Barack Obama’s disastrous first 1,000 days

Yeah, the liberals and socialists in this group always look the other direction when Obama misbehaves!

 

You are correct, Never Left.

Obama is a difficult learner.

His earlier stimulus plans have failed and now he what to try another one and see if it fails too!

 

No, they investigated the accounting issues back in 2004.

Bush's OFHEO was telling everyone F/F were adequately capitalized right up to the time the system began crashing, March 2008.

 

The Bush admnistration began the investigation in 2004, 2008 was when the coverup and accounting scandal fully came to light. In 2004 OFHEO warned that the mortgages were not backed up and any hiccup could cause massive disruptions to the financial markets.

 

Lol!!!

____________________

 

Ha-Ha!

you are very correct, Smartmouthwoman!

 

And you are a comedian, a true comedian! Oh how we laugh at your posts.

 

Your are mistaken.

Obama is the comedian!

We laugh at his goofy mistakes when he doesn't have his ubiquitous teleprompter with him!

Obama, a complete idiot.

^
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of61E1FesPU&feature=related"]Obama, a complete idiot. - YouTube[/ame]

 

No actually Obama needed a vehicle to continue blaming the Republicans
as Obstructionist so he came up with a really bad Idea of a Jobs bill
which wasn't designed to pass.Because it was basically the same things as
the original $ 787 Billion Stimulus where states get Federal Taxpayer funds
to save Government state jobs and in particular Teachers that need to
stay on lay off { SEIU }.
Obama can now traipse around the country,region by region and lay
blame as how Naughty selfish those Republicans are for Obstructing his
Jobs bill and anything that helps Americans.
Obama is totally Invested in Big Government,Big Labor and Teachers
and their union {SEIU}.

 

As far as I am concerned...both Bush Jr. and Obama have been horrible Presidents.

But I would put Bush a little bit lower then Obama because it was he that started Iraq, Gitmo and he was in charge when the housing market blew up.

And it was his pet project to get as many low-income people into homes by getting HUD to put pressure on Fannie/Freddie to expedite that project.

http://www.americandreamdownpaymentassistance.com/whsp12162003.cfm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2094023/posts

http://www.thechristiansolution.com/doc2010/322_AmericanDream.html

And he was 100% behind Greenspan's ludicrous policy of ultra low interest rates (the lowest since the 50's) for WAY too long which allowed the boom to WAY overheat AND the one that appointed that macro-economic ignoramus Ben Bernanke.

http://www.wsjprimerate.us/wall_street_journal_prime_rate_history.htm

Plus, all of the following were during/originated during Bush's watch:

the first Stimulus (although his made a LOT more sense then Obama's - though I still don't personally agree with it), TARP, bailing out GM/Chrysler/AIG and the first trillion dollar deficit.



Obama's big fault (imo) is his growing the federal deficit beyond rational thought and his apparent belief that stimulating the economy is the answer (which of course, it is not - just look at housing and unemployment).

Plus, he is a hypocrite.

He said he would close Gitmo and he condemned the huge deficits of Bush Jr....but did nothing to facilitate those problems once he had the power to do so.


Imo...both of them are STAGGERINGLY bad Presidents.

Both completely clueless on foreign policy, how to 'run' an economy OR balance a budget.

 

you are very correct, DA60.

As far as I too am concerned...both Bush Jr. and Obama have been horrible Presidents.

However, Bush Jr. had some help from the Democrats.

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]

 

Great summary, MolonLabe2009

Thanks for sharing!

 

Thank you James Cessna. And that is a very good video and a very good point you make.

On hind sight, I should add that almost EVERYONE seemed to be on the housing boom band wagon.
The WH, Congress, most/all Democrats, most Republicans (except Ron Paul), the Fed, the builders, the banks, homeowners, potential homeowners, the markets...everyone except die hard Austrian Schoolers (and a few others).
So Bush Jr. was far from alone.

 

Thank you Democrats including Obama who was a member of the Democrat Congressional majority of that year and the year before.

With new jobless claims running over 400,000 for going on three years and a net loss of jobs and modern record long term unemployed.

Don't even try to kid us by defending the unemployment situation under Obama.

Thank you Democrats including Obama who was a member of the Democrat Congressional majority of that year and the year before.

Are you really going to taut below 2% growth as successful economic policy?

Thank you Democrats including Obama who was a member of the Democrat Congressional majority of that year and the year before.

And no where near where it was under Bush and the Republican Congress.

Thank you Democrats including Obama who was a member of the Democrat Congressional majority of that year and the year before.

OH HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! UNEMPLOYMENT IS NOT 10% IT'S 9% AND IRIEMON THINKS WE SHOULD CELEBRATE!!!!!!!!!

What a GREAT job Obama!!!! Unemployment over 9% for three years and no signs of it getting much better for the next year.

The Republicans had full employment for 52 months, declining deficits down to $161 Billion, record revenues. Where did the Democrats take when they got control in 2008?

 

And you know they've lost the argument when all they have left are vile bromides and platitudes. They ONLY reason we are in this mess is because of the Democrat housing scheme that blew up in their faces as they enriched their buddies at Fannie and Freddie and then the total incompetence of the idiot they put in the White House and his failed policies.

 

Even in 2010 the Democrats were fighting against the measures it would take to get us out of this mess.

Sen. Richard Shelby, Rep. Spencer Bachus lose another fight over Fannie and Freddie
Published: Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 5:30 AM

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Senate on Tuesday rejected an attempt to rein in taxpayer support of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was another in a long line of defeats for housing finance changes that two Alabama lawmakers have sought for years.

Sen. Richard Shelby and Rep. Spencer Bachus, the top two Republicans on the key financial committees of Congress, argue that the two government-sponsored enterprises -- now surviving on $145 billion in taxpayer bailout funds -- should be transitioned into private entities.

Congress, no matter which party has been in charge, has not agreed.

Shelby and Bachus on Tuesday each promoted "I-told-you-so" arguments, quoting their warnings from years ago that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were putting taxpayer funds at risk because they were too lightly regulated.

Democrats on Tuesday defeated an amendment by Shelby and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to the financial regulatory bill that would have ended government support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in two years.

"Fannie and Freddie are synonymous with mismanagement and waste," McCain said. "They've become the face of too-big-to-fail."

Shelby said the two entities were at the heart of the 2008 financial crisis.

"Fannie and Freddie are basically sitting in the taxpayers' lap, they're lapping up a lot of money, and they're going to continue to do this," Shelby said.

Democrats, led by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., argued the McCain/Shelby amendment would undermine the supply of affordable mortgages and increase mortgage rates just as the housing market was on the verge of a rebound. The Senate defeated the amendment on a 43-56 vote, with Shelby and U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, voting for it.

Instead, the Senate voted to have the Obama administration come up with a plan for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by next year.

http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2010/05/sen_richard_shelby_rep_spencer.html

And Obama's new plan wants to refinance without appraisal to people who may not qualify for the refi lengthening the term they will pay, killing any positive gain on equity all for saving them $26 a month on the note. And if the default Freddie and Fannie buy them up and the taxpayer is on the hook. WITHOUT the reform of Freddie and Fannie he said he would propose.

 

Great information!

Thanks for sharing!

 

The same old debunked lie repeated. What a departure from your usual tactics.

There very well were problems, which is why Rep. Frank and what sane Republicans were left around the place were working on the various safety and soundness-related GSE reform bills that the Bush administration then torpedoed for not doing enough to put these agencies out of business. The latter was the singular objective of the administartion.

That's for sure, but not at all relevant to the lack of anyone's having even begun to refute the fact that the stupid "In Their Own Words..." video is a deliberate hatchet-piece of slice-and-dice right-wing propaganda that grossly distorts and misrepresents the events documented in the actual transcript of the hearings, this in an attempt to lead utter rubes into false beliefs very much like the ones that you continue to profess to this day.

There was never any law, rule, order, policy, court decision or anything else that forced any lender to make any bad loan at all. The unregulated ones did that all on their own. Because they could make a big fat profit at it. Neither is securitization any form of speculation. The decision as to whether to take your boffo lottery winnings as a lump sum or as an annuity is more speculative that that.

Meanwhile, Bush's continuing machinations over trying to destroy the GSE's and privatize the mission were about as ill-advised as his similar schemes toward privatizing Social Security. "Horrible idea" pretty well sums up both of them.

So, you werre able to type the word "Yes', but then not able to type anything at all to identify any GSE programl, any risk being run, or any GSE operational reform that should be considered that Rep. Shays was talking about? Was there some massive earthquake that interupted you, or was this because Shays was in fact not talking about any of those things at all, but rather about his impressions of some arcane suggested accounting irregularities?

Odd that you've so fully failed to introduce any of that evidence.

Sorry. I was so busy learning all the things that you never have about the gargantuan ineptitude of the Bush administartion in directly bringing about the credit crisis and then the asset market collapses and Great Bush Recession that followed that I didn't have time. Deal with it.

 

Minimum wage? S-CHIP? Timeline to end the Iraq Disaster? Any of that ring a bell, or has all that been purged from the memory banks in favor of being able to sleep at night?

More zombie lies. Democrats wrote the FY2007 budget because Republcans refused to do so. Full employment was seen under and then inherited from Clinton. That was the last that was seen of it.

I don't dispoute the facts. The problem here as always is that you don't have any of them. Made up garbage and well-known zombie lies are all the arrows that are in your quiver.

You deserve worse and the cartoon only shows how totally wrong you are in terms that you might understand. Which you no doubt suspected and therefore didn't watch.

As pathetic as always. Bush drove the economy straight into the ditch. Period. Worst collapse since the Great Depression, and that includes Reagan's debacle of 81-82, which itself was really bad. Democrats were responsible for NO POLICY AT ALL during the 2002-06 interval where so much of the groundwork for the disaster was laid. And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the 52 consecutive months refers to seasonally adjusted job growth, and of course, in many of those months that growth itself was trival. Bush was unfortunately President during 44 other months. The job numbers for those months are not at all good. Closer to abysmal.

 

You are very correct, Bluesguy.

Here are the facts.

 

Yes. That's what Chairman Michael Oxley (the REPUBLICAN) referred to as Bush's "one-finger salute" to Congressional efforts to enact safety and soundess-related reforms. The only "flaw" in H.R. 1461 is that it merely revised and extended the regulatory regimes of the GSE's in light of their changing markets and programs. It did nothing to put the GSE's out of business. For that reason and that reason alone, it was torpedoed by Bush depsite its having had broad bipartisan support in the House.

 

But when pressed on the matter, Bush administration officials right on up to Sec. Snow were unable to identify any such risk at all. This was just a rehash of their hackneyed claim that the GSE's were "too big", but relative to nothing at all. A shoe might be too big for your foot. Some posters might be too big for their britches. But the GSE's were just generically "too big" without reference to anything. Did the administration imagine that the market would somehow shrink once handed over to Wall Street? Not very likely. Did they think systemic risk would be reduced as a result? Not very bloody likely at all.

Translation: The GSEs are "too big" and this bill does nothing to chop them up into little pieces and hand all that business and profit over to Wall Street. Therefore, we oppose it.

 

There is no case for anything having been broken. NATO is not the US. Obama is not President of NATO, but we are a member. Members do have responsibilities and obligations, although many right-wingers would wish to dispute this when it comes to their responsibilities and obligations as citizens.

 

This is an excellent response, MolonLabe.

Thanks for sharing.

 

This review was very good!