the 2008 collapse? Before the financial crisis, 56 percent of all the mortgages in the U.S. — 31 million loans — were subprime or otherwise low-quality. Of this 31 million, 76 percent were on the books of government agencies, primarily Fannie and Freddie. Obviously, it was the government that created the demand for these low-quality mortgages.

Taxpayers should ask themselves why they just stand by and let this happen.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/11/08/learn-financial-crisis/18667491/