Obama is the GREATEST President in HISTORY

Obama is the undisputed greatest liar in the country's history. No other president comes close not even Nixon.

 

Obama is awesome. Russia thinks we're so cool, they're flying bombers near our coastlines because they can't stand not being next to us. Part of this reason is because they think we're so tough. He even sings Al Green! How cool is that? He's also the first gay president like Newsweek said, and his kids are really proud of that, and his wife didn't shake her head and say WTF because she's too busy telling us what to eat.

 

Oh, by the way, Democrats, your despair at getting your asses handed to you feels great. We have to do this again sometime. Thanks so much.

 

Yes, we make sure we introduce race into every political conversation. Democrats never bring up race. That would be a cheap shot.

 

Also, to repair your sullied notion, Barney Frank's driving Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into the ground was the flashpoint of the recession. No, they're not cartoon characters. Put on your Google hat and do some homework.

 

He is the Father of Lies.

 

Lair was father of lies.

Hahaha!

 

Or, if you had any brains at all you might have made the connection with the one whose name was given, Obama.

 

bump.

/6chars

 

Still laughing at the OP title. The best humor is based on real life.

 

I think there's a bit of truth in what you say..

 

You mean like.

 

Preaching your misguided opinion again I see. Nothing but hot air to support a phony claim. Try again. The only reason the economy is not worse is because Obama continued the Bush policies in dealing with the recession. The economy is not near as good as it is made out to be. Obama has done nothing but print money and run up the national debt to unprecedented levels. Every now and then the liberal media will put out some phony numbers to make everyone feel better but other than that the economy has not improved that much.

 

Must be a bait thread.

Poll: Obama worst president since WWII

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-obama-worst-president-since-wwii-108507.html


Military members give Obama 15 percent approval rating

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/m...ma-15-percent-approval-rating/article/2557722


War vets miss commander in chief George W. Bush

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...r-vets-miss-commander-in-chief-george-w-bush/

 

I agree with that. Obama continues with Bush bailing out the banks and GM and Chrysler which can effect millions of jobs with the auto companies alone. Most of the jobs created under Obama are low paying service jobs and many of the factory jobs were created by the states and cities, like Chattoonoga Tenn. which gave VW a 30 year tax cut to have them move a plant there. That's something completely against everything Obama stands for.

Now lets look at his foreign policy. He has allowed the ISIS come down out of Syria and take over half of Iraq without moving a finger, Over a year and a half ago Iraq asked for air power to attack them before invading Iraq and Obama refused, Calling the ISIS a bunch of Jr Varsity and not an Army. Never lifted a finger as they went from city to city. Only time he made a move is when heads started rolling off our people's head and public pressure made him act. Still his heart wasn't in it and he knew he couldn't fight them alone with just air power so far away and he tried putting together a coalition to help. But no one wanted to join as they felt Obama wasn't serious and would probably bow out after a period of time. So Obama made them a promise he would see this war through and got a few to join, but very few that are willing to put boots on the ground and I think that is because Obama won't. So now we are stuck in a war I can't see how we can win the way Obama wants to fight it. This could go on for years and cost billions with little chance of winning it.

Even before that, he joined with NATO to bomb Gadhafi out of office for what reason I don't know. We had a pretty good relationship with Libya after Gadhafi turned over his nuclear gear. It's been said it was because he was murdering his people, but that seems to be a lie with a new recording between an American official and Gadhafi's son. Now Libya is over run with terrorist and the country is almost lost. If he had left it alone, we might have been able to call Gadhafi for help when our embassy was attacked and our people murdered.

Even before that, Israel and Saudi Arabia are mad as hell with Obama for selling out Egypt's Mubarak, who was the leader of the Arab world and a big safety net of help keeping Israel's border in tact and Israel's go to man in negotiations with Arabs. Saudi Arabia feels if he was so eager to sell out Mubarak, would he do the same thing to them if it happened again. The Prince of Saudi Arabia has said Obama has made a mess of the Middle East. Turkey's Prime minister is mad at Obama for his refusal to back the Syrian resistance and won't even talk to Obama or allow American planes to use their runway.

Obama has lost the respect around the world. Russia is laughing at him and knows he will do nothing to stop his take over of Ukraine. Their Prime Minister came to Obama for weapons to fight the Russian resistance and Obama gives them uniforms, night vision glasses, blankets, etc. Not one weapon. U Ukraine's Prime Minister said he can't fight a war with blankets. So what can you say good about Obama;s handling of his foreign policy?

My next post will deal with Obama immigration policy which is also a mess of his own doing, which will from his own words before becoming President, is not good for the country or blue collar Americans. How can anyone in their right mind say this idiot is the greatest President we ever had?

 

Jan 9, 2015

The private sector has added 11.2 million jobs over 58 straight months of job growth, extending the longest streak on record

Dubya LOST 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years. Even stopping in Dec 2008, PRE his great recession, it was a pathetic 4 million. That 'loser' Carter had 9+ million in a MUCH smaller economy... Weird right?


http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001




'The Republican Mandate': 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010



According to a study conducted by FairVote, the 46 Democrats currently sitting in Senate have gotten 20.7 million more votes over the 2010, 2012 and 2014 elections than the 56 Republicans. Tallied up, that’s 67.8 million to Dems, and 47.1 million to Republicans. Or, to put it another way:

Democrats got a full 50 percent more votes than Republicans, and lost nine seats. Or to put it yet another way:

If the Senate actually represented the voting public, it would be 68-32 to Democrats, instead of 54-46 to Republicans.

 

James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy.




Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.

The Economic Blue Screen of Death - Thoughts From The Frontline - Investment Strategies Analysis Intelligence for Seasoned Investors.




Dec 2007


The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.



http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712





Jan 9, 2015

The private sector has added 11.2 million jobs over 58 straight months of job growth, extending the longest streak on record

Dubya LOST 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years. Even stopping in Dec 2008, PRE his great recession, it was a pathetic 4 million.



U.S. Economy Is Pulling Ahead, towing of Rest of the World & it's not a scam like Bush's sub-prime lending that caused the worlds biggest economic disaster

 

" Much of it caused by the Democrats pushing banks to give out loans to the poor who couldn't afford it. "




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."

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.




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



View attachment 33305




Bush's regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.




So has Obama ignored regulator warnings on an EPIDEMIC of mortgage fraud that would rival the S&L (Ronnie's) crisis? (2004)

Did Obama change a Clinton era rule that stopped GSE's (Fann/Fredie) from using subprime loans to meet their affordable housing goals? (2004)

Did Obama force the GSE's to UP their goals from 50% to 56% (including allowing that subprime part) in affordable housing (2004)

Did Obama FORCE GSE's to purchase $440 billion of MBS's in the secondary market 2004-2007 (2004)

Did Obama fight ALL 50 state AG's who wanted to reign in the 'predatory' lenders, by invoking a civil war era rule? (2003)

Did Obama, AS the actual regulator of GSE's, allow F/F to chase the PRIVATE MARKETS to the bottom on those subprime loans (NOT to meet ANY goals at this point but BECAUSE they had lost so much market share) (late 2005)


Did Obama pass legislation in the GOP Congress to give away 120,000+ FREE down payments 2004-2007 (2004 ADDI)

Did Obama LITERALLY have regulator going to the wall street floor and use a chainsaw to cut regulations (2004)

Did Obama allow the 5 investment Banks, who fed the subprime bubble with easy credit, to lower their net capital rule which allowed the Banksters to go from 12-1 to 35-1+? (2004)


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

 

Abraham Lincoln Might Have Been a Republican, But He Damn Sure Wasn’t a Conservative

Lincoln also instituted the first “income tax,” and told the Southern states claiming “states’ rights” when it came to slavery that they were completely full of crap.

Could you imagine a Republican today creating a tax and telling states that their claim of “states’ rights” on an issue was absurd?

Abraham Lincoln might have been a Republican, but that was before Republicans became “conservatives.” See, there’s a difference between what Republicans were and what conservatives are. Conservatives have always been conservatives. Decades ago, racist conservatives aligned with the Democratic party. Today these same conservatives call themselves Republicans.


Anyone who knows anything about history knows that long ago Democrats were the party of racists. But those who are honest about history also know that over time, the political ideology of both parties switched.

This isn’t hard to prove – just look at reality. What groups align with the fringe of the Republican party? The KKK, neo-Nazis and people who seek to glorify the confederacy. In other words, racists. You don’t see members of the KKK, Nazi groups or confederate sympathizers siding with modern day Democrats. Oh, no – they vote Republican.


...
Nothing about Lincoln made him a conservative. He fought against “states’ rights,” he created a tax, he bucked tradition, he embraced change and he did all of this by using the power of big government.

Abraham Lincoln Might Have Been a Republican But He Damn Sure Wasn t a Conservative


http://www.forwardprogressives.com/abraham-lincoln-might-republican-damn-sure-wasnt-conservative/




Conservatives on the Wrong Side of History on Mandela, Most Other Things


When has the American right ever—ever—been on the right side of history?

The answer is almost never.


...Do you support the American Revolution? I should hope so. You would not have, however, had you been a conservative in 1785. American Loyalists, perhaps 20 percent of the white population of the day, were devoted to king and crown for mostly the usual reasons: They were older, better established, had more money, were scared of change.


How about the abolition of slavery? I reckon you’re on board with that. Well, Lord knows you wouldn’t have been if you’d been among the 1860 conservatives who started a war over it (and whose apologists today insist the Civil War was not about slavery).

In terms of domestic politics, few polemical tasks are easier than demonstrating how wrong conservatism has been about pretty much everything in all of American history. Eradication of child labor? Why, an imposition on business owners to run their factories as they saw fit, you socialist! Giving women the right to vote? Women?! They simply don’t possess the logical faculties to be entrusted with such a responsibility, and anyway where will it end—I suppose you’ll be suggesting that black people get the franchise next? Segregation. Miscegenation laws. Immigration. Civil rights. The environmental movement. Conservatism’s record: wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-of-history-on-mandela-most-other-things.html

 

Yes sir, republicans don't have a problem with a black president...it's completely normal to ROOT FOR Rio to get the Olympic games instead of our country and be CHEERFUL they they did. Yes folks, that's completely normal for any president, to have some in America ROOTING for another country instead of ours!

Let's not even go to Putin/Russia and the rights new love of them!!!

 

lol

Weird, yet Obama is the ONLY US Prez in 60+ years to get 52%+ of the vote, TWICE...


Who knew the right could pull off a push poll? lol

 

lol, Yeah on the way to the conservatives first GOP great depression, Harding/Coolidge's 'free markets' bubble like Dubya's, that popped...

Ponzi scheme tend to do that!

NOTHING to do with the end of WW1 right?

 

PLEASE tell us what the GOP did in the House? Laws? Pretty please?

Imaginary huh?



"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.




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

Bushs regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.




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


Yeah, 'imaginary' *shaking head*

 

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know


http://ezinearticles.com/?Red-State...-But-Likely-Too-Uninformed-to-Know&id=5392460




It’s Official: White Folks in Red States are the Biggest Food Stamp ‘Moochers’ in the Country!


In an ironic twist to the GOP’s war on the poor, it turns out that the people who are the most negatively affected by Republican cuts in food programs – are Republicans themselves.

Statistics reveal that the city holding the most beneficiaries of the SNAP program (a favorite target of the GOP) is 99.22% white and 95% Republican. Owsley County, Kentucky earns the lowest median household income in the country, but they are the most prolific government-takers in U.S. existence



According to a TIME analysis of county-by-county food stamp enrollment data, GOP politicians represent more districts that majorly participate in SNAP than Democrats.

From the TIME report:

While congressional districts with the absolute highest levels of enrollment are more likely to be represented by Democrats, many rural districts with very high participation in the program are represented by Republicans leading the charge in cutting billions from the program. In Kentucky’s 5th district, represented by Republican Hal Rogers, 1 in 3 people receives SNAP benefits. After the House passed its version of the farm bill, however, Rogers wrote: “Struggling children, seniors, veterans and families, clearly in need of assistance … compete against scammers, lottery winners, gamblers and others who may be able to work, but simply refuse.

Many economists agree that food stamps trigger economic activity when poor people utilize their benefits, which more than makes up for the cost. Republicans, however, take the opposite approach; they believe tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires is what stimulates growth, all the while cutting programs that help the poorest in society.


http://aattp.org/ts-official-white-...e-biggest-food-stamp-moochers-in-the-country/




Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation




In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...ates-are-scandinavia-red-states-are-guatemala

 

"Barney Frank's driving Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into the ground was the flashpoint of the recession. "

Minority member of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007? PLEASEE tell me of this super powers Dem? Pretty please?


When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Barney Frank.



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.”


Bush's regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.




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."



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.



In April (2004), HUD proposed new federal regulations that would raise the GSEs targeted lending requirements. HUD estimates that over the next four years an additional one million low- and moderate-income families would be served as a result of the new goals.

HUD Archives: HUD DATA SHOWS FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC HAVE TRAILED THE INDUSTRY IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN 44 STATES

We have also relaxed some of our underwriting criteria to obtain goals-qualifying mortgage loans and increased our investments in higher-risk mortgage loan products that are more likely to serve the borrowers targeted by HUD’s goals and subgoals,


http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/ir/pdf/stock-info/series_T_05152008.pdf




HOLY COW! Bush forced them to lower their standards. If only somebody had warned us that Bush's policies would hurt Freddie and Fannie. Wait, somebody did.



Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf




One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.




Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown



Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.

“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...fannie-and-freddie-led-mortgage-meltdown.html




View attachment 33307