President Obama BEHIND 7pts - Everything is backfiring

[King Mayan]

only dumbfukks would even consider voting for the guy who made it much worse in half the time

you cant make this shit up.

[muldoon]

Who said that every American DESERVES to own a home?

...

One of the things that we've got to do is to address problems straight on and deal with them in a way that helps us meet goals. And so I want to talk about a couple of goals and -- one goal and a problem.


The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so.

- GW BUSH

[Shaudius]

are you really excited about King Obama's first term? Really? Is the bar set so low that democrats will rather vote him in for another 4 years rather that give someone else a shot to see if they can do a better job? How on Earth can another President do worse? You want this entitlement society? Massive spending? Bailing out his union buddies? I haven't even mentioned all the lies.

When the other guy's solutions are to go back to the policies that were in place when the economic shit hit the fan, why not? Why would I trust someone who shares the same ideology as the guy who was steering the ship when everything went wrong.

How many examples throughout history do we have to mention how government is inept and shouldn't be involved in business? But yet they keep telling you that they want to be more involved and want more of your money to squander. And some of you just want to let them. Unreal.

Less examples than we have of business, when being left to its own devices, running roughshot over the populace and not caring who they hurt. Why do you think there was smog in LA in the 70s? Why do you think that the FDA exists? Why do you think that USDA exists? How about asking why Air Traffic Controllers are federal employees. Why do you think we have an FDIC or an SEC.

Its because those businesses when left to their own devices completely ****** over people, causing economic disaster or cost countless lives. Why would you support someone who advocates we dismantle regulatory regimes or gut their enforcement capabilities by defunding them, when the whole reason they exist in the first place is because businesses don't care about you or me and left to their own devices would just do what they did in the past.

Who said that every American DESERVES to own a home? Who created Freddie and Fannie? Who ignored the obvious housing bubble that could only burst one day? This entitlement attitude got the US in this mess in the first place, then 3+ years of more of it and you want to vote for another 4 more years? OMFG!

Ummm, Fannie Mac has existed since 1938. So is your argument that we never should have created this institutions that have been in place for 70+ years? Did they not work for 70 years?

You are also ignoring completely one of the primary causes of the financial crisis. The repeal of Glass-Steigal. Both parties bare responsibility for that, but it allowed banks to make riskier investments than ever before. It allowed banks to package junk derivatives to other banks and create a cascade effect when the housing market collapsed. It would have been fine if the banks had just kept their own bad debt, but instead they were allowed to make it investment vehicles for their investment side which was allowed to mingle with their non-investment side. It didn't become an investment bank failing, it became a huge financial institution with regular banking operations failing. But guess what the Republican party doesn't want to do? Regulate the derivatives market, the very thing that caused the financial crisis in the first place. They want to repeal Dodd-Frank, and deregulate the very industry that needs regulation right now, the financial sector. They also tried and tried to get the person set to be appointed in charge of CFPB not appointed so that the agency couldn't start to do its job.

So yes, I do believe that Obama deserves four more years in face of what the other side wants to do. Which is deregulate an industry that caused the financial crisis and dismantle regulatory regimes put in place to protect the public from businesses that do not have their best interests at heart, and certainly have their best interests at heart less than the government.

[DwightShrute]

...

nice spin muldoon. Ok so what if its the 'GOAL'? why not? good to have goals isn't it.

Forcing banks to give mortgages to those that can't afford it is totally different.

[Shaudius]

nice spin muldoon. Ok so what if its the 'GOAL'? why not? good to have goals isn't it.

Forcing banks to give mortgages to those that can't afford it is totally different.

Say what? Who forced any bank to give a mortgage to anyone?

[muldoon]

nice spin muldoon. Ok so what if its the 'GOAL'? why not? good to have goals isn't it.

So "spin" is finding a quote that answered your question?

Forcing banks to give mortgages to those that can't afford it is totally different.

The rest of his speech was touting the various minority lending programs Fannie/Freddy had for low income or poor credit people.

Maybe state your facts (in the form of actual cited quotes) instead of asking questions - this way you won't have to worry you don't like the answers you get (and have to rely on the stand by of calling it "spin")

[DwightShrute]

Less examples than we have of business, when being left to its own devices, running roughshot over the populace and not caring who they hurt. Why do you think there was smog in LA in the 70s? Why do you think that the FDA exists? Why do you think that USDA exists? How about asking why Air Traffic Controllers are federal employees. Why do you think we have an FDIC or an SEC.

Its because those businesses when left to their own devices completely ****** over people, causing economic disaster or cost countless lives. Why would you support someone who advocates we dismantle regulatory regimes or gut their enforcement capabilities by defunding them, when the whole reason they exist in the first place is because businesses don't care about you or me and left to their own devices would just do what they did in the past.

Ok now I am not sure if you are kidding around. I never once gave the impression that I was for zero government. It's understood they have their place in our lives, like the ones you mentioned and many more. I just dont think they should take your money and bail out their union buddies like they did the untied auto workers union. GM should have been let alone like any other business. Look at their stock today? Toyota is over taking GM. Just bad money after bad money. Your money. You could demand your government do much much more with those billions rather than justify it somehow.

The government spends millions on providing these rechargeable outlets so that you can charge your Prius in case you need a charge. Why? Did the government build gas stations in the passed in case you needed gas? Of course not. The companies that wanted to sell the gasoline did. Why the change?

Ummm, Fannie Mac has existed since 1938. So is your argument that we never should have created this institutions that have been in place for 70+ years? Did they not work for 70 years?

seriously? Lots of things have been around 70 years. Even government. So what? Freddie and Fannie didn't do what they did 70 years ago as they did a decade ago.

You guys need to stop this attitude that government will solve it all for us. This thinking has to change. Yes private business will fail at times but that is ok because Joe tax payer won't have to bail em out because they aren't donating millions in union dues to elect a party.

[DwightShrute]

Say what? Who forced any bank to give a mortgage to anyone?

come on. We have all read and seen the reports that if you were a bank that would't take a mortgage from Freddie and Fannie then they wouldn't send you more business but to another bank.

[muldoon]

You guys need to stop this attitude that government will solve it all for us.

Show me where anyone has said the government will solve IT ALL for us.

Just because some people believe the government still has a role that's different than yours, doesn't mean they want government running everything.

Remember when Exxon stepped up to the plate and solved that under water gushing oil leak? Free Market to the rescue!

[ByeShea]

Going to be funny to read this thread come November.

The writing has been on the wall for months. Obama is outta here. And long before November comes people will see him struggling and wonder how the hell he botched the past two months.

Romney and is organization is competent.

[DwightShrute]

Show me where anyone has said the government will solve IT ALL for us.

Just because some people believe the government still has a role that's different than yours, doesn't mean they want government running everything.

Remember when Exxon stepped up to the plate and solved that under water gushing oil leak? Free Market to the rescue!

first of all, many people offered to help stop the leak and clean up but government wanted to study it. Look at all the wasted trailers for Katrina victims. Millions just sat and rotted and now are gonna be destroyed.

I was emphasizing and exaggerating when saying government will solve IT ALL for us because that seems to be what some of you want. More government. why? Its a failure in business. It wastes money because its rarely accountable. Hey, if they did do a great job over the many last decades then I couldn't say shit. I would be a believer. Facts tell us they shouldn't be in business.

[Shaudius]

come on. We have all read and seen the reports that if you were a bank that would't take a mortgage from Freddie and Fannie then they wouldn't send you more business but to another bank.

What do you mean take a mortgage from Freddie and Fannie? Freddie and Fannie take mortgages from others. They buy them and bundle them. They bought lots of bad debt that the banks sold them. No one forced the banks to deal with Freddie and Fannie, they did because they viewed it as low risk because Freddie and Fannie carried an implicit government guarantee, so the banks would make bad loans and then sell them to Freddie and Fannie who would bundle them and sell them to investors.

There was no incentive on the part of the banks to make good loans, and they could hide bad loans in the assets they sold to Freddie and Fannie.

[Shaudius]

I was emphasizing and exaggerating when saying government will solve IT ALL for us because that seems to be what some of you want. More government. why? Its a failure in business. It wastes money because its rarely accountable. Hey, if they did do a great job over the many last decades then I couldn't say shit. I would be a believer. Facts tell us they shouldn't be in business.

Government isn't in business(in general), government regulates business. But beyond that, government operates on a less per capita budget today than it has in decades, government is currently attempting to do more with less, and the Republicans would have it too this responsibility with even less. If you'll notice most Republican proposals don't involve taking responsibilities away(although some do) but most do require the agencies to operate with less money. This can only lead to sloppy regulatory oversight.

There are certainly areas that government shouldn't be in, but that's not the current debate right now, especially not on the right, the right seems to want across the board cuts(in personnel through attrition) in discretionary spending but doesn't want to cut any defense spending which makes up 1/5 of the federal government budget.

Just look at it, the House voted(Friday I believe) to turn back the defense cuts mandated by the failing of the supercommittee. Does that seem like a group that's actually serious about cutting? They didn't vote to repeal the mandatory cuts in non-defense discretionary spending, gee I wonder why.

[DwightShrute]

What do you mean take a mortgage from Freddie and Fannie? Freddie and Fannie take mortgages from others. They buy them and bundle them. They bought lots of bad debt that the banks sold them. No one forced the banks to deal with Freddie and Fannie, they did because they viewed it as low risk because Freddie and Fannie carried an implicit government guarantee, so the banks would make bad loans and then sell them to Freddie and Fannie who would bundle them and sell them to investors.

There was no incentive on the part of the banks to make good loans, and they could hide bad loans in the assets they sold to Freddie and Fannie.

I worded it wrong. Thanks

Are you saying Freddie and Fannie is a success? Why does government have to get involved in mortgages? Why?

but From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year. The U.S. subprime mortgage crisis was one of the first indicators of the late-2000s financial crisis, characterized by a rise in subprime mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures, and the resulting decline of securities backed by said mortgages.
The percentage of new lower-quality subprime mortgages rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2003 to 2006

[Shaudius]

I worded it wrong. Thanks

Are you saying Freddie and Fannie is a success? Why does government have to get involved in mortgages? Why?

but From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year. The U.S. subprime mortgage crisis was one of the first indicators of the late-2000s financial crisis, characterized by a rise in subprime mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures, and the resulting decline of securities backed by said mortgages.
The percentage of new lower-quality subprime mortgages rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2003 to 2006

Because the banks could get away with? They packaged bad debt in with good, and Freddie and Fannie bought it.

If you're wondering why the government has to get involved with mortgages, ask FDR. As I said, Fannie has been in this business of buying mortgages from banks for over 70 years. I think the better question is, why were banks suddenly offering subprime mortgages to poor people and people with bad credit starting around the turn of the century.

[DwightShrute]

Government isn't in business(in general), government regulates business. But beyond that, government operates on a less per capita budget today than it has in decades, government is currently attempting to do more with less, .

simply incorrect. Thanks to the people who voted in 2010, the spending has been slowed down. What happened to the 800 billion stimulus shovel ready jobs? All those roads and bridges that needed fixing?

Hey we can go back and forth all day long but to me it comes down to the facts.

Obama promised change. He said he cut cut the deficit in half but did the complete opposite. He promised he would have the most transparent administration ever and would unite the country and both parties. Again, the complete opposite. He must go. He might be a decent guy but he is clueless and has failed miserably as he did in Illinois as Senator. 4 more years of this? Not a chance.

[Shaudius]

simply incorrect. Thanks to the people who voted in 2010, the spending has been slowed down. What happened to the 800 billion stimulus shovel ready jobs? All those roads and bridges that needed fixing?

A number of them happened, but of course you won't believe the figures on that, so I don't know why I bother to respond to your assertion regarding the stimulus.

Obama promised change. He said he cut cut the deficit in half but did the complete opposite. He promised he would have the most transparent administration ever and would unite the country and both parties. Again, the complete opposite. He must go. He might be a decent guy but he is clueless and has failed miserably as he did in Illinois as Senator. 4 more years of this? Not a chance.

Obama is not a dictator, he can't unilaterally decide congressional budgetary policy. Its also hard to unite both parties, when one of the leaders of the other party says that their number one political priority should be to make you a one term president. Do you honestly think that Romney will do any better working with Democrats? Hell, the guy who just won the primary in Indiana has said that Republicans shouldn't work with Democrats, that they should force them into submission and he's probably about to be a senator. Joy of Joys.

[DwightShrute]

Obama is not a dictator, he can't unilaterally decide congressional budgetary policy. Its also hard to unite both parties, when one of the leaders of the other party says that their number one political priority should be to make you a one term president.

we he's right. If you want anything that resembles America again, Obama must go. His is much like dictator. Ok, and if you are consistent then, what about Harry Reid? Isn't he the senate leader? How many budgets have the GOP send his way and he hasn't even bothered to take it to a vote while his own president has gone over 1100 days without a budget. Laughable.

The fact is this ... you know the government is doing a good job when you rarely hear about them. If they are always in the news then things are usually fukked up.

[Shaudius]

we he's right. If you want anything that resembles America again, Obama must go. His is much like dictator. Ok, and if you are consistent then, what about Harry Reid? Isn't he the senate leader? How many budgets have the GOP send his way and he hasn't even bothered to take it to a vote while his own president has gone over 1100 days without a budget. Laughable.

As part of the budget ceiling debate last year, the Congress set the budget for this year and next year, so no vote is actually needed because FY2013 levels have already been set by that debate. What the Republicans are trying to do is change the agreed upon terms of last year. What you are seeing out of the Republicans right now is trying to change that outcome, and also showboating because they know their budget won't pass the senate, it failed 40-57 last year, and it wouldn't pass this year.

The fact is this ... you know the government is doing a good job when you rarely hear about them. If they are always in the news then things are usually fukked up.

The government is always in the news because its an election year, so you see a lot of election year showboating on both sides. From the non-starter Ryan budget plan, to Obama stumping to messages out of individual congresspeople. Also in the day and age of the 24 hour news cycle, they are reporting on things that wouldn't get a second look in the world of nightly news and newspapers. They'd be here one minute and gone the next, all part of the society we live in.

Also please describe exactly what policies of Obama's you disagree with and how you think the Republicans would enact policies that you agree with more, what are the specific things you disagree with and think need fixing.

[DwightShrute]

Shaudius, even though I disagree with nearly everything you believe to be true and I feel sorry that you do belive the things that you say, I will commend you on your mature debating skills.

[Shaudius]

Shaudius, even though I disagree with nearly everything you believe to be true and I feel sorry that you do belive the things that you say, I will commend you on your mature debating skills.

I think you'd be surprised about what I believe. I am not some sort of progressive liberal but I do have a fundamental belief about the situation we are in that slants me toward Obama, and that's this. I believe we are in a demand side recession(or lack of growth because of demand anyway). I also believe that you cannot cut yourself out of a demand side recession. You have to spend yourself out of one. This debate between Hayek and Keynes was settled over seven decades ago. Hayek lost, as much as I loved reading, The Road to Serfdom"

Austerity didn't get us out of the last demand side recession, the great depression, increased production and demand did. So I fail to see how austerity now will get us out of one. Rare is the example of austerity fixing economies. But all I see from the Republicans is austerity suggestions and supply side economics. Its clear that supply side economics isn't working, large companies are making record profits, while the overall economy faces sluggish growth. Now some of this profit is from overseas, but not all of it, companies, and the stock market, are doing fine(although externally in Europe things could bring that on its head).

The problem that I have with the Democratic party is that when times are good they aren't willing to cut. But that's not a problem for 2012, that's hopefully a problem for 2016, when I will gladly vote in whatever Tea Party guy wants to come in and cut the size of government(and even reevaluate some regulations, but hopefully not the ones specifically put in place to prevent another financial crisis), and no I don't believe it will be too late then, afterall, the Ryan budget plan doesn't even purport to balance the budget until 2040, clearly we can survive 4 years at current(or even slightly escalated) spending levels.

I just believe that cutting now, and across the board, while not even touching defense spending is poor planning at best. It as if they don't think that government spending contributes to the economy(newsflash it does, and not just throw government employees spending, but also contractors and office space and resources delegated to others). I also don't like the scapegoating that goes on on both sides of the aisle, but I especially question the scapegoating that the Republicans like to lash on federal employees, as if cutting benefits to a group that represents between pay and benefits 5% of the federal budget is really going to solve anything, it just makes for good political copy.

I do believe we can survive another four years of Obama, and certainly don't think that Romney's policies will do anything to get us out of a demand induced downturn. Because the dirty little secret is this, businesses aren't hiring not because what Republicans would have you believe, regulatory uncertainty, they aren't hiring because of lack of demand.

[RubberKettle]

One of the longer yet productive posts on SBR

[MC PICKS]

[Sam Odom]

What a strange political environment we live in... I'm 100% sure if a Conservative News Outlet had put out the very same cover as Newsweek's - there would be universal 'Outrage' from the Left & Gay Groups

[MC PICKS]

What a strange political environment we live in... I'm 100% sure if a Conservative News Outlet had put out the very same cover as Newsweek's - there would be universal 'Outrage' from the Left & Gay Groups

Yeah for sure sam, if it was the weekly standard they would have had kristol and barnes drug out of the office in handcuffs. They said on fox news that the administration is gonna possibly make newsweek retract this cover which doesnt shock me a bit, so much for that right to free speech and freedom of the press laws.

[Shaudius]

Yeah for sure sam, if it was the weekly standard they would have had kristol and barnes drug out of the office in handcuffs. They said on fox news that the administration is gonna possibly make newsweek retract this cover which doesnt shock me a bit, so much for that right to free speech and freedom of the press laws.

And what did they cite for their belief that the administration was going to force Newsweek to retract the cover? Was it just some political commentator saying, "I bet the Obama administration will make Newsweek retract the cover..."?

[MC PICKS]

And what did they cite for their belief that the administration was going to force Newsweek to retract the cover? Was it just some political commentator saying, "I bet the Obama administration will make Newsweek retract the cover..."?

Just what i overheard, didnt catch the reason behind it.

[GunShard]

Ron Paul should run for 3rd party so I can vote for him.

[stevenash]

I will commend you on your mature debating skills.

He is good

[Shaudius]

Where is Sam Odom's post about the just released Fox News poll that has Obama leading 46 to 39? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...idential-race/

[Sam Odom]

Shaudius , YOU KNOW FOX CANNOT BE TRUSTED

LOL

[Shaudius]

Shaudius , YOU KNOW FOX CANNOT BE TRUSTED

LOL

Me five days ago, "As I've said before, I trust polls that come out of Fox News before I trust Rasmussen Reports, he's just completely out of touch with the proper way to do a public opinion poll in a landline light society."

[crustyme]

Who said that every American DESERVES to own a home? Who created Freddie and Fannie? Who ignored the obvious housing bubble that could only burst one day? This entitlement attitude got the US in this mess in the first place, then 3+ years of more of it and you want to vote for another 4 more years? OMFG!

President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003

Last year I set a goal to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners in America by the end of the decade. That is an attainable goal; that is an essential goal. And we're making progress toward that goal. In the past 18 months, more than 1 million minority families have become homeowners. (Applause.) And there's more that we can do to achieve the goal. The law I sign today will help us build on this progress in a very practical way.
Many people are able to afford a monthly mortgage payment, but are unable to make the down payment. So this legislation will authorize $200 million per year in down payment assistance to at least 40,000 low-income families. These funds will help American families achieve their goals, and at the same time, strengthen our communities.



http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...0031216-9.html