State of the Union Address

[1bad65]

Do you think the teleprompter/Obama will use the word "malaise" tonight?

[kfson]

What ever word he uses, he will place all the blame on someone else.

[dimethylsea]

What ever word he uses, he will place all the blame on someone else.


Actually I doubt he will place the blame firmly where it belongs.. which is on Bush and Comp.

We have an economic problem at home.. but we lack the resources to address it (whether by domestic spending as a Demo would do, or by tax cuts as a Republican would do) because we are pouring huge amounts of money into TWO WARS started half way around the world by the Bush Administration.

The reason for the Federal Government according to our Constitution is to defend against invasion by foreign states (not criminal organizations like Al-Queda.. that's a police problem, not a DoD problem) and insure domestic tranquility.

When we go off half ****ed and invade places we spend a million dollars per soldier, that depletes the resources we have available to deal with domestic problems.

This is why Daddy doesn't use the family emergency fund to buy a corvette. Because someone in the family might get sick or lose a job and that emergency fund may be needed to pay the mortgage or buy baby food.

The GOP has lost sight of what should be it's core issues.. National Security (defending the actual Homeland).

National security means that any STATE that looks ready to invade us or does invade is STOMPED. It doesn't mean wasting American blood and treasure on "regime change" and invading others. Certainly not in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Honestly.. this Christmas bomber, even the Twin Towers.. these were really prominent acts of defiance and murder, but they are not the same as Japan bombing Pearl Harbor.

One is the sort of thing you put a bounty out for the people responsible. The other you bomb them till they glow in the dark.

America got it's priorities crossed between 2000 and 2008, and now the GOP prefers to pretend these mistakes in foreign policy don't tie the hands of the people trying to deal with the domestic issues.

Too bad no one told Daddy Bush not to buy the corvette with little Sally's braces money.

[BoulderDawg]

You can't really blame Bush for that.

Let's face it. Here's a man that grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth. He never had to worry about paying the rent, being afraid he car would break down or where his next meal was coming from. He always had money to do whatever he wanted and he always got whatever he wanted.

A man like that has no concept of what it's like to worry that your family may not have enough to eat. He didn't know any better and was not smart enough to figure it out.

[1bad65]

Let's face it. Here's a man that grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth. He never had to worry about paying the rent, being afraid he car would break down or where his next meal was coming from. He always had money to do whatever he wanted and he always got whatever he wanted.

A man like that has no concept of what it's like to worry that your family may not have enough to eat. He didn't know any better and was not smart enough to figure it out.

Sounds alot like Al Gore.

[1bad65]

Actually I doubt he will place the blame firmly where it belongs.. which is on Bush and Comp.

He's been doing it for the past two years already. Have you been under a rock or something?

None of you Bush bashers have yet answered my question: When does the economy become Obama's economy?

[BoulderDawg]

It's Obama's economy now. Just like it was FDR's economy. As with FDR it was left in such bad shape you simply can'r snap your fingers and make it better.

I know you teabagger think in simplistic terms but in real life things don't turn on a dime.

[1bad65]

It's Obama's economy now.

So, the current 10% unemployment is his doing. Thank you.

And judging by the numbers so far, next month it should be even higher....

[BoulderDawg]

I'm sure Obama will take full responsibility for whatever is going on. That comes with the job. As soon as he took the oath he was responsible for everything.

This is something teabaggers should acknowledge when talking about how easily the WTC was attacked.

[1bad65]

I'm sure Obama will take full responsibility for whatever is going on. That comes with the job. As soon as he took the oath he was responsible for everything.

This is something teabaggers should acknowledge when talking about how easily the WTC was attacked.

Bush did say he was gonna fix the security problems. Considering he went another 7 years without another successful (for the terrorists) domestic terror incident, I think he was successful. Clinton on the other hand....

[BoulderDawg]

Yep! I'm sure the 3K people who died in that take comfort that there hasn't been another one!:rolleyes:

I guess you just forgot about the anthax attacks...not surprising.

Neither is spending billions and putting guards around the hen house long after the wolf has killed all of your chickens.:D

[1bad65]

Yep! I'm sure the 3K people who died in that take comfort that there hasn't been another one!:rolleyes:

I guess you just forgot about the anthax attacks...not surprising.

They know their loved ones deaths meant something. Steps were taken to protect America, and they worked.

The anthrax attacks were not successful. Read my posts, and try to comprehend them.

[BoulderDawg]

So what's the teabagger plan for the State of the Union?

How long will Obama get into his speech before the insults start coming from members of congress? I can just imagine they will get very creative!:D

[Reality_Check]

Bush did say he was gonna fix the security problems. Considering he went another 7 years without another successful (for the terrorists) domestic terror incident, I think he was successful. Clinton on the other hand....

2001 Anthrax attacks: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

"Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a briefing on October 16, 'When people send anthrax through the mail to hurt people and invoke terror, it’s a terrorist act.'"

2002 attack against El Al ticket counter at LAX: http://www.justice.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2004/P2/p02-3.pdf

"On July 4, 2002, Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayat, an Egyptian immigrant, shot random victims who stood in line at the ticket counter of El Al Israeli National Airlines at the Los Angeles International Airport. During this attack, two other persons were killed before Hedayat was killed by the security officer on duty. Subsequent to a worldwide investigation regarding the attack, it was determined that Hadayet’s religious and political beliefs were the primary motivation for the attack, and not personal revenge. Thus, pursuant to these investigative findings, this case was officially designated as an act of international terrorism."

2002 DC-area sniper: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/sniper/vamhmmd102802pwind.pdf

"THE GRAND JURY for the 31st Judicial Circuit, comprising the County of Prince William and the Cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, charges that on or about October 9, 2002, in the aforesaid Judicial Circuit, the accused, JOHN ALLEN MUHAMMAD a/k/a JOHN ALLEN WILLIAMS, did feloniously, willfully, deliberately and premeditatedly kill and murder Dean Meyers, in the commission of or attempted commission of an act of terrorism with ths intent to intimidate the civilian population at large, or to influence the conduct or activities of the government of the United States, a state or locality through intimidation, in violation of Virginia Code Section 18.2-31(13) and 18.2-46.4."

[Reality_Check]

The anthrax attacks were not successful. Read my posts, and try to comprehend them.

5 people died. That's not a successful attack?

http://www.fbi.gov/anthrax/amerithraxlinks.htm

"Soon after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, letters laced with anthrax began appearing in the U.S. mail. Five Americans were killed, 17 were sickened, and the nation was terrorized in what became the worst biological attacks in U.S. history."

[BoulderDawg]

5 people died. That's not a successful attack?

http://www.fbi.gov/anthrax/amerithraxlinks.htm

"Soon after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, letters laced with anthrax began appearing in the U.S. mail. Five Americans were killed, 17 were sickened, and the nation was terrorized in what became the worst biological attacks in U.S. history."


Thank you. I was wondering what he meant by "Non successful".

I'm assuming that means they were not able to blame the attacks on the liberals.

[1bad65]

Thank you. I was wondering what he meant by "Non successful".

I was unaware anyone died in the anthrax attacks. The intended targets were not killed, and that confused me. I stand corrected.

But I at least admit it when someone shows me I was incorrect. I could have just typed 5 pages of excuses like you do.

[1bad65]

But we all have to admit Bush was more successful in fighting terrorism than Clinton was. After his term, we will see how well Obama did.

[BoulderDawg]

But we all have to admit Bush was more successful in fighting terrorism than Clinton was.

huh? Last time I checked we had not lost 3K lives in a terrorist attack and another 3K lives fighting a war against a country that did not even attack us under Clinton.

Truth is if Clinton was so bad then why didn't Bush make that a campaign issue? Why didn't he do anything in the 8 months leading to 9/11?

[dimethylsea]

But we all have to admit Bush was more successful in fighting terrorism than Clinton was. After his term, we will see how well Obama did.


Kindly tell me how Clinton had a higher body count of domestic non-combatants than Bush did with 9-11. And when it comes to MILITARY casualties in fighting the War On Terror... um.. I think that one is OBVIOUS.

As far as I know all the major major terrorist attacks of the Clinton years were outside the US withe the obvious exception of the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center (6 deaths)
, the Khobar Towers attack (In all, 19 U.S. servicemen killed)

the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (12 US citizens killed),

the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole (seventeen sailors were killed and thirty-nine were injured,)

Maybe there were other attacks I'm not recalling but those were the "big hits" on us during Clinton. And the body counts were small compared to 2,976 total on 9-11 and the 4374 or so military fatalties in Iraq and the 972 in Afghanistan.

The body count says Bush was way less effective than Clinton. Even without taking into account the military operations Bush started in foreign theatres.

[BoulderDawg]

Yeah, and let's not even talk about the amount of hatred generated by Bush outside the US. It wasn't even safe to travel to a lot of countries.

[1bad65]

Truth is if Clinton was so bad then why didn't Bush make that a campaign issue?

Unlike Obama, Bush fixed things instead of just repeatedly playing the 'Its all Clinton's fault' card.

Clinton did enact the 'Wall of Silence', and Bush repealed it. It's common knowledge 9/11 would have likely failed if not for Clinton enacting that ridiculous, unsafe policy.

[1bad65]

Yeah, and let's not even talk about the amount of hatred generated by Bush outside the US. It wasn't even safe to travel to a lot of countries.

Can you show which countries it was unsafe for Americans to travel to due to Bush?

[1bad65]

Kindly tell me how Clinton had a higher body count of domestic non-combatants than Bush did with 9-11.

I never brought up a body count, you did. Face it, Clinton should have done something to stop terrorism. It's not like he didn't have plenty of incidents on his watch. The only thing he did in the War on Terror was enact policies that HELPED the terrorists. Obama is on the same path....

[BoulderDawg]

I never brought up a body count, you did. Face it, Clinton should have done something to stop terrorism. It's not like he didn't have plenty of incidents on his watch. The only thing he did in the War on Terror was enact policies that HELPED the terrorists. Obama is on the same path....

Well, as this point was ignored, why didn't Bush make security a campaign issue? Also, why didn't he get in office and start making sweeping changes to "Keep us safe"?:D

As far as I know nothing was changed until 9/11. If Clinton was so bad why is this so?

[BoulderDawg]

I think that during the SOTU speech tonight that instead of yelling vulgarities at him while he speaks they should just go ahead and spit on him as he's walking up. That's what they want to do.

[dimethylsea]

Unlike Obama, Bush fixed things instead of just repeatedly playing the 'Its all Clinton's fault' card.

"Fixed" in terms of talked about it alot, restricted American freedoms and started conflicts in foreign countries which accounted for 5/8ths of the fatalities we incurred in "terror" attacks between 2000 and 2008?
So basically the President should play up the Jihaddist threat and start wars? That makes him a good President on the terror issue?

Not the actual fatalities or anything measurable?



Clinton did enact the 'Wall of Silence', and Bush repealed it. It's common knowledge 9/11 would have likely failed if not for Clinton enacting that ridiculous, unsafe policy.

So because Clinton didn't talk about terrorism enough 9-11 happened? Common knowledge? You really must try and justify this hilarious statement.

Clinton treated terrorist incidents as minor problems because... they were minor problems on his watch.

Bush is the one who took a major attack and used it as a springboard to what may very well be twice as many US casualties, not to mention 40K+ other fatalities who were mostly bystanders in Iraq.

I've focused on US body count cause it's measurable. It's a verifiable quantity.

Unlike media perception of how "strong" a candidate is on a particular issue, it's hard to double or treble an existing body count at a whim.

But by the body count Bush is 100 times worse than Clinton.

Clinton had approaching 100 U.S. fatalities from terrorism military and civilian. Probably 5 times that in non-US deaths (and most of those were bystanders killed by terrorists overseas).

Bush had approaching 10000 US fatalities from terrorism military and cilivian. And again probably 5 times that in non-US deaths (and a great many of those seem to be directly caused by US military force, bombings, drone attacks etc.).

So who is WEAK on terror?

My prediction? Obama will exit office with less than 50-100 U.S. fatalities inside the U.S., and under 1000 US deaths (mostly AD military) overseas. If he extracts us from Iraq then the only bystanders we will be killing will be in Afghanistan.

[1bad65]

So because Clinton didn't talk about terrorism enough 9-11 happened? Common knowledge? You really must try and justify this hilarious statement.

Do you not know what the 'Wall of Silence' was? Look it up please, as it appears you are not sure what it is. It does not mean Clinton was silent about terrorism.


Clinton treated terrorist incidents as minor problems because... they were minor problems on his watch.

WHOA! WHOA! Are you serious?!

We had a US warship bombed, a US military housing complex bombed, and the World Trade Center bombed. Are you saying those were not serious events????


I've focused on US body count cause it's measurable. It's a verifiable quantity.

And the sheer number of incidents is also a verifiable quantity.


But by the body count Bush is 100 times worse than Clinton.

But again, the instances are less. That is an improvement.

Before the USS Cole bombing, it had been decades since a US warship had been hit by an enemy explosive. And Clinton had plenty of warning signs. Hell, they tried bombing the USS The Sullivans in Jan 2000. They only failed because the bombers boat was overloaded with explosives and sank first. Yet Clinton did nothing to thwart further attempts. And the crewmen of the Cole paid the price for his inaction.


My prediction? Obama will exit office with less than 50-100 U.S. fatalities inside the U.S., and under 1000 US deaths (mostly AD military) overseas.

If he does, he sure as hell should thank Bush for it. Bush instituted alot of new policies to thwart terror, and they have made a huge improvement. I notice the one thing Obama hasn't blamed Bush for is national security. That speaks volumes of Bush's success in the war on Terror.

[dimethylsea]

Do you not know what the 'Wall of Silence' was? Look it up please, as it appears you are not sure what it is. It does not mean Clinton was silent about terrorism.


If you want to be cryptic go ahead. You are doing a great job. You can toss around neo-con buzzwords all you want but if they aren't used by the mainstream conversation you can't expect others to know precisely what your terminology means.



WHOA! WHOA! Are you serious?!

We had a US warship bombed, a US military housing complex bombed, and the World Trade Center bombed. Are you saying those were not serious events????


Now who is putting words in someone's mouth. I didn't say "serious" I said "minor". They were minor, compared to bombing parts of Yugoslavia or healthcare reform. There is more to being President than freaking out and calling in the full wrath of the US Armed Forces when your nation get's a scratch or a bloody nose. Yes we lost lives. But it wasn't a MAJOR incident (like saying 1000+ casualties or starting a decent-sized war) in the sense that 9-11 or Iraq was MAJOR.




And the sheer number of incidents is also a verifiable quantity.

And how "fine-grained" is the information at the incident level versus fatalities?
But let's go with YOUR "incident" based scheme.

How many more INCIDENTS have we had in Iraq under Bush's watch? Most of those 5000 or so military casualties were picked off 1-20 at a time by insurgent actions. So Bush has WAY more incidents.

Count it my way, count it your way.. Bush was much much worse than Clinton. in VERIFIABLE quantities.



Before the USS Cole bombing, it had been decades since a US warship had been hit by an enemy explosive. And Clinton had plenty of warning signs. Hell, they tried bombing the USS The Sullivans in Jan 2000. They only failed because the bombers boat was overloaded with explosives and sank first. Yet Clinton did nothing to thwart further attempts. And the crewmen of the Cole paid the price for his inaction.

Now you are blaming Clinton for the inaction of the DoD to respond effectively with changes in INTERNAL DOD policy?
Oh please!



If he does, he sure as hell should thank Bush for it. Bush instituted alot of new policies to thwart terror, and they have made a huge improvement. I notice the one thing Obama hasn't blamed Bush for is national security. That speaks volumes of Bush's success in the war on Terror.

He has blamed the EXCESSES of Bush on Bush for sure. Plus he's being civil to his predecessor. Which is mature, mannerly and is something the GOP could definitely learn about.

Count the # of bangs. Count the number of bodies.

In Iraq along the Associated Press estimates that more than 110,600 Iraqis had been killed since the start of the war to April 2009.

I can't find the exact number of incidents involving US fatalities in Iraq, probably because it's an operational figure that's kept close (I can understand that reasoning). But it has to be something on the order of 500+ with a US fatality.. given that the news seldom talks about the insurgents killing more than 3-4 of our guys at a time, I don't remember ever hearing about 10 US deaths in a single IED attack.

[1bad65]

The Wall of Silence was the law that made it illegal for the CIA to talk to the FBI. It's not a "Neocon Buzzword". It's been used in the mainstream press since it was enacted during Clinton's Presidency.

FYI, the CIA did know some of the 9/11 hijackers had entered the country and that they were on a 'watch list'. They were, however, prevented by Clinton's law from informing the FBI. In short, 9/11 could likely have been prevented had the Wall of Silence not been in the way.

[1bad65]

Now who is putting words in someone's mouth. I didn't say "serious" I said "minor". They were minor, compared to bombing parts of Yugoslavia or healthcare reform.

You said the events were minor, you did. I countered by naming events and asking if you felt those events "were not serious events". I never put words in your mouth. Show me where I said you said they were not serious. If you cannot, stop trying to argue semantics and level ridiculous charges, and debate like a rational person. Don't use tactics BD uses. We are all adults here, right?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I liked his speech.
Obama knows how to talk, that is a given.
Do I think he will do what he said?
Probably not.
Did he views and ideas of job creation convince me?
Nope.
Giving money back to the banks with HOPE that it will end in the hands of small business is just naive at best.

[Reality_Check]

Clinton did enact the 'Wall of Silence', and Bush repealed it. It's common knowledge 9/11 would have likely failed if not for Clinton enacting that ridiculous, unsafe policy.

Sigh...

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=903415&postcount=823


This is not true, the "Gorelick Wall" only applied to sharing information between the FBI and the Criminal Division of the Justice Department.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/1995procs.html

"Procedures for Contacts Between the FBI and the Criminal Division Concerning Foreign Intelligence and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations"

There is nothing about the CIA or military intelligence in there.

I found this interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr13.html

ZELIKOW: ...New procedures issued by Attorney General Reno in 1995 required the FBI to notify prosecutors when facts and circumstances are developed in a foreign intelligence or counterintelligence investigation that reasonably indicate a significant federal crime has been, is being or may be committed.

ZELIKOW: The procedures, however, prohibited the prosecutors from, quote, "directing or controlling," close quote, the intelligence investigation.

Over time, the wall requirement came to be interpreted by the Justice Department, and particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as imposing an increasingly stringent barrier to communications between FBI intelligence agents and criminal prosecutors.

...

"FREEH: ...In fact, President Clinton, to his great credit, introduced in 1996 the Antiterrorism Bill, H.R. 2703. Unfortunately, when it was in the House there was an amendment that was entered which was passed by a large majority that stripped the bill of most of its important counterterrorism measures; in fact, the ones that Deputy Attorney General Gorelick and I recommended. In fact, I think two of you actually voted on the amendment."

...

"FREEH: Well, over the period of years after the World Trade Tower indictments in 1993, but then maybe more particularly following the Manila Air indictment in 1995, and of course the 1998 indictments with respect to bin Laden and his associates, we continuously recommended, and actually put into play, operations to arrest and render fugitives back to the United States in those cases.

I don't recall an instance with respect to Yasin.

With respect to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, in early 1996, we actually staged agents over in the Persian Gulf and had an operation well under way to arrest him.

FREEH: He was transiting a country that we thought we could get access to him. Unfortunately, that didn't work. We believe he was actually tipped off about the operation. "

[1bad65]

Actually Sanjuro, he is flailing. And the country better be VERY nervous about this fool.

First he told us the bailouts were necessary to fix the economy and once it was fixed they would pay the money back. Now that some of the money is indeed being paid back, he says we have to spend it to fix the economy. :confused:

[Drake]

I found it to be an excellent speech, though Joe Biden was seriously freaking me out with his facial expressions.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Actually Sanjuro, he is flailing. And the country better be VERY nervous about this fool.

First he told us the bailouts were necessary to fix the economy and once it was fixed they would pay the money back. Now that some of the money is indeed being paid back, he says we have to spend it to fix the economy. :confused:

Well, I don't have MANY issues with the government helping to create jobs with money that is SUPPOSED to do that.
I just don't think the way he wants to do it will do it.
Banks are notorious for not giving out money to those that need it.
Grants to companies that actually HIRE people would be the way to go.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I found it to be an excellent speech, though Joe Biden was seriously freaking me out with his facial expressions.

LOL !
All I kept hearing him say was , "stand up for Chuck !!".

[1bad65]

I found it to be an excellent speech, though Joe Biden was seriously freaking me out with his facial expressions.

It scared the crap out of me. Where is all this money going to come from?

But Drake will get to serve with openly gay guys soon! :rolleyes:

[BoulderDawg]

It scared the crap out of me.

I have no doubt about that. Almost anything and everything seems to scare the teabaggers.

Liberals have concerns but not fears. We understand the nature of the neo teabaggers and know how they react to things. Also we are not looking for terrorists behind every tree.

[BoulderDawg]

Keith Olberman played a bit from one of FDR's SOTU speeches:

"They hate me and I welcome their hatred."

This is the sort of thing that Obama should say and it's one thing he could say that would get the ear of the liberals.

[1bad65]

Wanna get rid of me once and for all BD?

If so, put your money where your mouth is. Obama said last night the worst is behind us. I disagree. My bet is that unemployment will not fall below 8% by the November elections if he gets the unemployment extensions he wants.

You game?

[1bad65]

While BD and Drake may have liked the speech, I think Chris Matthews did. Here is what the liberal journalist Matthews said about it: "I Forgot He Was Black Tonight".

Wow, another liberal openly touting his racism.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/27/msnbcs_matthews_on_obama_i_forgot_he_was_black_ton ight.html

[xcakid]

State of the Union = Infomercial for Socialism.

The pitchman was not as good as Billy Mays or the Sham Wow guy. But he comes close. I thnk Billy Bob Clinton would've made a better pitchman for socialism. Stay tuned I think they are going to give you a free gift if you buy into their product.

[solo1]

You can't really blame Bush for that.

Let's face it. Here's a man that grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth. He never had to worry about paying the rent, being afraid he car would break down or where his next meal was coming from. He always had money to do whatever he wanted and he always got whatever he wanted.

A man like that has no concept of what it's like to worry that your family may not have enough to eat. He didn't know any better and was not smart enough to figure it out.


Has Barry ever had a real job? ever had to punch a clock, ever worried about his next paycheck? Wait Obama has never had a job, never had to make a payroll,for that matter he has never had to put up his college transcripts or his writings. Never had to divulge where his wealth comes from. George bush may have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth but he did run a state, has run businesses, has divulged the sources of his wealth, his college transcripts and SAT scores are out there for anyone to see and unlike any President including the annoited one graduated from the best business school anywhere, Harvard. could we get a look at Obamas financials please? oh those are locked up? how about his college transcripts? no locked up. Could you show me how this guy paid to attend the colleges he attended? oh those are sealed too. Anybody from Columbia ever see the guy at that school? no? interesting. Obama is a fraud. Bush may have been bush-league but no one has hiddent thier history the way Obama has. ' dawg cant beleive you still support this guy.

[Drake]

It scared the crap out of me. Where is all this money going to come from?

But Drake will get to serve with openly gay guys soon! :rolleyes:

We have a gay guy working in the BCT, but nobody will report him because he is one of the better workers over there.

There's ****sexuals all over the Army, and everyone knows it. This will not have nearly the impact people want to think it will.

Besides... what's wrong with gay people?

[1bad65]

It's scary when a President looks right at the Supreme Court justices and says in effect 'You will not stand in my way. I will circumvent you.' Saying the law will not stand in your way is something some very nasty people through history have said.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot. If the Supreme Court had told Bush that the Patriot Act was unconstitutional and he then went and addressed a Republican Congress and said to the Supreme Court, 'We will just pass another Patriot Act despite you', you liberals would have been up in arms.

[1bad65]

Has Barry ever had a real job?

Funny you should ask that, as I was gonna post this today.

J.P. Morgan showed the percent of private sector experience of every Cabinet since Teddy Roosevelt. Some were pretty high, Eisenhower was just under 60%. Reagan and Wilson were over 50%. Carter, Kennedy, and Clinton were lower, Kennedy just under 30%, and the other two just over 30%. Obama was the lowest, he came in at 8%.

Link with the J.P. Morgan data:
http://blog.american.com/?p=7572

In short, they are trying to fix something very few of them have experience in. It's an accident waiting to happen.

[BoulderDawg]

Wanna get rid of me once and for all BD?

If so, put your money where your mouth is. Obama said last night the worst is behind us. I disagree. My bet is that unemployment will not fall below 8% by the November elections if he gets the unemployment extensions he wants.

You game?

It could very well be over 8% by November.

I really don't think you understand just how F'd up the economy was. Obama just can't snap his fingers and make everything better.

It took FDR the better part of a decade. All Obama can do is to instigate his policy, tweak it along the way and not bend to short term neos who yell that the sky is falling.

[BoulderDawg]

Gays in the military........BS issue

To start with gay people should be thankful they are not welcomed. I'm guessing they no more want to die in Iraq (Probably shot in the back by a straight soldier) than anyone else.

I would like to see a tightening of the policy. Kick out the gays, liberals, blacks, Indians and many others.

[jmd161]

It's amazing after 8yrs of Bush destroying this economy and dropping us into record debt in record time and almost another "GREAT" depression. That his followers want to jump on Obama and say when is he gonna fix Bush's phuck up's?

You watched Bush destroy us for 8yrs and you honestly sit there with serious faces and ask why hasn't Obama fixed everything in just 1yr?:rolleyes:


You know what he told it like it was last night whether you agree or not. He came into office after sh!t had already hit the fan and was crashing. You have to stop the crashing first to level things off. You expect so much from this man in 1yr. Yet you sat back for 8yrs and let Bush lead us into the same pitfall you want Obama to dig us out of in 1yr.:rolleyes:

Everything you guys are trying to hang on Obama didn't just start or begin in the last yr. These things are a result of BUSH!

Just like he said you're gonna have people looking to point fingers and try to hide the obvious instead of trying to cross lines and make this country better. You guy's are idiots! Enough with the BS come up with something better or keep pushing it to the next administration like we've done forever...

[1bad65]

It could very well be over 8% by November.

So are you gonna man up and take the bet?

Just think, you can spread your drivel all over this site and 1bad65 wont be there to source data that shows you are an idiot!

And if you take me up, I'll PM Gene. I'm serious about this. I have over 6,000 posts on this site. I love it here. And I'm willing to put up losing that to show you I believe my beliefs are right. Are you that confident in your beliefs? I'm thinking you arent....

[1bad65]

It's amazing after 8yrs of Bush destroying this economy and dropping us into record debt in record time and almost another "GREAT" depression. That his followers want to jump on Obama and say when is he gonna fix Bush's phuck up's?

Jan 2009 US unemployment rate : 7.6%
Current US unemployment rate: 10.0%

[1bad65]

You watched Bush destroy us for 8yrs and you honestly sit there with serious faces and ask why hasn't Obama fixed everything in just 1yr?:rolleyes:

If BD punks out, you wanna take the ban bet?

BTW, by the time November rolls around, Obama will have had almost 2 years to fix it.

I'm betting neither of you will take that bet because you know I'm right.

[jmd161]

If BD punks out, you wanna take the ban bet?

BTW, by the time November rolls around, Obama will have had almost 2 years to fix it.

I'm betting neither of you will take that bet because you know I'm right.

Wow so he's supposed to stop 8yrs of bleeding in almost 2 then?


He's supposed to be Doogie Houser boy wonder huh?:rolleyes:

[jmd161]

Jan 2009 US unemployment rate : 7.6%
Current US unemployment rate: 10.0%


So after 8yrs of dropping it was supposed to just turn because Obama was elected?

Are you serious?

With all the companies that had to shut their doors because of the economy where do you think all those employees where supposed to go?

Of course un-employment went up DUH!!!!:rolleyes:


jeff:)

[BoulderDawg]

So are you gonna man up and take the bet?

Just think, you can spread your drivel all over this site and 1bad65 wont be there to source data that shows you are an idiot!

And if you take me up, I'll PM Gene. I'm serious about this. I have over 6,000 posts on this site. I love it here. And I'm willing to put up losing that to show you I believe my beliefs are right. Are you that confident in your beliefs? I'm thinking you arent....

Apparently you can't read. I think there is a very good chance unemployment will be over 8% in November. Which part of that did you not understand?

[dimethylsea]

It's scary when a President looks right at the Supreme Court justices and says in effect 'You will not stand in my way. I will circumvent you.' Saying the law will not stand in your way is something some very nasty people through history have said.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot. If the Supreme Court had told Bush that the Patriot Act was unconstitutional and he then went and addressed a Republican Congress and said to the Supreme Court, 'We will just pass another Patriot Act despite you', you liberals would have been up in arms.


If the Supreme Court had ruled that blacks were subhuman and could not vote I certainly hope the President would have stood up to them in the state of the union address.

Ruling that artificial persons can directly influence elections is a matter of that kind of gravity.

You should realize this man.. what happens when a Chinese front corporation or a Saudi oil-magnate decides they want a senator from a state where a defense industry is located who is super weak on national defense?

That decision is a direct body-slam to our national security interests!!!

Honestly I'd rather have the Patriot act than Citizens United vs. the FEC.

[1bad65]

If the Supreme Court had ruled that blacks were subhuman and could not vote I certainly hope the President would have stood up to them in the state of the union address.

Ruling that artificial persons can directly influence elections is a matter of that kind of gravity.

You should realize this man.. what happens when a Chinese front corporation or a Saudi oil-magnate decides they want a senator from a state where a defense industry is located who is super weak on national defense?

That decision is a direct body-slam to our national security interests!!!

Honestly I'd rather have the Patriot act than Citizens United vs. the FEC.

But the Supreme Court did not rule blacks (or Darkies as BD call them) were subhuman, so that part is moot. And ridiculous.

What is an "artificial person"? You must also be like Obama and be clueless about the private sector. Corporations are made up of individul investors, or.... Americans! When you limit corporations free speech, you are in effect limiting the people's free speech. And its against EVERYTHING our Constitution stands for.

Also, the Supreme Court ruling did not say it was ok for foreigners to contribute. It only addressed American labor unions and corporations. The law still bars foreigners from donating, the Supreme Court did not rule that part was unconstitutional. Obama was lying through his teeth when he said that, sadly you believed him.

[1bad65]

So neither of you guys have the faith that your guy can get unemployment to 8% in two years? That's pathetic.

FYI, unemployment was 7.6% when Bush left. If Obama got it down to 8% I would still lose and 8% is still higher than Bush had it!

[1bad65]

FYI, Reagan had cut the RECORD inflation rate under Carter in half in two years. Yet you guys won't bet that Obama can get unemployment to 8% in two years, which is still higher than when he took office!

[BoulderDawg]

So neither of you guys have the faith that your guy can get unemployment to 8% in two years? That's pathetic.

FYI, unemployment was 7.6% when Bush left. If Obama got it down to 8% I would still lose and 8% is still higher than Bush had it!

Typical teabagger!:D

I really loved how he came on trying to bait me with this wager thing. He fully a anticipated my answer. When I came and said that "I agreed that umemployment might be above 8% in November" It completely knocked him out of the saddle.:D He came back with the response he was going to write no matter what I said.

In any case just to make Bad happy and make his responses line up with what he has written I'll go ahead and give him the response he thought he was going to get:


What! We all know that Obama is the greatest president that ever lived. Over 8% in Novemeber....No way!!!!!!!! I'm thinking more like 2-3%...certainly no more than 4%. But alas I have to decline your bet because my astrology table says November is not a good month to bet in.

:D:p:D:p:D:p

[jmd161]

FYI, Reagan had cut the RECORD inflation rate under Carter in half in two years. Yet you guys won't bet that Obama can get unemployment to 8% in two years, which is still higher than when he took office!

Only a fool bets on politics....:rolleyes:

And I'm not a betting man... too many variables out of my control. Unlike you I don't care if it's a Republican or Democrat that makes this country better as long as someone stands up and does it!

You're the same kinda person Obama spoke of in his speech, that stand behind petty political lines instead of trying to find answers.. you look to tear down.:rolleyes:

People who voted for Bush will never admit he "phucked us!" they'll just look to rip whatever Democratic front runner there is. Obama has that title for at least a few more yrs. Obama and everyone that voted for him saw this coming, yet he stood up took the job and we voted for him. He's admitted he's made mistakes how often has Bush?

How in the world could anyone expect him to come in and do anything without making some mistakes when he came into a crisis? Not many Presidents have had to come in and clean up as much BS! as he's had to.

jeff:)

[dimethylsea]

But the Supreme Court did not rule blacks (or Darkies as BD call them) were subhuman, so that part is moot. And ridiculous.


It was a valid illustrative hypothetical dealing with the legal nature of personhood vs. the rights of citizens.




What is an "artificial person"? You must also be like Obama and be clueless about the private sector. Corporations are made up of individul investors, or.... Americans! When you limit corporations free speech, you are in effect limiting the people's free speech. And its against EVERYTHING our Constitution stands for.


An "artificial person" refers to the legal concept of "corporate personhood". It's why a corporation can contract, sue, be sued etc. based on it's personhood (by law).
People have free speech, but corporations are not people. They are legal entities which are given SOME of the abilities of natural persons by the states. They are not part of "We The People" in the Constitution.
You are apparently clueless about consitutional law and the history of corporations.




Also, the Supreme Court ruling did not say it was ok for foreigners to contribute. It only addressed American labor unions and corporations. The law still bars foreigners from donating, the Supreme Court did not rule that part was unconstitutional. Obama was lying through his teeth when he said that, sadly you believed him.

An corporation, registered in Delaware say, is an "American corporation". But if 51%+ of it's shares are held by a foreign entity (foreign bank, corporation etc.) then those shares votes will elect the board and the management of that corporation. It's "American" but it's controlled BY the foreign interest. This is not neccessarily a bad thing.. but when that same corporation can lawfully engage in political speech and the manipulation of public opinon in the runup to an election.. this is *really not good*.
Remember it's not "donating" to the political candidate that we are talking about. It's spending money on "not paid for by John Q. Smith for Congress" informational/persuasion ads and such.
A company can spend money on astro-turfing, as long as it doesn't go directly to the candidate.

Believe me dude.. I know quite a bit about the private sector. I'm scared ****less by this decision. I have friends who are already moving their assets out of country cause of this. I have another friend who called his realtor and told her to stop the process, he would keep renting (he will probably wind up buying through a shell based from off shore).

This decision completely changes the playing field in terms of corporate vs. natural persons.

You realize that it now makes more sense for Americans to go offshore, start companies in another jurisdiction, then use those companies to own and manipulate domestic assets?

Rather than hold them as natural persons under US law? Citizens United was a tipping point for a long developmental process. It's only going to accelerate from here. I'm not especially worried about myself.. I'm already planning to move out. But the stay-at-homes are going to get RAPED.

[Drake]

I'll bet you, 1Bad. What was the figure? 8%? I'm game for this, but while I do think it'll get there, I'm not going to attribute it to the president.

[1bad65]

Only a fool bets on politics....:rolleyes:

It's not betting on politics, it's betting on economics. There is a huge difference.


You're the same kinda person Obama spoke of in his speech, that stand behind petty political lines instead of trying to find answers.. you look to tear down.:rolleyes:

I firmly believe Obama's policies, if enacted, will tear down the private sector. And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. You are not. That speaks volumes.

[1bad65]

I'll bet you, 1Bad. What was the figure? 8%? I'm game for this, but while I do think it'll get there, I'm not going to attribute it to the president.

I won't bet you a ban bet, because your posts are not the ravings of a nutbar. I don't want you banned. But I will bet something with you. What stakes are you thinking?

[Drake]

I won't bet you a ban bet, because your posts are not the ravings of a nutbar. I don't want you banned. But I will bet something with you. What stakes are you thinking?

No idea. I'll be in Afghanistan when it's time.

[1bad65]

No idea. I'll be in Afghanistan when it's time.

How about if you win I just man up and admit I was wrong and you were right? Admitting you were wrong seems to be something no one else on here can do.

[1bad65]

No idea. I'll be in Afghanistan when it's time.

Stay safe over there.

[jmd161]

It's not betting on politics, it's betting on economics. There is a huge difference.



I firmly believe Obama's policies, if enacted, will tear down the private sector. And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. You are not. That speaks volumes.


Yeah, It speaks volumes about you also...Blame the guy stuck with fixing the mess your guy started:rolleyes:

Oh! no never admit Bush started all of this, just blame the guy who comes after him and give him no time to fix it and point out he hasn't fixed it.:D

It seems Bush can do no wrong??

Blame Clinton for 9-11...blame Clinton for us having to go to war.... Blame Obama for the economy and unemployment...Hell what did Bush do in between then?

Bush had no part in our deficit?

Hmmm How's that possible when Clinton left a surplus?

The day Clinton took office the unemployment rate was 7.5%
The day Clinton left office the unemployment rate was 4.1%

The day Bush took office the unemployment rate was 4.1%
It quickly rose to 5.7 under Bush and was 8.5% The day Bush Left Office. .

The day Clinton took office the price of gas was $1.06
The day Clinton left office the price of gas was $1.46

The day Bush took office the price of gas was $1.46/gallon
It rose to $3.81/gallon under Bush.

I know it's all Obama and Clinton's fault right?:rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Yeah, It speaks volumes about you also...Blame the guy stuck with fixing the mess your guy started:rolleyes:

When Reagan took office we had inflation at over 13%, record prime interest rates of 22.5%, and rising unemployment. Reagan had the interest rates and inflation down to pre-Carter levels in under 2 years, and unemployment back down by the end of 1983.

So knowing Reagan inherited a mess, and fixed it, please show me just ONE time Reagan blamed Carter during a State of the Union speech. One time, and I'll admit you are right about Obama being a scapegoat.

The guy's term is over 1/4 complete. If he is still blaming his predecessor instead of fixing the problems, it shows he is likely incapable of doing so.

Also, can you please show us all specifically how Bush's policies caused this mess. Be specific now, don't just say 'Well he deregulated everything'. Explain what he deregulated, and how that caused prolems. It's called cause and effect. I see you guys blame the EFFECT on Bush, now I want you to explain how he CAUSED it.

And if i'm asked, I'll be glad to explain how not cutting taxes while increasing taxes and regulation on business will cause problems. I can explain myself, can you?

[1bad65]

Bush had no part in our deficit?

Bush left us with a deficit. No denying that.

But Obama spent more in ONE YEAR than Reagan and GHW Bush spent over TWELVE YEARS.

Please explain how that is GW Bush's fault.

[1bad65]

It quickly rose to 5.7 under Bush and was 8.5% The day Bush Left Office.

This is not correct. It was not 8.5% when Bush left office.

And speaking of gas prices, they are higher than when Obama took over, aren't they?

[jmd161]

This is not correct. It was not 8.5% when Bush left office.

And speaking of gas prices, they are higher than when Obama took over, aren't they?

It is correct look it up!

Source(s):
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

4.7 January 2001

8.5 January 2009

Of course but do you see the spike in the number over Clinton's term compared to Bush's? Come on man you're not dumb or blind!

Stop seeing only what you want and trying to bait and switch...

jeff:)

[BoulderDawg]

Once again the Teabaggers try to embrass Obama as he is speaking to the nation. This time it was a member of the Supreme court, Samuel Alito, who called Obama a dam liar.

To start with the man broke protocol. The court is not suppose to react to anything said on the floor. You did not see any other justices doing anything.

Also, these guys need to be called out and Obama needs to do something about it.

Does everyone here realize that the number of justices is not set by the Constitution. If Obama so desires he can nominate 3-4 more tomorrow. And if the court thinks it can legislate and control elections then maybe it's time to do something like that.

[jmd161]

Bush left us with a deficit. No denying that.

But Obama spent more in ONE YEAR than Reagan and GHW Bush spent over TWELVE YEARS.

Please explain how that is GW Bush's fault.

Obama also touched on that last night. Yes he added a trillion to the deficit to make it 9.7 so I believe that leaves the remaining 8.7 trillion all Bush and Bush alone!!

If my math serves me right 1 trillion is smaller than 8.7 trillion isn't it?

Let's see... If Obama continued at this rate in 4 yrs we'd have 2 trillion added at 8 yrs 4 trillion wow Bush numbers are still doubled what Obama would do if he kept his current trend.:eek:

jeff:)

[1bad65]

It is correct look it up!

Source(s):
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

4.7 January 2001

8.5 January 2009

I did look it up, and it says it was 7.2%

Here is my link: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
The bottom of my link clearly states the unemployment rate was obtained by the US Dept of Labor.

First, please post your link so we can see it. Second, please explain how the current problems were caused by Bush. ;)

[1bad65]

Once again the Teabaggers try to embrass Obama as he is speaking to the nation. This time it was a member of the Supreme court, Samuel Alito, who called Obama a dam liar.

To start with the man broke protocol. The court is not suppose to react to anything said on the floor. You did not see any other justices doing anything.

Also, these guys need to be called out and Obama needs to do something about it.

What Obama did was a disgrace, and it broke protocol. FYI, it's never been done before.

This should scare the hell out of someone like you who claims to be liberal. A head of state of any nation saying that law does not apply to them and they will try and circumvent it is something dictators do.

[1bad65]

Does everyone here realize that the number of justices is not set by the Constitution. If Obama so desires he can nominate 3-4 more tomorrow. And if the court thinks it can legislate and control elections then maybe it's time to do something like that.

Are you truly this ignorant of the United States Constitution??? :eek:

So, you truly think ONE MAN should "do something" about the Judicial Branch of the United States doing their Constitutional duty? If so, I'm really disappointed in you. I never thought I'd see an admitted liberal say it's a good thing for ONE MAN to acquire power like that. It's terrifying to be honest.

[1bad65]

Let's see... If Obama continued at this rate in 4 yrs we'd have 2 trillion added at 8 yrs 4 trillion wow Bush numbers are still doubled what Obama would do if he kept his current trend.:eek:

I can't make heads nor tails of this. Can you please restate it?

[jmd161]

I did look it up, and it says it was 7.2%

Here is my link: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
The bottom of my link clearly states the unemployment rate was obtained by the US Dept of Labor.

First, please post your link so we can see it. Second, please explain how the current problems were caused by Bush. ;)

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&q=unemployment+rate

If you don't know how the economy was effected by Bush then I shouldn't be having this discussion with you in the first place...

jeff:)

[jmd161]

I can't make heads nor tails of this. Can you please restate it?

You claimed Obama has been in office nearly 2yrs earlier...he admitted he's added 1 trillion to the deficit in 1 yr. If he continued to spend at his current record level as you call it...he would add 4 trillion by an 8 yr term, if he was re-elected. That's still 4.7 trillion less then Bush added. I don't see how that's so hard to follow...


jeff:)

[dimethylsea]

Are you truly this ignorant of the United States Constitution??? :eek:

So, you truly think ONE MAN should "do something" about the Judicial Branch of the United States doing their Constitutional duty? If so, I'm really disappointed in you. I never thought I'd see an admitted liberal say it's a good thing for ONE MAN to acquire power like that. It's terrifying to be honest.

Are you truly this ignorant of the Constitution?

The Constitution gives CONGRESS the power to determine court size.

F.D.R. tried court-packing... it backfired politically but in theory (if not in practice) with strong support from the Senate and the House Obama could try exactly what FDR did.

In FDR's time the Senate filibuster was not the instrument in practice that it is now.. but if the Senate had 60 disciplined Demo votes and a majority in the House.. and Obama got them on board they could take the Supremes up to at least 15 (which was the limit of F.D.R.'s court packing plan). Maybe more.

You need to read the Constitution yourself.

[BoulderDawg]

It will not be one man. A justice has to be affirmed by congress.

It's the way the Constitution works. Even the Supreme court is not above control. If the court makes decisions that might hurt the American people then there are ways to handle that.

What I find interesting is that moderate justices would vote for liberal causes but that wasn't guaranteed. However someone like Thomas or Scalia has never deviated and voted in a way that wasn't party line.

[1bad65]

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&q=unemployment+rate

If you don't know how the economy was effected by Bush then I shouldn't be having this discussion with you in the first place...

jeff:)

Your source says the unemployment rate in Dec 2008 was 7.1%. You can't use Jan as a yard stick because for more than 1/2 of that month Bush was out of office.

So you cannot provide specifics of how Bush caused this? But yet you keep blaming Bush. Are you just parrotting talking points? It sure appears so.

[1bad65]

You claimed Obama has been in office nearly 2yrs earlier...he admitted he's added 1 trillion to the deficit in 1 yr. If he continued to spend at his current record level as you call it...he would add 4 trillion by an 8 yr term, if he was re-elected. That's still 4.7 trillion less then Bush added. I don't see how that's so hard to follow...

No, I said that when the November elections rolled around Obama will have been in office nearly two years. Are you putting words in my mouth? ;)

FYI, if Obama is only adding 1 billion per year to the deficit, why did the Senate just vote raise the debt ceiling by 1.9 billion?

The measure would would put the government on track for a national debt of $14.3 trillion, about $45,000 for every American. I don't know about you, but I don't have a spare $45k laying around if China comes calling for their money. :eek:

[1bad65]

However someone like Thomas or Scalia has never deviated and voted in a way that wasn't party line.

And Ginsburg has? :rolleyes:

[mickey]

Greetings,

I was surprised by Obama's accomplishments. I don't remember the media reporting any of that. I guess that shows you what he is up against.

mickey

[jmd161]

Your source says the unemployment rate in Dec 2008 was 7.1%. You can't use Jan as a yard stick because for more than 1/2 of that month Bush was out of office.

So you cannot provide specifics of how Bush caused this? But yet you keep blaming Bush. Are you just parrotting talking points? It sure appears so.


If you move your pointer to the graph you'll notice points on the graph that shows dates including 8.6% in Jan 2009.

Wow! you didn't even try that time did you?:confused:

jeff:)

[jmd161]

No, I said that when the November elections rolled around Obama will have been in office nearly two years. Are you putting words in my mouth? ;)

FYI, if Obama is only adding 1 billion per year to the deficit, why did the Senate just vote raise the debt ceiling by 1.9 billion?

The measure would would put the government on track for a national debt of $14.3 trillion, about $45,000 for every American. I don't know about you, but I don't have a spare $45k laying around if China comes calling for their money. :eek:


I said 1 trillion I don't know where you got 1 Billion from....even Obama said he raised it 1 Trillion over Bush. That still leaves 8.7 Trillion from Bush's watch. You can't deny it because we had a surplus the day he took office. And he killed that within 2 yrs time.:eek:


jeff:)

[1bad65]

I was surprised by Obama's accomplishments.

Can you name some of those accomplishments?

[1bad65]

If you move your pointer to the graph you'll notice points on the graph that shows dates including 8.6% in Jan 2009.

Again, Obama was in office in Jan more than Bush was. And even the Dept of Labor numbers have a line after Dec, above that line it says 'Bush'. Below it (including Jan) it says 'Obama'.

But even if we use your skewed numbers, 10% unemployment is higher than 8.6%. Wanna take that ban bet and we can use 8.6% instead of 8%? I'm game....

[1bad65]

I'm still waiting to see how Bush caused this mess....

You guys repeatedly say it was "Dergegulation", but here are the Republicans in 2004 trying to REGULATE Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Democrats blocking them. The Democrats were against the regulation! Not Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

So please enlighten me on how Bush caused the mess. :confused:

[BoulderDawg]

Dam I'm Sold!!!!!!!

Bush was GOD!!!!!!!!!

[jmd161]

I'm still waiting to see how Bush caused this mess....

You guys repeatedly say it was "Dergegulation", but here are the Republicans in 2004 trying to REGULATE Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Democrats blocking them. The Democrats were against the regulation! Not Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

So please enlighten me on how Bush caused the mess. :confused:


It was HIS watch!

What someone else was in the White House between Clinton and Obama other than Bush?:confused:

So.... some how there's a$ 8.7 trillion deficit after Clinton left the White House with a surplus and somehow that's not Bush's fault?

But Obama was sworn in as Pres in Jan 2009 and the numbers for Jan 2009 are his?:rolleyes:

:D LOL you got to be kidding you can't be serious???

[mickey]

Hi 1bad65,

As I said, I was surprised. I did not have a chance to write them down. According to media, he has done nothing. It is unfortunate that we have to wait for an address to know about them.

mickey

[Reality_Check]

So knowing Reagan inherited a mess, and fixed it, please show me just ONE time Reagan blamed Carter during a State of the Union speech. One time, and I'll admit you are right about Obama being a scapegoat.


"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we’re going but where we’ve been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous...

In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a staggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed...

A year ago, Americans' faith in their governmental process was steadily declining. Six out of ten Americans were saying they were pessimistic about their future...

First, we must understand what’s happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that’s only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend...

The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment."

http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganStateofUnion82.html

[1bad65]

"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we’re going but where we’ve been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous...

In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a staggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed...

A year ago, Americans' faith in their governmental process was steadily declining. Six out of ten Americans were saying they were pessimistic about their future...

First, we must understand what’s happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that’s only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend...
The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment."

http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganStateofUnion82.html

Notice he did not blame Carter or the Democrats, he said it was DECADES of bad policy. And decades before 1982, we had some Republican Presidents. He was blaming the POLICIES, not the man (or men) who preceded him.

Notice how Reagan also did what you and BD have failed to do, he explained HOW the previous POLICIES got the economy into the bad shape it was in.

[1bad65]

It was HIS watch!

So by your logic Richard Jewell was reponsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing. After all, it was HIS watch! :rolleyes:

[Reality_Check]

Notice he did not blame Carter or the Democrats, he said it was DECADES of bad policy. And decades before 1982, we had some Republican Presidents. He was blaming the POLICIES, not the man (or men) who preceded him.

Please note the bolded sections.


"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we’re going but where we’ve been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous...

In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a staggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed...

A year ago, Americans' faith in their governmental process was steadily declining. Six out of ten Americans were saying they were pessimistic about their future...

First, we must understand what’s happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that’s only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend...

The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment."

http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganStateofUnion82.html

[1bad65]

Please note the bolded sections.

All he did was point out the problems! He pointed out the rampant inflation, spending, and interest rates. And by the time he gave that speech, those numbers had IMPROVED on Reagan's watch. Inflation and interest rates were lower. Under Obama, NOT ONE single economic indicator has improved after over a year. NOT ONE.

Again, please explain how Bush's policies caused this mess.

[Reality_Check]

http://reagan2020.us/speeches/state_of_the_union_1983.asp

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted..."

Granted this next one is from when President Reagan was campaigning against President Carter. Nevertheless, there is a lot of blaming going on.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/9.1.80.html

"The Carter record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten...

Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary. Well if it’s a definition he wants, I’ll give him one. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his...

Call this human tragedy whatever you want. Whatever it is, it is Jimmy Carter’s. He caused it. He tolerates it. And he is going to answer to the American people for it."

[Reality_Check]

All he did was point out the problems! He pointed out the rampant inflation, spending, and interest rates. And by the time he gave that speech, those numbers had IMPROVED on Reagan's watch. Inflation and interest rates were lower. Under Obama, NOT ONE single economic indicator has improved after over a year. NOT ONE.

Again, please explain how Bush's policies caused this mess.

Could you please quote for me the sections of President Obama's State of the Union address where he blames President Bush? Thank you.

This is interesting...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/29/economy-grows-percent-th-quarter/

"The 5.7 percent annual growth rate in the fourth quarter was the fastest pace since 2003."

Wouldn't you call that an improved economic indicator?

[1bad65]

Blaming Carter for the economy during the friggin campaign is fine. He was his opponent in the election! Bush wasn't even running in 2008. Is this news to you?

I never faulted Obama for his 'Blame Bush' tactic during the campaign, but doing so after his term is over 1/4 complete is ridiculous, and quite frankly, childish.

[1bad65]

Could you please quote for me the sections of President Obama's State of the Union address where he blames President Bush? Thank you.

I have to finish something at work right now. I will answer this within an hour or so, and source it. Unlike you.

After I answer your question, will you answer mine?

[Drake]

All he did was point out the problems! He pointed out the rampant inflation, spending, and interest rates. And by the time he gave that speech, those numbers had IMPROVED on Reagan's watch. Inflation and interest rates were lower. Under Obama, NOT ONE single economic indicator has improved after over a year. NOT ONE.

Again, please explain how Bush's policies caused this mess.

Not true.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. economy grew at the fastest pace in more than six years during the fourth quarter of 2009, according to a government report Friday.

The nation's gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, rose at a 5.7% annual rate in the fourth quarter. That was much stronger than expected and provides another sign that a recovery in the economy is taking hold.

The growth in the fourth quarter was the highest since the third quarter of 2003. The economy rose at 2.2% annual pace in the third quarter of last year.

But even with the strong growth in the second half of 2009, the economy shrunk by 2.4% last year. That was the biggest drop in 63 years and first annual decline for the economy since 1991.

The GDP report does not mark an official end of the recession. That determination will be made by the National Bureau of Economic Research, and that group typically waits months -- if not more than a year -- to declare when recessions ended and began.

But two straight quarters of economic growth is typically a sign of a recovery, and most economists agree that the recession ended at some point in the middle of 2009. The Federal Reserve even used the word "recovery" in the statement following its latest meeting earlier this week.

Much of the improvement was driven by a turnaround in inventories, the supply of goods that businesses produce in anticipation of sales. Businesses slashed inventories in late 2008 and early 2009 due to concerns about worsening economic conditions.

But 3.4 percentage points of growth in the fourth quarter came from the change in inventories, according to Friday's report. A pickup in auto production was a significant part of the inventory turnaround, even though auto sales themselves only rose modestly.

An 18% jump in the value of exports also played a major role in the economy's rebound, contributing nearly 2 percentage points of growth.

But the U.S. consumer was somewhat of a bystander in the fourth quarter, as personal consumption grew at only a 2% annual rate in the period. Spending by consumers accounts for more than two-thirds of economic activity.

Sung Won Sohn, economics professor at Cal State University Channel Islands, said there was good news in the report, but cautioned that the economy is unlikely to keep growing at such a strong pace.

"The not-so-good news is that most of the growth came from temporary factors such as inventories and government stimulus which can't be sustained," he said.

Federal spending on stimulus does not show up on any one line of the GDP report. In fact, government spending contributed nothing to growth by itself. But Sohn said it is clear that tax cuts and spending by businesses that received stimulus dollars helped to feed growth in the third and fourth quarters.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/economy/gdp/index.htm

We're in a recovery right now. And no, don't expect everyone to instantly have unicorns and mansions right off.

[1bad65]

"The 5.7 percent annual growth rate in the fourth quarter was the fastest pace since 2003."

Wouldn't you call that an improved economic indicator?


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. economy grew at the fastest pace in more than six years during the fourth quarter of 2009, according to a government report Friday.

What was the rate of growth for the entire year? ;)

[1bad65]

"The not-so-good news is that most of the growth came from temporary factors such as inventories and government stimulus which can't be sustained," he said.

Don't forget this key part of the article.

This is exactly why I said he would fail. These policies were tried by FDR and they only made the symptoms feel better, they never fixed the problem. As long as Government was dumping massive amounts of money into the economy, it grew. But the second they stopped the massive spending in 1937, it set off a recession. As the Government spending had not fixed the private sector, the moment the Government left it on it's own, it was not strong enough. And this was after almost a decade of massive Government spending!!!

[1bad65]

Could you please quote for me the sections of President Obama's State of the Union address where he blames President Bush? Thank you.

"We cannot afford another so-called economic “expansion” like the one from last decade – what some call the “lost decade” – where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation."

"So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

Now if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis, and our efforts to prevent a second Depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt."

"From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument – that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped lead us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again."

There you go. Now will you answer mine?

I couldn't not post this gem from his speech. After over a year of being President, yet blaming Bush, he had the audacity to say this:

"We can argue all we want about who’s to blame for this, but I am not interested in re-litigating the past."

Well, he has taken audacity to levels never before seen.

[1bad65]

We're in a recovery right now. And no, don't expect everyone to instantly have unicorns and mansions right off.

Are you sure?

"The Congressional Budget Office hiked its forecast Tuesday for how much the stimulus bill will add to the nation's deficit, raising its estimate by $75 billion to $862 billion." http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/26/news/economy/stimulus_cbo/index.htm

"New home sales plunged to a 9-month low in December, according to a government report issued Wednesday." http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/27/real_estate/new_home_sales/index.htm

"A total of 43 states reported rising jobless rates in December, reversing signs of improvement seen the month before, according to a government report released Friday." http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/22/news/economy/state_unemployment/index.htm

"The number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment insurance surged to a 2-month high last week, the government said Thursday.

There were 482,000 initial job claims filed in the week ended Jan. 16, up 36,000 from a revised 446,000 the previous week, the Labor Department said in a weekly report." http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/20/news/economy/initial_claims/index.htm

"The airline industry suffered its largest drop ever in passenger revenue last year as a weak economy grounded many would-be travelers, an industry group said Wednesday." http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/20/news/economy/air_traffic_2009/index.htm

[Drake]

Economists are saying this, not me. I refuse to take part in attempting to piece together random bits of information that sound either positive or negative, and then, shooting from the hip, attempt to create some sort of amateur analysis of a multi-trillion dollar economic machine.

If economists are saying we're in a recovery, I have two options. Get a PhD in economics to avoid sounding like an idiot who collects numbers from various news stories. Or, I can simply read what the majority of economists are saying, which is that we're in a recovery, and put a certain degree in the faith of their expertise in order to believe that they are right.

They have certain criteria that determines whether or not we are in an economic recovery. According to these PhD carrying economic experts, we meet those criteria. I refuse to try and argue with their assessment simply to promote a certain political platform.

[1bad65]

Economists are saying this, not me. I refuse to take part in attempting to piece together random bits of information that sound either positive or negative, and then, shooting from the hip, attempt to create some sort of amateur analysis of a multi-trillion dollar economic machine.

"Random bits of information"? Come on Drake, you're above that. We posted GDP numbers, the unemployment rate, housing sales, etc. These are by all accounts leading economic indicators.


If economists are saying we're in a recovery, I have two options. Get a PhD in economics to avoid sounding like an idiot who collects numbers from various news stories. Or, I can simply read what the majority of economists are saying, which is that we're in a recovery, and put a certain degree in the faith of their expertise in order to believe that they are right.

They have certain criteria that determines whether or not we are in an economic recovery. According to these PhD carrying economic experts, we meet those criteria. I refuse to try and argue with their assessment simply to promote a certain political platform.

Many economists are saying we are not in a recovery. People are not spending money, for whatever reason. But wages were almost stagnet in 2009 (except for Government workers :rolleyes:). And without people's incomes going up, and without tax cuts, people do not have more money to spend or invest. And if people do not spend or invest more money, there will be no recovery. It's really that simple.

[Drake]

"Random bits of information"? Come on Drake, you're above that. We posted GDP numbers, the unemployment rate, housing sales, etc. These are by all accounts leading economic indicators.



Many economists are saying we are not in a recovery. People are not spending money, for whatever reason. But wages were almost stagnet in 2009 (except for Government workers :rolleyes:). And without people's incomes going up, and without tax cuts, people do not have more money to spend or invest. And if people do not spend or invest more money, there will be no recovery. It's really that simple.

And then you'd know that GDP, good or bad, is not always the best indicator. I just finished reading a manufacturing report from an organization AZ. They predict growth throughout the next QTR and beyond. They referenced a much larger organization for their information, which was optimistic about the economy.

Here's the link: http://www.ism.ws/about/MediaRoom/NewsReleaseDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=19911

Again... we are amatuers, and honeslty, like it or not, we are really not educated enough in this field to make our own determinations. With an economy of this size, you can easily, at any given time, find many suffering industries, recession or not. At the same time, you can also find those that are thriving.

You can use GDP, DJIA, NASDAQ, S&P, GNP, median wages, QoL, comparisons with other nations, growth forecast, unemployment rates, tax rates, fed rates, housing markets, etc etc etc etc etc... and come up with virtually any outcome you want. That's why I leave this to professionals. So should you.

[1bad65]

They predict growth throughout the next QTR and beyond. They referenced a much larger organization for their information, which was optimistic about the economy.

That's why I leave this to professionals. So should you.

But we are still on about that 8.5% unemployment rate sig bet, right? :D

[Reality_Check]

"We cannot afford another so-called economic “expansion” like the one from last decade – what some call the “lost decade” – where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation."

"So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

Now if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis, and our efforts to prevent a second Depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt."

"From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument – that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped lead us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again."

Is what he said untrue?

[sanjuro_ronin]

A few things:
What needs to be done first is to realize that the problems of today are no different than the problems of yesterday, like Obama said, BUT the issue is that the solutions can't be the same as those of the past, it won't work anymore.
This is truly a global economy with a global information highway and with worldwide, physical, reaching capabilities.
It calls for a whole new approach and Obama got one thing right, it calls for the US and N.America to LEAD in new and emerging industries.
Forget the past, you can never be competitive again, labour rates have seen to that, accept it and move on.
Focusing on an industry that is NOT dominated yet by "production labour" is the way to go.
Also remember that in the age of split second information that public companies and the financial market need to see the big picture and not focus on "the next quarter".

The government needs to put MONEY back in the consumers pocket, not take it out.
I repeat, the CONSUMER, not big business.
Grants and not finace must be given to small businees ( under 5 emplyoees) and for enterpenurels that are starting up their businesses.

Big banks have never been friendly to small and micro businesses so take the lending power out of their hands for those types of businesses.

Get people back to work by rewarding companies that hire NOW, not companies that MAY be hiring or might hire IF.

[BoulderDawg]

AI repeat, the CONSUMER, not big business.
Grants and not finace must be given to small businees ( under 5 emplyoees) and for enterpenurels that are starting up their businesses.

I'm all for giving grants and govt financing(I'm not sure what "Not finace" means) to very small businesses and start ups. However these loans/grants are the riskiest. To get one as Joe Smoe just coming off the streets with an idea would be almost impossible. You would have to put up most of your own money first.

Also, a start up with less than 5 employees who needs a loan to go into business isn't going to be doing a lot of hiring.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'm all for giving grants and govt financing(I'm not sure what "Not finace" means) to very small businesses and start ups. However these loans/grants are the riskiest. To get one as Joe Smoe just coming off the streets with an idea would be almost impossible. You would have to put up most of your own money first.

Also, a start up with less than 5 employees who needs a loan to go into business isn't going to be doing a lot of hiring.

Incorrect.
5000 small business in one state hiring 1 person each = 5K new jobs.
That is the reality of creating jobs in a bad economy.
The companies with the least overheads and expenses are the one that hire first.
Loans like tese are NOT as risky as banks want you to think t hey are because people starting up their own business or keeping their business going will do ANYTHINg to NOT close it, because if they did, THEY would be out of a job.
Unlike bigger businees with higher assets who's owners and principles can say "f you" to the employees, take their assets and retire.

[BoulderDawg]

Incorrect.
5000 small business in one state hiring 1 person each = 5K new jobs.
That is the reality of creating jobs in a bad economy.
The companies with the least overheads and expenses are the one that hire first.
Loans like tese are NOT as risky as banks want you to think t hey are because people starting up their own business or keeping their business going will do ANYTHINg to NOT close it, because if they did, THEY would be out of a job.
Unlike bigger businees with higher assets who's owners and principles can say "f you" to the employees, take their assets and retire.

Do you have stats to back that up?

Last time I checked only about 1 out of 5 starts ups(and I think it's actually higher) never made it past the first year. I wouldn't want to dump my money in that.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Do you have stats to back that up?

Last time I checked only about 1 out of 5 starts ups(and I think it's actually higher) never made it past the first year. I wouldn't want to dump my money in that.

One wonders why 20% failed...
And when one "big business" fails ( and the ratio may be closer than you think), how many jobs are lost then?
50? 200" 500 ?

[1bad65]

Is what he said untrue?

You simply asked to show where he blamed Bush. And I did. And now you are moving the goalposts. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Also, a start up with less than 5 employees who needs a loan to go into business isn't going to be doing a lot of hiring.

Tell that to Michael Dell.

While a student at the University of Texas at Austin in 1984. Michael Dell founded the company as PC's Limited with capital of $1000. Operating from Michael Dell's off-campus dormitory room at Dobie Center, the startup aimed to sell IBM PC-compatible computers built from stock components.

As of 2009, Dell has 76,500 employees.

Care to share anymore bits of your knowledge with us? :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Do you have stats to back that up?

Speaking of audacity....

[1bad65]

The government needs to put MONEY back in the consumers pocket, not take it out.
I repeat, the CONSUMER, not big business.

And that is exactly what income tax cuts do. Really guys, it's not this hard to grasp.

[Reality_Check]

You simply asked to show where he blamed Bush. And I did. And now you are moving the goalposts. :rolleyes:

Hardly, if they are true (as you just tacitly agreed), then that would be an answer to your question.

[1bad65]

Hardly, if they are true (as you just tacitly agreed), then that would be an answer to your question.

Can you please re-write that reply? I can't decipher it.

Also, when will you be answering my question?

[BoulderDawg]

One wonders why 20% failed...
And when one "big business" fails ( and the ratio may be closer than you think), how many jobs are lost then?
50? 200" 500 ?


That's my bad. I was in a hurry. I meant to say 1 out of 5 actually make it.

[BoulderDawg]

Tell that to Michael Dell.

While a student at the University of Texas at Austin in 1984. Michael Dell founded the company as PC's Limited with capital of $1000. Operating from Michael Dell's off-campus dormitory room at Dobie Center, the startup aimed to sell IBM PC-compatible computers built from stock components.

As of 2009, Dell has 76,500 employees.

Care to share anymore bits of your knowledge with us? :rolleyes:

So I'm suppose to give money to everybody who claims to be the next Mike Dell? I would probably get better odds playing the lottery.

Did you know I once read a story about this guy who jumped out of an airplane with no chute and lived.........Does that means it's true for everyone?:confused::D

[1bad65]

So I'm suppose to give money to everybody who claims to be the next Mike Dell? I would probably get better odds playing the lottery.

Did you know I once read a story about this guy who jumped out of an airplane with no chute and lived.........Does that means it's true for everyone?:confused::D

You said something stupid (yet again) and I corrected you, and used a real world example. Crying about it won't do you any good. ;)

[1bad65]

So I'm suppose to give money to everybody who claims to be the next Mike Dell?

Who said anything about "giving"? :confused: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I swore you and Sanjuro were using the word "loan".

Please reference those posts where "giving" people money was mentioned. ;)

[Drake]

Go away, BD... grownups are having an adult conversation.

[Drake]

And that is exactly what income tax cuts do. Really guys, it's not this hard to grasp.

Or, if anything, at least pay them fair interest along with their refund. Income tax refunds are a slap in the face to anyone who knows the first thing about money. You basically had a savings plan with NO interest rate.

[Drake]

Who said anything about "giving"? :confused: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I swore you and Sanjuro were using the word "loan".

Please reference those posts where "giving" people money was mentioned. ;)

I thought it was hilarious how a liberal is against handouts. :) Maybe he'd much rather give it to people who don't want to work?

[BoulderDawg]

I thought it was hilarious how a liberal is against handouts. :) Maybe he'd much rather give it to people who don't want to work?

I'd much rather do that than give 100K to some guy who didn't even graduate high school who telling me he's the next Trey Gates and responds to my question with "What's a business plan?":eek:

At least if I gave money to people who needed it for food, medicine, clothes at least I know it would be spent wisely.

[1bad65]

Or, if anything, at least pay them fair interest along with their refund. Income tax refunds are a slap in the face to anyone who knows the first thing about money. You basically had a savings plan with NO interest rate.

This is so true. Sadly not many people realize this.

I'm all for the Government not taking a dime out of your paycheck, and then you write them a check on April 15 for ~1/3 of what you made all year. I guarantee that would destroy the Democratic Party if people had to actually write one big check and knew exactly how much of their money the Government takes from them.

[1bad65]

I'd much rather do that than give 100K to some guy who didn't even graduate high school who telling me he's the next Trey Gates and responds to my question with "What's a business plan?":eek:

Sounds alot like Bill Clintons 'dot-com' economy. FYI, that bubble burst right before Bush took office and he fixed the problems rather than whining for over a year about how Clinton left him a mess.

http://www.amazon.com/Dot-con-Greatest-Story-Ever-Sold/dp/0060008806


At least if I gave money to people who needed it for food, medicine, clothes at least I know it would be spent wisely.

So you get to decide if other people are spending their money wisely?

[1bad65]

BD and RC, here is another question I'm sure you will dodge:

If Bush is responsible for the economy being what it is right now, wouldn't he be responsible for this 5.7% GDP growth we just had? :D

[BoulderDawg]

Most of the dot.com money came from private investors. Probably a few SBA loans and the government lost money on bad investments. This is true in both public and private venture capital. However in private investment much research is done before money is handed out. It should be the same with the government.

As a venture capitalists I'm simply not going to invest in someone with no track record in a start up.

In any case who are all these people who "Won't work"? Just sounds to me to be another version of welfare Cadillac. Truth is you are always going to have scam artists, cheats, criminals, etc. There is no way to avoid that. What you people are saying is that we should scrap an entire program just because there are 2-3% of the people out there who want to cheat it....same old song and dance that's been said since the FDR admin.

[Reality_Check]

BD and RC, here is another question I'm sure you will dodge:

If Bush is responsible for the economy being what it is right now, wouldn't he be responsible for this 5.7% GDP growth we just had? :D

Ah...but I never said that. I believe you are confusing me with someone else (not for the first time).

[BoulderDawg]

Funny thing. I never said that either. If Bad would brother to check, there is a post here where I stated that the economy was Obama's responsibilty the moment he took the oath.

What's laughable though is that Bad actually believes this country would have been far better off with a Bush third term.:eek:

[1bad65]

What's laughable though is that Bad actually believes this country would have been far better off with a Bush third term.:eek:

This country would be far better off with Mickey Mouse as President than the fool we have right now.

[dimethylsea]

This country would be far better off with Mickey Mouse as President than the fool we have right now.

You better pray that "Mickey Mouse" doesn't make a habit out of imitating the "Prime Minister's Q & A Time" that the Brits have. I am speaking of course about Obama going to the GOP House Caucus and answering questions on live TV from said caucus.

He does that 6 times a year and your entire political strategy of character assassination will unravel like the pathetic whining that it is.

I'd like to see Bush or Cheney try something like that. Bush would look like an idiot, and Cheney would have started stonewalling (cause unlike Dubya.. he was smart as well as evil).

[1bad65]

I am speaking of course about Obama going to the GOP House Caucus and answering questions on live TV from said caucus.

He does that 6 times a year and your entire political strategy of character assassination will unravel like the pathetic whining that it is.

I'd like to see Bush or Cheney try something like that. Bush would look like an idiot, and Cheney would have started stonewalling (cause unlike Dubya.. he was smart as well as evil).

Kinda makes you wonder why Obama still hasn't had the balls to show up on FoxNews...

Cheney and Bush went on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox. They didn't duck certain stations, unlike Obama. I don't like O'Reilly, but he would absolutely humiliate Obama even if he let Obama use his prized teleprompters. ;)

[1bad65]

dimethylsea,

How about you take a stab at my earlier question; If Bush is responsible for the economy being what it is right now, wouldn't he be responsible for this 5.7% GDP growth we just had?

[BoulderDawg]

Kinda makes you wonder why Obama still hasn't had the balls to show up on FoxNews...

Simply put I wouldn't appear on FOX neither no more than I would appear on the Limby show. Why would I be on a show or Network that insults me at every term?

There would be no upside. No one watching would be presuaded by his words and for weeks afterwards snippets of the speech would be used to redicule the president.

[BoulderDawg]

I don't like O'Reilly, but he would absolutely humiliate Obama

and you ask why he doesn't appear on FOX....:rolleyes:

On any interview with MSNBC Bush was always treated with diginty and respect for the office.

[dimethylsea]

Kinda makes you wonder why Obama still hasn't had the balls to show up on FoxNews...

Cheney and Bush went on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox. They didn't duck certain stations, unlike Obama. I don't like O'Reilly, but he would absolutely humiliate Obama even if he let Obama use his prized teleprompters. ;)

Obama is actually much more formidable WITHOUT the teleprompters. When he's making speechs he sounds like a hell of an orator. But when he's fielding complex policy questions on the fly he sounds alot more like the elite law school professor he was.

During the Q&A with the GOP he was keeping 4-5 assertions by the GOP questioner in his head, while waiting on them to actually ask the question. (This is a common tactic formidable in the right hands if used against someone who's not bright). He routinely hits back all assertions and then goes onto an answer which is cogent and usually managed to disagree on factual grounds, admonish the GOP for assertions of extremism, sound pragmatic AND not be an *******.

All at the same time. It was nice seeing a President do all that and still be like "oh yeah.. I'm having fun, let's do a few more!".

Let the President field questions and debate with his political opponents. Opinion-pundits like O'Reilly ? Let the right stimmer in their own sauce. The war of ideas is the war for the moderates and the center.

[dimethylsea]

dimethylsea,

How about you take a stab at my earlier question; If Bush is responsible for the economy being what it is right now, wouldn't he be responsible for this 5.7% GDP growth we just had?

Don't be silly. If I take a non-partisan factual stance on the question you are going to twist that.. because you are an ideologue and a deceptive partisan.

So here is the partisan come back to your question. If it's bad.. Bush is responsible. If it's good.. it's Obama's doing.

Oh and by the way.. don't forget to castigate me for saying the word "darkie".

[1bad65]

On any interview with MSNBC Bush was always treated with diginty and respect for the office.

You truly live in a world all your own.

[1bad65]

Don't be silly. If I take a non-partisan factual stance on the question you are going to twist that.. because you are an ideologue and a deceptive partisan.

You won't try because you know you will either have to give Bush some credit, or give Obama some blame for the current situation. It's hilarious watching you guys know you can't have it both ways.

Are you saying you are not partisan?


Oh and by the way.. don't forget to castigate me for saying the word "darkie".

If you use racial slurs, you will be called on it. Are you defending his use of racial slurs?

[Reality_Check]

You won't try because you know you will either have to give Bush some credit, or give Obama some blame for the current situation. It's hilarious watching you guys know you can't have it both ways.

Are you saying you are not partisan?

And yet you are trying to have it both ways with President Bush. I have yet to see you say that former President Bush has any responsibility for the economic meltdown.

[Kansuke]

Simply put I wouldn't appear on FOX neither no more than I would appear on the Limby show. Why would I be on a show or Network that insults me at every term?

There would be no upside. No one watching would be presuaded by his words and for weeks afterwards snippets of the speech would be used to redicule the president.



I sure hope Obama makes improvements in education so you can finally learn English... :rolleyes:

[BoulderDawg]

You truly live in a world all your own.

Okay. Who disrespected Bush to his face and what was said?


I don't like O'Reilly, but he would absolutely humiliate Obama

There's a marked difference here. I don't know anyone at MSNBC who would look to humiliate any guest.

[1bad65]

And yet you are trying to have it both ways with President Bush. I have yet to see you say that former President Bush has any responsibility for the economic meltdown.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I openly admit Bush is not the cause of the mess. I admit the **** hit the fan on his watch, but it had nothing to do with his policies.

I've been asking for days now for someone like you who does blame Bush to please explain how his policies caused the current mess.

[Reality_Check]

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I openly admit Bush is not the cause of the mess. I admit the **** hit the fan on his watch, but it had nothing to do with his policies.

I've been asking for days now for someone like you who does blame Bush to please explain how his policies caused the current mess.

Please point out where I have blamed former President Bush. As I noted earlier in this thread, I believe you are confusing me with another poster.

[dimethylsea]

If you use racial slurs, you will be called on it. Are you defending his use of racial slurs?

The only quote I've seen about BoulderDawg using "darkie" was entirely acceptable and appropriate.

He was referring to the way Obama was portrayed on a Limbaugh skit.

So yes.. I'm perfectly fine with BoulderDawg. Using racist vocabulary as part of highlighting racist behavior and deploring it is perfectly acceptable.

I use such things in deconditioning my students to panic at threats in a martial arts setting also.

[1bad65]

Please point out where I have blamed former President Bush. As I noted earlier in this thread, I believe you are confusing me with another poster.

Notice I said "someone like you", not you specifically. You already ducked the question. I'm hoping Dimethylsea will take a shot at it, he blames Bush at every turn...

[dimethylsea]

Notice I said "someone like you", not you specifically. You already ducked the question. I'm hoping Dimethylsea will take a shot at it, he blames Bush at every turn...

Ok. Here is the basic way this goes. Bush saw fit to pass one of the larger entitlement expansions we've seen (the Medicare drug benefit) and started two ongoing military adventures. Both of these were passed via supplementals and were not included in the formal budget as such. Which means that deficit spending was required for all three of these. Plus some other smaller things I won't get into.

Deficit spending, in general, isn't usually a good thing (though both major parties agree it is sometimes necessary for reasons of national security, national pride, national societal goals or simple social justice).

The thing is though, deficit spending contributes to the GDP, but it is war spending which is especially inflationary, because the money printed stays home, but the goods and services it purchases are sent off to blow things up far away. Commodity prices rose 140% in the five years after the start of the Iraq War, after a long period of stability in the decade previous.

Despite an end to the Cold War military spending has continued (aided and abetted by poiticos from both parties trying to prop up their own districts I will grant), but launching two wars, at once, without even a nod to notion of fiscal responsibility...

So we have deficit spending, and it's happening on wars.. deficit spending is inflationary, and war spending is especially inflationary. Inflation can be considered a regressive consumption tax. That is.. it is a means by which goverments fund their expenditures at the expense of their citizens (i.e. a tax), which is focused on basic needs and wants (consumption).. and the critical bit is that it is "regressive".. that is.. since it is basically a % of consumption those individuals who spend more of their income to live (i.e. the poor) are hit disproportionately hard by the "hidden tax". This is what is meant by a "regressive" tax (as opposed to progressive and flat taxes).

Now we have multiple wars, deficit spending, regressive consumption tax-equivalents that erode away the purchasing power of the middle and lower classes. What else could Bush do wrong?

Well you remember those tax cuts he and the GOP voted in? It turns out that the vast majority of the wealth created in this country in the last decade was created in the "financial sectors".. which is to say brokers, stock markets, financial instruments, derivatives and the like.

All those tax cuts for the wealth spurred investment yes.. but because of the nature of the tax structure it strongly encouraged use of exotic and arcane financial instruments.

In this way something which was arguably progressive, if not especially prudent policy (encouraging home ownership among the poor and less qualified, sub-prime mortgages) got bundled and then securitized into highly complicated instruments, given a AAA rating and sold off by the big brokerages, who made a killing, and kept their money. All incentivized by the Bush tax cuts.

Additionally this sub-prime securitization added to perception that housing prices were bound to rise, that it wasn't a bubble. With inflation driving up prices on homes, the perception that maintaining one's worth in the equity or position held in the mortgage became perceived as highly prudent.. or at least a solid strategy for maintaining wealth in the face of higher and higher costs of living.

Until the bubble burst.. and everything went straight to hades in a handbasket.

As the sub-prime securities became toxic they dragged down the position of the major financial houses, and then the credit-default swaps added more and more pay-out obligations and it all went side-ways.

This is what Obama is having to deal with. God help him. Do I think he will succeed?

Honestly no. I don't think ANYTHING that is politically feasible can truly fix this mess at this point. But if he manages to focus the deficit spending on infrastructure and jobs as opposed to wars abroad I guess that's the best we can reasonably expect.


So we have to do the best with what Bush left us. Deficit spend Keynesian style on domestic projects, give our best attempt at healthcare to everyone we can.. and hope we can hold out till a real recovery happens.

The odds are not good. But Obama is dealing with alot of problems, problems which were either caused or massively compounded by the Bush administration.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Who said anything about "giving"? :confused: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I swore you and Sanjuro were using the word "loan".

Please reference those posts where "giving" people money was mentioned. ;)

I think that a combination of loans and grants are needed to stimulate an economy.
In good times loans are enough, but to get people spending and hiring you need to motivate them to take that risk ( and hiring and spending is always a risk for a small business with limited assets).
A company with debt already,like every small business already has, needs capital that it won't have to pay back.
Look at it this way, you ( government) can pay the unemploylment for people or give that money as grants to companies to hire and those people they hire PAY INCOME tax and spend money (sales tax) and the government gets something out of it.

Whether it be grants or forgiving back taxes, whatever, something needs to be done to give businesses a reason to hire.

[Reality_Check]

Notice I said "someone like you", not you specifically. You already ducked the question. I'm hoping Dimethylsea will take a shot at it, he blames Bush at every turn...

So, you don't have evidence of me saying that...:rolleyes:

And yet here you are specifically asking me.


BD and RC, here is another question I'm sure you will dodge:

If Bush is responsible for the economy being what it is right now, wouldn't he be responsible for this 5.7% GDP growth we just had? :D

Gee, I wonder why I thought your question was directed at me. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Ok. Here is the basic way this goes. Bush saw fit to pass one of the larger entitlement expansions we've seen (the Medicare drug benefit) and started two ongoing military adventures. Both of these were passed via supplementals and were not included in the formal budget as such. Which means that deficit spending was required for all three of these. Plus some other smaller things I won't get into.

While Bush did spend too much, do not forget the Democrat controlled Congress had to approve it. I don't recall Bush wanting to spend money, Congress saying no, and Bush overriding them.


Deficit spending, in general, isn't usually a good thing (though both major parties agree it is sometimes necessary for reasons of national security, national pride, national societal goals or simple social justice).

And Obama is deficit spending like Bush on steroids. If deficit spending is this bad, Why are you blaming Bush for it causing problems, but you say by Obama doing it it is a good thing?


The thing is though, deficit spending contributes to the GDP, but it is war spending which is especially inflationary,... Commodity prices rose 140% in the five years after the start of the Iraq War, after a long period of stability in the decade previous.

So we have deficit spending, and it's happening on wars.. deficit spending is inflationary, and war spending is especially inflationary. Inflation can be considered a regressive consumption tax.

Mentioning inflation is moot in relation to Bush as it was not a problem. Commodity prices went up during his term mainly because of China opening up and becoming an economic powerhouse. This created a HUGE demand in commodities demand, thus raising prices. But inflation was not a problem on Bush's watch.


Despite an end to the Cold War military spending has continued (aided and abetted by poiticos from both parties trying to prop up their own districts I will grant), but launching two wars, at once, without even a nod to notion of fiscal responsibility...

So again, why are you and Obama blaming Bush instead of blaming Bush and the Congressional Democrats?


Now we have multiple wars, deficit spending, regressive consumption tax-equivalents that erode away the purchasing power of the middle and lower classes. What else could Bush do wrong?

Again you blame ONLY Bush. As to the wars, once again you forget Congress. No matter if Bush had started 50 wars, Congress could have voted to not pay for it. They voted to pay for the two wars, so if the cost of said wars is a problem, blame BOTH parties that spent the money, not just one.


Well you remember those tax cuts he and the GOP voted in? It turns out that the vast majority of the wealth created in this country in the last decade was created in the "financial sectors".. which is to say brokers, stock markets, financial instruments, derivatives and the like.

And how is this different form Bill Clinton's 'Dot-Com' economy that you and Obama repeatedly praise?


In this way something which was arguably progressive, if not especially prudent policy (encouraging home ownership among the poor and less qualified, sub-prime mortgages) got bundled and then securitized into highly complicated instruments, given a AAA rating and sold off by the big brokerages, who made a killing, and kept their money. All incentivized by the Bush tax cuts.

Ah, my video clearly showed Bush and the Republicans trying to rein this in in 2004 and being stopped by the Democrats. Do I need to post that link again?

Also, even if you discount the video, everything you just posted was 100% legal BEFORE Bush took office. These companies broke no laws, yet you accuse Bush's policies of tax cuts for causing the mess. :confused:


Additionally this sub-prime securitization added to perception that housing prices were bound to rise, that it wasn't a bubble. With inflation driving up prices on homes, the perception that maintaining one's worth in the equity or position held in the mortgage became perceived as highly prudent.. or at least a solid strategy for maintaining wealth in the face of higher and higher costs of living.

So because millions of people made economic decisions that were beyond stupid, this was Bush's fault?


Until the bubble burst.. and everything went straight to hades in a handbasket.

As the sub-prime securities became toxic they dragged down the position of the major financial houses, and then the credit-default swaps added more and more pay-out obligations and it all went side-ways.

100% true. But Bush's policies had nothing to do with this. It just happened on his watch.

Remember though, Carter passed the Community Reinvestment Act in the late 70s FORCING banks to make a certain percentage of high risk mortgage loasns (his goal was to increase minority home ownership).


This is what Obama is having to deal with. God help him. Do I think he will succeed?

Honestly no.

I also think he fail. But I have history on my side, FDR tried alot of the things Obama is, and after 10 years and record deficits, unemployment was at the same rate as when he started the New Deal. An epic failure, yet Obama is using it for a blueprint for his economy. :eek:

[mawali]

Within the field of forensic accounting, even the basic principles will serve as a starting point for intelligent dialogue. Here's why:
1. Ten years ago, the revenue surplus was ~ USD 200 billion (more or less)
2. At what stage did this surplus begin to degenerate into the present deficit status?

Instead of relying on the "talking heads", I am sure with all the sophisticated internet tools, we can see if each purported political party represent what they calim. This is a summary only but one party want to do as much as they can do for most, if not all the citizens' and the other party says we want to make sure ABC budget is balanced while setting up deficit measures but they are NEVER called out for it while they use misdirection and innuendo to decieve the citizens.

Freedom for all, at least those who can separate the reality from the illusion!

[dimethylsea]

1bad65,

As I said earlier "Don't be silly. If I take a non-partisan factual stance on the question you are going to twist that.. because you are an ideologue and a deceptive partisan."

I'm through wasting time typing at you. You get what the teabaggers get. Simple opposition and no debate.

I spent quite a bit of time giving you the measured and detailed response you asked for. I won't make that mistake again.

[BoulderDawg]

I spent quite a bit of time giving you the measured and detailed response you asked for. I won't make that mistake again.

I gave up any serious discussions with this guy long ago. He scans these teabagger blogs and them just parrots them here.

Bad honestly believes that his argument here is somehow very important to the cause.:D

Just stick to the hot button issues that people like Limby and Coulter talk about and you'll be fine!:)

[Reality_Check]

While Bush did spend too much, do not forget the Democrat controlled Congress had to approve it. I don't recall Bush wanting to spend money, Congress saying no, and Bush overriding them.

Medicare Part D was passed in 2003, under a Republican controlled Congress.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ173/content-detail.html


Remember though, Carter passed the Community Reinvestment Act in the late 70s FORCING banks to make a certain percentage of high risk mortgage loasns (his goal was to increase minority home ownership).


Sigh...

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=884981&postcount=1154


That has been addressed.



Here is some interesting information: http://www.traigerlaw.com/publicatio...udy_1-7-08.pdf

"Our study concludes that CRA Banks were substantially less likely than other lenders to make the kinds of risky home purchase loans that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis.

Specifically, our analysis shows that:

(1) CRA Banks were significantly less likely than other lenders to make a high cost loan;

(2) The average APR on high cost loans originated by CRA Banks was appreciably lower than the average APR on high cost loans originated by other lenders;

(3) CRA Banks were more than twice as likely as other lenders to retain originated loans in their portfolio; and

(4) Foreclosure rates were lower in MSAs with greater concentrations of bank branches."



"More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts."

I.e., the majority of the subprime loans were made by companies not subject to CRA.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/heari...barr021308.pdf

Janet Yellin, President of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Board:

"There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households. We should not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families build wealth over the long term."

"According to the 2006 HMDA data, 19 percent of the conventional first lien mortgage loans originated by depository institutions were higher-priced, compared to 23 percent by bank subsidiaries, 38 percent by other bank affiliates, and more than 40 percent by independent mortgage companies. Robert B. Avery, Kenneth P. Brevoort, and Glenn B. Canner, “The 2006 HMDA Data,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Volume 94 (2007), p. A89."

http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html

As I noted above, independent mortgage companies are not subject to the CRA.

[1bad65]

1bad65,

As I said earlier "Don't be silly. If I take a non-partisan factual stance on the question you are going to twist that.. because you are an ideologue and a deceptive partisan."

I'm through wasting time typing at you. You get what the teabaggers get. Simple opposition and no debate.

I spent quite a bit of time giving you the measured and detailed response you asked for. I won't make that mistake again.

Was my reply not "measured and detailed"?

How is this "no debate"? I asked you a question, you answered it, and I commented on your answer. What part of that is not debate?

[1bad65]

I gave up any serious discussions with this guy long ago. He scans these teabagger blogs and them just parrots them here.

And you parrott liberal talking points and at least one known liar.

If you ever catch me parrotting talking points and not linking to the source, I'll accept a permaban. I do my own thinking, like/agree with it or not, it's how I feel and what I believe. I don't need anyone making decisions (or thinking) for me. That's why I'm a Libertarian. Now you guys who accuse me of not thinking are voting for the Party that wants to tell you how to do everything; choose your doctor and insurance, plan your retirement, outlaw certain cars, nationalize banks and car companies, etc.

Isn't saying I cant think for myself highly hypocritical when you support the Party that openly admits it wants to make people's decisions for them?

[Drake]

I want to know why BD keeps calling republicans "teabaggers". It does nothing to add to the debate. In fact, it weakens his points because he wants to keep insulting the group. It's not useful at all.

[1bad65]

Medicare Part D was passed in 2003, under a Republican controlled Congress.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ173/content-detail.html

I already said that was a mistake of his. But honestly, you aren't saying that caused this entire mess are you?


Sigh...

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=884981&postcount=1154

So show us how Bush deregulated the industry and thus caused the problem....

[Reality_Check]

I already said that was a mistake of his. But honestly, you aren't saying that caused this entire mess are you?

Nope, just clarifying your comment.


So show us how Bush deregulated the industry and thus caused the problem....

Nope, just re-refuting your CRA talking point.

Oh, what the hell, I'm bored.

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=903143&postcount=762




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081201/...V_nA2Nd6is0NUE

"The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

'Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories,' California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.

Bowing to aggressive lobbying — along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK — regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.

...

In 2005, faced with ominous signs the housing market was in jeopardy, bank regulators proposed new guidelines for banks writing risky loans. Today, in the midst of the worst housing recession in a generation, the proposal reads like a list of what-ifs:

_Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.

_Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.

_Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn't be crippling.

_Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.

_Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.

Those proposals all were stripped from the final rules. None required congressional approval or the president's signature.

'In hindsight, it was spot on,' said Jeffrey Brown, a former top official at the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, one of the first agencies to raise concerns about risky lending."

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=903161&postcount=770




http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ic_crisis.html

"It's true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie – a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was 'overblown.' Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities 'ill-advised.'

But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill...oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it."

...

"So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:


The Federal Reserve (http://www.business.cch.com/bankingfinance/focus/news/Subprime_WP_rev.pdf), which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.

Home buyers (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1824), who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.

Congress (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051009sp.pdf), which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.

Real estate agents (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1824), most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.

The Clinton Administration (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-rejects-blame-for-financial-crisis-2008-09-25.html), which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.

Mortgage brokers (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/econtrouble_08-20.html), who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040223/), who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.

Wall Street firms (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/econtrouble_08-20.html), who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.

The Bush administration (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/20/business/prexy.php), which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.

An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/07/mark_to_market.html), which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.

Collective delusion (http://www.business.cch.com/bankingfinance/focus/news/Subprime_WP_rev.pdf), or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up."

[sanjuro_ronin]

RC is quite correct, as I have said many times, there is more then enough blame to go around for everyone.

[BoulderDawg]

Of course

There is almost no difference between a democrat and a republican. If any Dem on the hill were a true liberal he honestly could not morally serve in congress.

That's the reason I don't even bother with a national politics anymore.

[1bad65]

RC is quite correct, as I have said many times, there is more then enough blame to go around for everyone.

Then if RC and Dime would just admit it, the debate would be over.

However, I'm certain they are keeping the 'Blame Bush' bs alive in case their guy fails. That way they can use it to give Obama a free pass when he invariably fails.

[1bad65]

There is almost no difference between a democrat and a republican. If any Dem on the hill were a true liberal he honestly could not morally serve in congress.

Once again showing you have no place in any rational political discussion.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Then if RC and Dime would just admit it, the debate would be over.

However, I'm certain they are keeping the 'Blame Bush' bs alive in case their guy fails. That way they can use it to give Obama a free pass when he invariably fails.

Bush had A LOT to do with it, but Clinton is NOT blameless and Obama has YET to do anything to fix it.

[BoulderDawg]

Once again showing you have no place in any rational political discussion.

Because I don't agree with 99% of the people in Washington I should not have a voice?

Typical teabagger logic

[1bad65]

Because I don't agree with 99% of the people in Washington I should not have a voice?

You just spew talking points and trumpet a con man. You refuse to source your 'data', you spew racial slurs, you call names, etc. In short, you bring nothing to the discussion. I only deal with you so others can see your craziness, to be honest. IMO, it helps make my points with rational observers when they see one my most vocal debate opponents is a loon. But as Drake said earlier, often times I don't even have to post a word, you make yourself look stupid/ignorant/nuts.

Saying that, you have every right to vote for the candidate of your choice in any election. Of course finding a candidate whose world view mirrors yours may be an impossible task.

[BoulderDawg]

I only deal with you so others can see your craziness,

So you're afraid of my opinion?

This also fits into my claims that you feel you are some how a crusader and that posting on this board will "Help the cause"

That's the difference between us. I state my opinion and let others state theirs. I don't have to discredit anybody.

[1bad65]

So you're afraid of my opinion?

Again, that sounds like something the admitted wife-beater would say. :rolleyes:


That's the difference between us. I state my opinion and let others state theirs. I don't have to discredit anybody.

No, you say you are presenting facts, but when asked to back them up you refuse to.

[Reality_Check]

Then if RC and Dime would just admit it, the debate would be over.

Funny coming from the person who wrote this.


I admit the **** hit the fan on his watch, but it had nothing to do with his policies.


But Bush's policies had nothing to do with this. It just happened on his watch.

Does President Bush bear any responsibility for the economic meltdown?

[1bad65]

Funny coming from the person who wrote this.

I still stand by that. Again, no one here has shown how his policies caused the mess we are in.


Does President Bush bear any responsibility for the economic meltdown?

Very little. He spent too much, yes. But the root of the problem was the housing bubble bursting. And Bush actually tried to regulate that in 2004, but was stopped by the very people (Dodd, Frank, etc) who now claim they can fix the problem. :rolleyes: People repeatedly say Bush caused this mess by deregulating big business, but they can't point to a single industry he deregulated and how that caused any of the mess Obama is dealing with.

Keep in mind, I openly admit Bush spent too much. But Obama is spending money like it's going out of style.

And fyi, Obama's new budget released today says unemplyment will average 10% in 2010 and 9.2% in 2011. :eek: And his last predidction, that the 'stimulus' bill would keep unemplyment under 8% was so far off, it's safe to say unemplyment will be well over 10% before election time, and likely at least 10% in 2011. That's scary, very scary.

[David Jamieson]

Clinton left a surplus.

Bush parlayed that into a deficit.

Obama is left holding a bag where he has no choice but to leave the US in that same deficit.

end of story.

Or, you could just let the american economy completely collapse and russia and china take over the world using India as the call desk.

Yeah, that'll work. lol

spend like you've never spent before! Run with it Mr. president! lol

yikes, now is a good time to be Canadian, lemme tell ya. :p

[Kansuke]

Clinton left a surplus.



Yeah, he left it on that fat girl's dress.

[Kansuke]

Simply put I wouldn't appear on FOX neither no more than I would appear on the Limby show. Why would I be on a show or Network that insults me at every term?

There would be no upside. No one watching would be presuaded by his words and for weeks afterwards snippets of the speech would be used to redicule the president.



I sure hope Obama makes improvements in education so you can finally learn English... :rolleyes:


Seriously, what the hell is that mess? Did you complete the 5th grade?

[Reality_Check]

Very little. He spent too much, yes. But the root of the problem was the housing bubble bursting. And Bush actually tried to regulate that in 2004, but was stopped by the very people (Dodd, Frank, etc) who now claim they can fix the problem. :rolleyes: People repeatedly say Bush caused this mess by deregulating big business, but they can't point to a single industry he deregulated and how that caused any of the mess Obama is dealing with.


Please read the sections in bold.

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=903143&postcount=762


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081201/...V_nA2Nd6is0NUE

"The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

'Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories,' California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.

Bowing to aggressive lobbying — along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK — regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.

...

In 2005, faced with ominous signs the housing market was in jeopardy, bank regulators proposed new guidelines for banks writing risky loans. Today, in the midst of the worst housing recession in a generation, the proposal reads like a list of what-ifs:

_Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.

_Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.

_Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn't be crippling.

_Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.

_Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.

Those proposals all were stripped from the final rules. None required congressional approval or the president's signature.

'In hindsight, it was spot on,' said Jeffrey Brown, a former top official at the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, one of the first agencies to raise concerns about risky lending."

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=903161&postcount=770


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ic_crisis.html (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html)

"It's true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie – a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was 'overblown.' Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities 'ill-advised.'

But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill...oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it."

So, Sanjuro says there is plenty of blame to go around, including the Bush Administration (as my post demonstrated). You "agree" that if only we agree with you that the Bush Administration had nothing to do with the economic meltdown, the debate would be over. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Please read the sections in bold.

Ok, I'll do that.

""The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents."

So, where did he deregulate? Which regulations did he get rid of? Notice it says "proposed crackdowns", not "repealed regulations". Try again.

"But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill...oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it."

FYI, Bush was President. This happened in the Senate. How is that Bush's fault the law did not get passed? Did the Senate pass it and Bush veto it?


So, Sanjuro says there is plenty of blame to go around, including the Bush Administration (as my post demonstrated). You "agree" that if only we agree with you that the Bush Administration had nothing to do with the economic meltdown, the debate would be over. :rolleyes:

Read my posts please. Where did I say that? Are you putting words in my mouth?

[Reality_Check]

So, where did he deregulate? Which regulations did he get rid of? Notice it says "proposed crackdowns", not "repealed regulations". Try again.

I did not say he deregulated. He had the opportunity to do so and he passed.


FYI, Bush was President. This happened in the Senate. How is that Bush's fault the law did not get passed? Did the Senate pass it and Bush veto it?

And yet you continuously blame Barney Frank (who is in the House) and Chris Dodd. Besides, wasn't President Bush the leader of the Republican Party?


Read my posts please. Where did I say that? Are you putting words in my mouth?


I admit the **** hit the fan on his watch, but it had nothing to do with his policies.


But Bush's policies had nothing to do with this. It just happened on his watch.


Then if RC and Dime would just admit it, the debate would be over.


I still stand by that. Again, no one here has shown how his policies caused the mess we are in.

[1bad65]

I did not say he deregulated. He had the opportunity to do so and he passed.

Obama does, he repeatedly says Bush's deregulations caused the mess. Do you admit now he is lying, or at best stretching the truth?


And yet you continuously blame Barney Frank (who is in the House) and Chris Dodd.

I'm not the only one. YOUR OWN SOURCE DOES!

"It's true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie – a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was 'overblown.' Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities 'ill-advised.'"

I still stand by my statement that Bush's policies did not cause this mess. It may have been a factor, but in no way is he the complete cause of it.

[1bad65]

Besides, wasn't President Bush the leader of the Republican Party?

Nope. If anyone could be considered the leader of any Party it would be that Party's National Chairman.

Look at Obama, he wanted healthcare passed and his own Party had a filibuster-proof Senate and an overwhelming House majority. Yet he couldn't get it passed after a full year of trying. Yet you expect Bush to tell a Senate without a filibuster-proof Republican majority and a Democrat controlled House to pass his agenda? Get real. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Again, from YOUR source:

"Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities 'ill-advised.'"

So it looks like Bush was trying to regulate! Yet Obama is saying Bush's deregulation caused the mess. :confused: How can this be????

[BoulderDawg]

RC just let it go. This guy is just going to continue to post endless neo blogs.

True is the financial institutions simply run amok under Bush knowing they could get away with it. They've develops such complex options that they will argue for years about the legality of them.....of course the Teabaggers will not argue that much.:D

If he wants to say it's not Bush's fault then fine.

[Reality_Check]

I'm not the only one. YOUR OWN SOURCE DOES!


But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill...oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it."

[Reality_Check]

I still stand by my statement that Bush's policies did not cause this mess. It may have been a factor, but in no way is he the complete cause of it.

If it was a factor, it was a cause. I never said it was the only cause (as my earlier post demonstrates). You have been saying that President Bush's policies had nothing to do with the economic meltdown. I see you have now changed your position.

Was that so hard? ;)

[1bad65]

RC just let it go. This guy is just going to continue to post endless neo blogs.

So RC's source is a "neo blog"? In case you are too stupid to figure it out, I quoted HIS SOURCE and you say I'm parotting a "neo blog". Idiot.

Does RC know he is parrotting neo blogs?

[1bad65]

But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill...oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it."

So do you honestly think the Democrat controlled House was gonna approve it? Frank was the House Banking Committee Chairman, and he openly said he was against it! And the Democrats (Nancy Pelosi) controlled the House agenda.

I bet it was a case of the Senate saying basically 'Why bother. Even if it passed here, its DOA in the House'.

[1bad65]

If it was a factor, it was a cause. I never said it was the only cause (as my earlier post demonstrates). You have been saying that President Bush's policies had nothing to do with the economic meltdown. I see you have now changed your position.

Was that so hard? ;)

Are you saying it was ALL his fault or ALL the fault of his policies? I just want to see where you stand.

[Reality_Check]

So do you honestly think the Democrat controlled House was gonna approve it? Frank was the House Banking Committee Chairman, and he openly said he was against it! And the Democrats (Nancy Pelosi) controlled the House agenda.

I bet it was a case of the Senate saying basically 'Why bother. Even if it passed here, its DOA in the House'.

Um...back in 2005 the Republicans were the majority party in the House. The Democrats did not take over until after the 2006 elections.

[Reality_Check]

Are you saying it was ALL his fault or ALL the fault of his policies? I just want to see where you stand.

I never said or implied either. Read my earlier post that lays out the apportionment of blame.

[BoulderDawg]

Um...back in 2005 the Republicans were the majority party in the House. The Democrats did not take over until after the 2006 elections.

Lokks like he's got ya there!:eek:


No matter through, it really doesn't matter which party is in control.

[1bad65]

Um...back in 2005 the Republicans were the majority party in the House. The Democrats did not take over until after the 2006 elections.

I stand corrected. But again, the Republicans had a slight advantage in the House and Senate. Yet Obama had a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate and a 40+ seat majority in the House.

So my point still stands, considering Obama could not get healthcare through Congress with a much larger majority than Bush had, how is it Bush's fault the proposed legislation never passed Congress?

[1bad65]

No matter through, it really doesn't matter which party is in control.

Be quiet. Rational adults are having a dicussion/debate.

[1bad65]

I never said or implied either. Read my earlier post that lays out the apportionment of blame.

So some of the fault lies with the Democrats in Congress, correct?

Remember, I'm on record for saying Bush did spend too much money.