Barack Obama’s disastrous first 1,000 days

CRA, Clinton....what a laugh.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo"]Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING - YouTube[/ame]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related"]Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis - YouTube[/ame]

 

I meant exactly what I stated, he was a member of the Democrat Senate, a full voting member, with the ability to present legislation. He doesn't get to wash his hands as if he wasn't there.

Now show me where he voted against the bloated Democrat budgets and what he did as a Senator to head off the Democrat create housing bust and support the economy through the cyclical slow down that we were due for.

 

Yes, look at what happened when the Democrats took over the Congress, the Republicans handed them full employment and a $161 billion deficit that was still falling.

 

You are correct, Bluesguy.

It is the Democrats who spent our tax dollars like "drunken sailors" and drove our national debt to over $14 trillion dollars!

^

 

please summarise in words

 

Are you too lazy to watch the video?

You must be a typical Democrat!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4"]Best Bob Hope movie line - YouTube[/ame]

 

Great question, Never Left.

The liberals and socialists in this group are unable to answer this question!

They just like the idea of Obama “sticking” it to people who are more successful then they are or will ever be!

 

You are disconnected from reality, James Cessna.

Ronald Reagan, the Republican, caused federal spending to increase by 8% per year. And in each of his last three years in office, the budget deficit was larger than the four-year total of President Jimmy Carter, the Democrat.

By contrast, under Bill Clinton, the Democrat, federal spending increased by less than 4% per year, and the total deficit for his eight years in office was a surplus.

After George W Bush, the Republican, was so unfortunately elected, the rate of increase in federal spending zoomed back to nearly 7%, and of course, once the disastrous Great Bush Recession struck, it was driven to much higher levels than that.

Stripping out the economic emergency spending that continues to occur under Barack Obama, the Democrat, we find a rate of increase in federal spending of approximately 4% once again.

Yes, it's easy to see where blame for any excess spending and debt must lie. Compared to spend-spend-spend Republicans, Democrats are models of fiscal moderation.

 

Are you too duplicitous to recognize that these videos are nothing but sliced-and-diced bits of pure propaganda? Didn't the James O'Keefe experience teach you anything?

 

Bad news, JC. Many of us would be hit by ending the horrific Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich, and would welcome it. After all, it would not affect our lifestayles at all. We would still be rich. Your image of "liberals" as some bunch of shabby, spare-some-change, street-urchins is just more evidence of how great the distance by which you are separated from reality really is.

 

Listen Bubba, I am no barack Obama fan. Thought he was a charlatan from the start yet it was the "we need no oversight" Republicans that allowed the orgy of piracy and fraud engineered by the financial sectors under Bush.
Obama got stuck with the bill after an 8 year orgy going from Enron Fiascoes
to the meltdown when banks and Wall Street colluded to sell worthless bank paper as AAA rated Junk.
To hear the Republican crow as if they are suddenly the party of Fiscal responsibility depends on an electorate as dumbed down and as obtuse as
the belief this is all Obamas mess. Uh huh. Go sell that map of unreality somewhere else.

Yet in all fairness, Obama has only managed to make things WORSE. he passed a tepid banking and wall street reform act and the next day dropped all investigations of chums at AIG and repaid their gambling debts at 100% of American taxpayer $$$$. His cabinet is rife with many of the same fraudsters that helped facilitate the way for the perps to go on as usual, with no changes in laws, No changes in oversight, no one went to jail and millions saw their jobs, savings, retirements and homes dissolve into thin air.

Yet ewe want to believe this is all the fault of Obama. What a caricature http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ok-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411you are of the republican viewpoint, yet I have as much distaste for those that run lockstep with the Pretender in Chief.

 

http://drudgereport.com/

JOBLESS CLAIMS TOP 400,000 -- AGAIN...

'Under-employed' rate soars...

'Misery Index' Rises to Highest Since 1983...

Americans' Standard of Living Drops Sharply...

Yes just a wonderful first 1000 days.

 

Are you so certain of yourself that you can post such a fallacious statement. They tell it exactly as it was, no amount of denial on your part will change that.

 

1983 was when Reagan was president, as I recall.

INITIAL UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS UNDER REAGAN AVERAGED OVER 400,000 per week.

And that was when the work force was smaller.

Compared to the 5-600,000 claims per week we were seeing when Obama took office, ~400,000 is pretty wonderful.

 

This is not 1983, Reagan has not been President for the last 41 months. Obama owns this now.

 

You're the one who cited 1983.

 

The news article cited SINCE 1983......

This is not 1983, Obama is President now he owns this economy and we see the results.

 

Yes, we've gone from an economy that When Obama took office, the economy was tanking at a -9% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years, with a destroyed housing market and heading straight for a depression.

Now the economy has been growing steadily for two years, the private sector has created jobs every month for more than a year and a half, stock markets are up about 75% from their recession lows, and the unemployment rate has stopped increasing and has fallen from above 10% to just above 9%, with almost 5 million private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

Thanks Obama. He owns it.

 

Obama was a full voting member of the Democrat controlled congress two year before he took office.

ROFL .4% 1st quarter, 1.3%, 2nd quarter, not expected to be any better this quarter and forecast of under 2% for next year and you bragging about it!!! That doesn't even keep up with the growing population and cannot create enough jobs to lower the ever increasing people on unemployment.

JOBLESS CLAIMS TOP 400,000 -- AGAIN...

'Under-employed' rate soars...

'Misery Index' Rises to Highest Since 1983...

Americans' Standard of Living Drops Sharply...

Your attempts to sugar coat are laughable.

 

Must you always be so far behind the curve? Below is a link to the transcript of the 2004 hearings from which the In Their Own Words video was manufactured (by a group of abject partisans for purely parisan purposes). Read it. Find out how it was exactly, including exactly how badly you have been duped. Not too far along, for instance, you will come across this bit...

Rep. FRANK: First, I want to address a little history here. The committee here was well on the way to adopting legislation that would have enhanced the regulatory structure for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the Senate, in fact, the committee actually voted out a bill. There was some disagreement between the parties over I think a relatively minor section over receivership. I think that could have been worked out. I believe we were well on the way, the chairman and I and the staffs, to putting together a bill that would have enhanced the regulator and could have passed. What stopped progress on a new bill was the Bush administration's determination to go beyond safety and soundness and into provisions that would have restricted the housing function. What is powerful here are not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the interests of a majority of the members of this committee in housing at two levels. First of all, in housing in the conventional market, is very important, and the continuance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are important to that. We also have a subset of issues involving affordable housing, and those are very important to many of us. What derailed the legislation was an insistence by the Bush administration on going beyond safety and soundness and giving the regulators, for example, particular power to say, well, they are going beyond their charter in housing; they should not do these new products. There were specific issues here that transcended safety and soundness or went under it, but the administration was seeking powers that were not related to safety and soundness. If they were to have dropped that, we would have a law already signed and in place, because on the question of safety and soundness regulation, there has not been a significant dispute.

Oddly, that didn't make it into the video.

Subcommittee Hearings: October 6, 2004

 

Yes, part -- though just one small part, after all -- of the contingent that finally put George W Bush in a cage and stopped him from doing further damage. Thanks to Senate Republican invention of wall-to-wall obstructionism of course, the new majority had a steeply uphill battle in trying to set anything right again, but they did at least put a lid on Republican ability to wreak further destruction. It was all too late of course. The shambles of ignorant, laissez-faire, the market is wise enough to regulate itself foolishness had already let all of the horses out of the barn, and we are all still paying the price for that and will continue to do so for quite some time.

This colossal mess was, is, and always will be of 99 and 44/100's percent purely Republican manufacture no matter how long it takes to clean it all up.

 

However, Frank did make a complete fool of himself in 2005!

Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE&feature=player_embedded"]Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble? - YouTube[/ame]

 

A) You're wrong, and B) it would be irrelevant even if you weren't.

 

I think you need to get around the curve and not stay stuck behind it in 2004................they stood in the way and the reforms needed not enacted. I think someone else beat me to refuting your post. BTW Frank is complaining in your cite that the Bush administration want provision to give more power to the regulators to tell lenders they were beyond the scope of legislation in involved in unsound products.

"We also have a subset of issues involving affordable housing, and those are very important to many of us. What derailed the legislation was an insistence by the Bush administration on going beyond safety and soundness and giving the regulators, for example, particular power to say, well, they are going beyond their charter in housing; they should not do these new products. "

Further into the hearings

Chairman BAKER. Mr. Shays?
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.
I am new to this committee and I was absolutely shocked when we looked at Enron and WorldCom. The board of directors did not do their job. The management did not do its job. The employees did not speak out. The lawyers in the firm were facilitators. The rating agencies did not do their job. It scared the hell out of me, frankly.
We passed Sarbanes-Oxley, which was a very tough response to that. And then I realized that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would not even come under it. They were not under the 1934 Act. They were not under the 1933 Act. They play by their own rules, and I am tempted to ask how many people in this room are on the payroll of Fannie Mae, because what they do is they basically hire every lobbyist they can possibly hire. They hire some people to lobby and they hire some people not to lobby so that the opposition cannot hire them.
Fannie Mae has manipulated, in my judgment, OFHEO for years. For OFHEO to finally come out with a report as strong as it is tells me that has got to be the minimum, not the maximum. I congratulate OFHEO for finally stepping up to the plate and not being manipulated by the very organization they are supposed to regulate.
I hear these arguments that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are looking out for the interests of the homeowners, and they score worse in helping minorities than the private sector banks under the 1934 Act and the 1933 Act.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are very generous to members of Congress and very generous to the organizations of caucuses in Congress. They do not have to disclose what they do. They do not have to play by the same rules. They are going to crash if this Congress does not wake up and do something about it.
I am absolutely shocked at the extraordinary tolerance that has taken place in this Congress. This is just the beginning of the story. What did OFHEO say? They said they have accounting methods and practices that did not comply with generally accepted accounting practices, employed an improper cookie jar reserve in its accounting system, deferred expenses to meet compensation targets, did not have proper corporate governance controls in place.

You know you should put some of that energy you expend trying to be snarky into educating yourself on the facts.