jump to last post 1-43 of 43 discussions (127 posts)

What world is Obama living in?

  1. tobey100 profile image60
    tobey100posted 7 years ago

    Obama states "It not that the people are mad about the past year or two years, they're mad about the past eight years".  What?  So this savior of mankind, after the stunning upset in MA. is telling us that the people are so mad at the republicans and George Bush they elected a republican senator in the most democratic state in the union?  He's blaming the Bush administration for the loss in MA?

    1. Harvey Stelman profile image60
      Harvey Stelmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      tobey,

      He has always lived in the "LAND OF OBAMA." Unless Michelle kicks his ass.

      1. tobey100 profile image60
        tobey100posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I can see that happening.  She looks pretty mean to me.

    2. profile image0
      B.C. BOUTIQUEposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Obama seems to be living in a very odd fantasy world..Welcome to the Dream he never woke up from sad

    3. MikeNV profile image82
      MikeNVposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Obama has his own agenda and is doing everything he can to force it on the people whether they want it or not.

      Now there are some very uneducated people (People who don't actually read the details of the bills he is trying to force into law - not people who are not intelligent... they are just uninformed) and some people who favor Socialism and Communism who are behind him.

      But for the majority of Americans who want Politicians to do what is truly in the interest of the American People his deception is being exposed.

      There is nothing Democratic about the way he is trying to ENFORCE his agenda on the people.  He is a poor example of a Democrat.

      I watched the Entire State of the Union Address and not once did Obama actually adress the core problem which is the monetary system itself.  I watched the Republican Response and neither did they.

      Why are Politicians pretending to not know that DEBT is past the point of equalibruim.  We can not pay back our debt... it's way to large.

      Obama's plans are to spend more and to borrow more.  He claims that taxes have not been raised... when in fact all over the country States are doing money grabs and raising taxes because of Failed Federal Government Policies and failure to address the core issue of DEBT.

      Obama talks of deficits but only in a "It's not my fault context"... and it's not his fault that he inherited a huge deficit.  But it is his fault for continuing to support spending bills that are accelerating the impending crash.

      Budget Deficits and Budget Surpluses mean nothing.  They are imaginary.

      If the Government Budgets for $2 Trillion and spends more than that we have a Budget Deficit, if the Government spends less we have a Surplus.  BUT... we still have a deficit that can not be repaid.

      It's accounting trickery and media spin.

      The United States is in fact Bankrupt.

      1. Harvey Stelman profile image60
        Harvey Stelmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Mike,

        Obama just follows what Wilson, Taft, and Roosevelt tried. For man  proported to be so intelligent (I think that's a bunch of crap), he can read well. The majority of people have NO idea what a good speaker is. If they don't know that; how can you expect them to understand history and economics?

    4. Harvey Stelman profile image60
      Harvey Stelmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Tobey,

      Obama lives on Uranus!

    5. profile image0
      cosetteposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      LaLa Land?

  2. Arthur Fontes profile image84
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    I can only say this from the perspective of a Massachusetts resident who was very interested in this weeks election.

    People in MA were a little disturbed that Democrats just assumed what the people would do, vote Democrat.

    Martha Coakley destroyed herself with sound bytes.  She said some silly things.

    George Bush had no part in this at all.

    Brown is a great candidate.  He talks the talk.  We will see?

    1. tobey100 profile image60
      tobey100posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I think you bring up the most important point.  What will he do now?  He said all the right things, now his actions need to match.

    2. profile image0
      Ghost32posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I'm in Arizona, but even from this distance, that's exactly the way I read it.

  3. NewYorker profile image62
    NewYorkerposted 7 years ago

    Obama is an idiot, and it was a mistake electing him. A mistake we have to learn from.

    Clinton was our last DECENT president..

    1. Daniel Carter profile image80
      Daniel Carterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      lol  lol  lol

      1. tobey100 profile image60
        tobey100posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry, I was gone for a few minutes there.  Had to throwup.

        1. profile image0
          Ghost32posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          lol

  4. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 7 years ago

    I meet Bill when he was here in Ireland in 1995, I also met his Economic advisor Ron Brown....I liked them both...but that does not mean that we cant remember Monica... smile

  5. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    Easy answer, he is living in the world of stimulation. lol

  6. brimancandy profile image81
    brimancandyposted 7 years ago

    Obama is living in a world that is being created for him by a media that wants to destroy his reputation, by spreading a bunch of bullshit, because he didn't sparkle as much as they wanted him to. They were hoping for a media circus, and when it didn't happen it pissed them off, so now they are going out of their way to blame him for it.

    For example, they are blaming the entire banking scams on him.
    HELLO! media. The banking crisis started with president Bush, he's the one that handed out all this bailout money, starting mith mortgage compainies and AIG. Do they think America is stupid?

    Everything that Obama is trying to do, is being stonewalled by the republican party, so that they can blame him for everything
    that isn't being done. Everyone knows it, yet people believe everything that the media says.

    Well don't believe it. It's all a bunch of lies created by people who are mad because their loser candidate and his stupid bitch choice for vice president didn't elected.

    It is our entire goverment that is to blame for our problems, not just Obama. If they could work together without all this bitching and moaning, they might actually get something done for a change. I'm sick of one person being blamed.

    The difference between Obama and Bush is, Bush pushed his ideas wether people liked it or not. If you didn't agree with him, you were replaced with someone who did. There were more lies and cover-ups during the Bush Administration than any other
    president since Nixon. And, he is the only president I know of
    that could sue, to be elected to office.

    We are in far better shape without him. And, I dred what a
    McCain/Palin administration would have been like. Probably business as usual. Turning a blind eye to everything but his own
    pet projects, and ignoring everything else that needs to be done. While Palin buys herself a new handbag.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Completely irrational. lol

      1. tobey100 profile image60
        tobey100posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Everyone loves to imply Palin is a looker with no brains.  She was Governor of Alaska.  I have an IQ of 172 (before I started drinking).  I haven't been elected Governor yet.

        1. brimancandy profile image81
          brimancandyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I'm not saying that Palin isn't smart. However, a lot of american's have that image in their heads when they think of her. She was elected as Govenor of Alaska, and then dropped it when her image was going downhill. Is that the kind of person you want running this country?

          I am simply saying that I would rather have and Obama/Biden administration then a McCain/Palin adminstration. And, if you can come up with someone that can do a better job, by all means
          make them President Today.

          And, have them get results today! That's America's problem
          when someone doesn't do things fast enough for them, they have a habit of dumping all over them. And, there are people like the media salavating over the opertunity to lurk around whomever is winning. Wether or not their opinion matters.

          1. tobey100 profile image60
            tobey100posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, if you'll check the facts her image (based on Alaskan polls) was going up not down.  She stepped down as Governor because she's a stateswoman, not a politician.  When see realized the constant legal attacks from the left were hampering her ability to govern, instead of making the state suffer, she simply removed their reason to continuously tie up the administration in court.  No politician would have ever dreamed of doing such a thing.  I, for one, would gladly have Palin running this country.  She's a real person.  Not a created, public figure or a puppet.  The fact that's she real and not an elitist is what drives everyone crazy.

            1. profile image0
              Madame Xposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Wow! You really do have an IQ 172 smile

              1. profile image0
                Ghost32posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                173, maybe!  The test was wrong!  big_smile

                1. Harvey Stelman profile image60
                  Harvey Stelmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Ghost,

                  I've know people that are higher, but they didn't know things outside of their final expertise.

            2. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              And what would she do if in office if the World Court prosecuted the United States for war crimes and illegal wars?  Would she abdicate for the good of the country?  Or would she ignore the charges as recent leadership has done?  Would she forget about our image because our conquests have more importance?

              The Republicans have got to wake up and smell the coffee if they try to offer Palin as their candidate in 2012.

              1. profile image0
                Ghost32posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                If anyone--ANYONE--came after the USA, she would defend the country, and capably. Ignoring charges is not her style; countering them effectively is very much her style. The Republicans are already awake and definitely will back Sarah as our candidate (yup, I'm one of "them") in 2012.  I don't know if "offer" is the right words; sort of sounds like "sacrifice".  She'll win, too.

                You heard it here first.

          2. profile image0
            Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I agree. We are facing major challenges today we have not seen since the 1930s... Likewise, it is going to take some time to recoup the 7M+ net job loss experienced since the Great Recession began in December 2007.

            Couple a normal recession with the financial institutions mortgage back securities debacle and you have a major problem on your hands.

            It's a lot easier to start wars than to pass healthcare reform and turn around the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

        2. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          My IQ goes up to 172 after I start drinking!

          1. tobey100 profile image60
            tobey100posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Of course it does.  You're from Texas!

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Im not sure how to take that.

              1. tobey100 profile image60
                tobey100posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Dude, total compliment.  Us Alabama guys have a lot in common with Texans.  Namely, we wished we lived in Texas!

                1. profile image0
                  A Texanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I can understand that.

                2. William R. Wilson profile image60
                  William R. Wilsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL you're from Alabama?  That explains a lot.

                  1. tobey100 profile image60
                    tobey100posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Actually, I was just born there. Only lived there about 6 months until I was about 17.  I wear shoes too!

              2. profile image0
                Ghost32posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Take it as a compliment, Tex.  I would, and I quit drinking nearly 40 years ago.

                Still got enough left in my reserve tanks for another couple of decades, though.  lol

        3. Petra Vlah profile image61
          Petra Vlahposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          You have to admit that her legs are much better looking than yours.

          As for her brain, I suppose the cold of Alaska did something for it (and i don't mean it preserve it)

          1. tobey100 profile image60
            tobey100posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            She has legs????

    2. Harvey Stelman profile image60
      Harvey Stelmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      brim,

      You seem to have missed the boat. Obama has always been a Progressive that can read well to an audience. David Axelrod packaged him so he will be loved. People never listened to him closely, so he was elected.

      He has constantly lied and made up his own figures. It's the voters that have gotten smarter, finally. Now it is time for the Democrat's to suffer.

      I only hope the Republican's can find reality.

    3. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago

      I read some of the excuses the Dems were giving for this defeat, my favorite was from the head of SEAU, "people are angry because the health care bill has not been passed" lol Yeah, thats it! lol

    4. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago

      Well, they have to soothe themselves with something. I mean, actually taking responsibility for their part in something is just not an option.

    5. tobey100 profile image60
      tobey100posted 7 years ago

      Yep. Must be.  Can't possibly be the fact 63% of the American public hates the thing.  Like trying to sell a dead rat to a widow woman.  She ain't buying and neither are we.

    6. Petra Vlah profile image61
      Petra Vlahposted 7 years ago

      All she has is legs!
      It may take her places, like Fox for instance, but not to the White House

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Oh no, she has much more!

    7. Petra Vlah profile image61
      Petra Vlahposted 7 years ago

      Like what? Don't tell me knowledge, because I will not believe you and that will be a shame since I do like you (most of the time)

    8. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago

      For one thing, she'll never be a communist smile

      1. Petra Vlah profile image61
        Petra Vlahposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        That is a possitive, but is that enough? Wiil that alone qualify her for high office?

        1. tobey100 profile image60
          tobey100posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Good lord, at this point yes.  I think I'd take anyone that wasn't a communist or socialist.  The best thing that could happen would be to have every thing split 50/50 then no one could get anything done and the American people could feel safe and sleep at night

        2. profile image0
          Madame Xposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Currently, that seems to be about 3/4 of it. But she does indeed have many other important qualifications.

          Her reasoning behind quitting as Alaskan governor being a huge indicator as to how to understand this extraordinary woman.

          1. Gabriella D'Anton profile image61
            Gabriella D'Antonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            If being a quitter makes Sarah Palin a "extraordinary woman", than we should all start quiting, so we can become remarcable and write a book

            1. profile image0
              Madame Xposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              So, uh, is that the current line you're supposed to repeat now?

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                lol

    9. manlypoetryman profile image77
      manlypoetrymanposted 7 years ago

      Perhaps he is stuck...in an alternate dimension...where reality goes your way...no matter what the heck else is going on around you? That's the only way...I can figure it...otherwise...no sane explanation works!

    10. SparklingJewel profile image77
      SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

      plain and simple...it's arrogance...he's picked it up from his handlers over the years, those that groomed him to look and sound pretty enough to love and mystify, while big money works behind our backs...

      check out www.wethepeople.org  or www.givemeliberty.org

    11. tobey100 profile image60
      tobey100posted 7 years ago

      I'm trying to find the article but...I read one opinion that Obama suffers from an emotional disorder that presents itself as an inability to accept error.  He doesn't have the ability to recognize or admit wrong doing on his part.  This is listed as a pathological disorder similar to a pathological liar.  Don't know if this particular DR. is correct but the symptoms are all there.

    12. Harvey Stelman profile image60
      Harvey Stelmanposted 7 years ago

      tobey,

      Wait for Wednesday. He will blame Bush, tell you how he avoided problems, has the economy in position to do well and how he does everything for the people.

      1. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        I really think that one of these days Obama is going to crack up.  His perception of reality and reality is so far apart.

      2. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago

        This is all just a carefully orchestrated comment, basically what he is saying is the democratic strategy will be to blame Bush for everything and its not the Democrats fault. The scary part is it may actually work...again!

      3. profile image0
        cosetteposted 7 years ago

        frankly i am getting a little annoyed with the President talking about partisan politics and gossip all the time in his speeches. he's the President. he acts like we are all a bunch of unruly schoolchildren.

      4. profile image0
        Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years ago

        What world are you all living in? The Great Recession began in December of 2007.

        This downward spiral intensified when Lehman Brothers went under in the Fall of 2008 leading to a frozen credit market and nearly a second Great Depression. TARP was implemented shortly thereafter by Bush W (which was the right thing to do).

        Obama entered office in late January of 2009 and when the month was over the US experienced a net job loss of 740K+ jobs.

        When he placed the cost of the two wars back on the balance sheet for the budget he inherited from Bush W (October 2008-September 2009), the true deficit reappeared.

        Yes he added almost a trillion dollars to the deficit with the Stimulus bill (which he acknowledged last night) which was the only right thing he could do. Even the CBO acknowledged that the Stimulus bill thus far has resulted in up to 1.6M job gains and an increase in GDP. A good portion of this Stimulus has not been spent...

        However several economists believed the Stimulus was the right thing to do (some economists believed the Stimulus was not big enough); to prevent the US from experiencing a lost decade that Japan experienced in the 1990s when its government was slow to respond.

        Tax cuts and all the other Republican proposals that the Republicans still recommend, did not stop the Great Recession in its tracks and will not stop it now... What is the definition for insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results!

        Reducing revenue while increasing cost for the futile Iraq War transformed a 10 year projected surplus of 1.5 trillion dollars when Bush W took office to a major deficit which is escalating due to this economic downturn since companies are firing more instead of hiring and consumers are not spending... likewise the only one left to make up for the states revenue shortfall and to try to reverse the downward spiral is the government.

        I take the Democrats track record of net job gains over the Republicans anytime of the day. Look up Clinton's net job gains versus George W's.

        1. JOE BARNETT profile image60
          JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          kenrick after reading this hub. it's obvious how we got in the recession. it's people like this that were running the country whew! and they don't see it yet. the house was burning down and they are talking about how much water he is using to put it out. ha ha ha  i've not seen one, not one reasonable complaint. one guy is saying he(Obama) wants communism and socialism.  the words of a fear monger another says Obama is not ready but sarah palin who was a reporter then a mayor of a town as big as your back yard, then all but got kicked out of being governor,is better than Obama ha ha ha . there is nothing intelligent here. when you hear stuff like this in the future first . . . consider the source.

          1. profile image0
            Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I hear you Joe. I still cannot believe how some Americans do not understand what has been going on. Or maybe they do but cannot believe that the people they supported could generate results this bad...

      5. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        Thanks for the spin.  According to the CBO that stimulus bill only decreased unemployment less than 1%.  Unemployment still went up even though those bozos said that passing their bill would keep unemployment at no higher than 8%.  All the bills that the democrat party, which dominated the house since oh 2007 and Obama's first year bailouts has significantly increased the burden greater than all the administrations before him.

        Boy, talk about a bunch of ignoramuses! lol lol lol

        1. profile image0
          Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Nice way to backup your analysis with facts.

          TARP was passed by Bush W. All of the Stimulus Bill has not been spent...

          Unemployment is a lagging indicator and is one of the last things to turn around.

          Yes Obama was wrong with his unemployment rate prediction... No one is always right... Remember Bush W stating that Iraq had WMDs?

          Let's wait and see in a couple of years how the unemployment rate will change once the Democrats' policies have enough time to take effect.

      6. Rochelle Frank profile image95
        Rochelle Frankposted 7 years ago

        And today is his buzzword is "bipartisanship" all over the place. Haven't heard that in awhile-- when he didn't need it.

      7. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        And don't forget Rochelle, J O B S!

        Obama: Le me be clear, I didn't take this job on so that I can play golf more than George Bush. I'm going to fight for all of us...by handing the job over to Nancy Pelosi.  And I'm going to get her to pass the jobs bill, while I go play golf.

        1. profile image0
          Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          “The facts are this people ............................ (1) With ONLY 1 exception (President Jimmy Carter), since January 1953, whenever an outgoing Democratic administration handed the White House over to an incoming Republican administration, the monthly National Unemployment Rate (NUR) for that inaugural month has been under 4.5%: ........

          Jan 1953, Truman (D) hands White House over to Eisenhower (R); NUR = 2.9% ........

          Jan 1969, Johnson (D) hands White House over to Nixon (R); NUR = 3.4% ........ J

          an 2001, Clinton (D) hands White House over to G.W. Bush; NUR = 4.2% ............................

          (2) On the other hand, since 1961, every single time that an outgoing Republican administration handed the White House over to an incoming Democratic administration, the monthly National Unemployment Rate (NUR) for that inaugural month has been above 6.0%: ........

          Jan 1961, Eisenhower (R) hands the White House over to Kennedy (D); NUR = 6.6% ........

          Jan 1977, Ford (R) hands the White House over to Carter (D); NUR = 7.5% ........

          Jan 1993, G.H.W. Bush (R) hands the White House over to Clinton (D); NUR = 7.3% ........

          Jan 2009, G.W. Bush (R) hands the White House over to Obama (D); NUR = 7.6% ............................

          (3) If you want to see an awesome graphic that displays this relationship, Google "U.S. Misery Index" and click on the "Historical National Unemployment Rate, Monthly" on the left side.”

      8. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        Obama within the first two months of his presidency passed that bill with the Democratic majority's full endorsement and singlehandedly outspent all the previous administrations before him in one stroke.  lol lol

        Yeah, I can't wait to see how this all turns out.  If you listen to his SOTU he's getting ready to spend, spend, spend! lol

        1. profile image0
          Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The economists recommended Stimulus to help eliminate the downward spiral.

          What is your solution to stimulating the economy? Tax cuts and all the other Republican recommendations that contributed to the Great Recession and transformed a projected surplus into a deficit? More of the same?

          I agree, I do not like spending more than you are taking in... However, we are facing the worst crisis since the 1930s...and Obama was forced to do this.

          Likewise, I hope the American people wake up and do not elect people like Bush W into office again.... It's a mess trying to clean up the damage these individuals left behind.

          1. JOE BARNETT profile image60
            JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            uh oh flight keeper is one of those people ha ha ha

      9. Rochelle Frank profile image95
        Rochelle Frankposted 7 years ago

        I really don't understand why he wants the government (taxpayers) to help pay for college educations  -- then forgive the debt for government workers.. maybe I don't understand the details (which weren't given) I went to a college that my parents (at first) and I (by working) could afford.

        1. Flightkeeper profile image75
          Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          It's how Democrats do it.  They spend money, they expect you to vote for them.

          1. profile image0
            Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You mean the Republicans.. Clinton balanced the budget and handed over a surplus to Bush W.

            Bush W cut taxes while increasing spending (Iraq War for example...)

            Yet the same Republicans who are now fiscal responsible who did not raise havoc then is raising havoc now when spending is the only solution to clean up the mess left behind from the previous administration policies...

            This is like the pot calling the kettle black.

        2. JOE BARNETT profile image60
          JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          ROCHELLE- he said that when you get a student loan. you would not have to pay more than 10% of your income per month to repay the loan. if you go into fed service then they will reduce the loan by half. it is an incentive to get people to work in public service. no government is spending anything. there are people that are trying to spread mis information . . . deliberately! don't be fooled because they will talk you into the exact same thing  . . .again!

      10. profile image0
        temberowaposted 7 years ago

        We are all witnesses to political lie. it's common and truly president figure doesn't really mean anything in eyes of those who actually hold the power. This means that whoever is on stage is a puppet. Nothing more. Inconsistency in speech or changing views will last as long as any government or people in power function.

      11. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        Oh Poor Obama, the economists forced him to let Pelosi and Reid fill that stimulus up with pork.  It was the only way. lol

        Dude, that recession started because Bawney Fwank was so eager to make banks lend money to poor people who couldn't afford it through the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae programs and so that he can give his cohorts at those foundations to get bonuses based on how many loans were processed.  It was the stupid democrats who started this craziness and it will be the democrats who reap the whirlwind.

        W had to deal with the crap in his first year because Clinton was too busy having Monica blow him to pay attention the first time Twin Towers was hit. W did the best with what he had and Obama has to do the same thing.  That's the job. But Obama's such a whiner while Bush just kept at it.

        1. profile image0
          Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Bush W inherited office after one of the greatest economic times in US history. Clinton 8 years in office lead to a net job gain of 20M+ jobs. Obama inherited office during the worst economic crisis since the 1930s... Big difference.

          Financial institutions greed and the mortgage back securities debacle and not Barney Frank help contribute tremendously to this crisis. As you can see, no government official can tell a large "healthy" bank what to do...

          Obama has been trying to get the banks to lend to healthy small businesses but they have not...

          1. JOE BARNETT profile image60
            JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            KENRICK-flightkeeper is a polemik pundit. he takes things out of context whenever you answer his question he jumps to something else. he only uses words he has heard . but obviously mis informed. politicians love people like him_ they can and will tell him anything. why did enron and worldcom get a way with that scandle for as long as they did?         uh . . . cuz them democrats is spending ha ha ha

      12. profile image0
        Denno66posted 7 years ago

        I hear Tehran is lovely this time of year......

      13. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        Oh please, the worse economic crisis since the 1930s lol boy was that an overstatement.

        As I recall Clinton's last year 2000 was the year the stock market tanked.  He was lucky he left when he did.

        The only greed was the Democrats and the heads of Fannie and Freddie pushing those loans.  Once those loans were made they were treated like any other.  The focus was on getting the health care bill passed, he didn't focus on small businesses at all.

        1. profile image0
          Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The financial institutions were buying these loans, converting them to mortgage-backed securities, selling them to investors all over the world who wanted a piece of the US real estate bubble. The rating agencies also placed AAA ratings on these instruments.

          The greed took place when some of the financial institutions started using leverage to purchase more of these loans and when homeowners started to default on their mortgage payments, these securities became worthless, investors stopped buying them, and some of the financial institutions had trouble making debt payments.

          Warren Buffett as early as 2003 called these financial instruments, "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

      14. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        Banks didn't do anything different with those mortgage loans than they would with any type of loans. Banks have always found ways to securitize loans and leverage against them.  The ratings agencies gave them high ratings because they were processed through the government.  As of now Freddie and Fannie were almost bankrupt and Obama bailed them out.

        Everyone's not like Warren Buffet.

        1. profile image0
          Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The government also bailed out the Big Banks too after Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers went under. Merrill Lynch was acquired by Bank of America...

          When the WH started to discuss regulating bank compensation, most of (if not all of) the banks gave back the TARP money.

          The banks executives were like thanks for the bailout but you are not stopping our multi-million dollar bonuses that we pay consistently regardless of our performance.

          1. Flightkeeper profile image75
            Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The banks who gave the bonuses already paid the government what they owe.  The banks can do what they want with their own money, they don't owe the government anything.

          2. profile image0
            Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            That's why Main Street is mad since the banks helped contribute significantly to the global crisis... After getting bailed out and getting back on their feet, they just resorted back to normal business when over 7M+ Americans have lost their jobs...

            Unfortunately the banks had to be bailed out or the US would have suffered more pain...  However, the banks should show some compassion by donating some of their money to help others in need (like responsible homeowners who lost their jobs and as a result are in foreclosure) or keeping their bonus payouts a secret.

            1. Flightkeeper profile image75
              Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              First of all the banks didn't ask for the bailout. Bush panicked and gave it to them without any kind of terms.  The banks that could, gave back the money when they found out what the conditions were.  These were essentially the healthy banks.  They had that money for less than a year and yet you feel they have some obligation to homeowners who bought houses they couldn't afford.  That doesn't make any sense.

              And why would you penalize the people who worked hard to keep the bank healthy?  A big bank has many departments and not all were involved in the mortgage debacle.  Do you feel the same way when Conan O'Brien walks away with $30 million after 5 months of working on the Late Show?  Obama and the democrats have made the banks the scapegoat and most people are stupid enough to fall for it.

              1. profile image0
                Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                The banks needed TARP to improve their liquidity by getting rid of some of their "troubled assets" such as the MBS which allowed the banks to strengthen or add stability to their balance sheets to prevent additional losses...

                Yes the banks employees should feel the consequences of a few of its coworkers responsible for this debacle just like the innocent 7M+ people who lost their jobs...

                Did  the hard workers at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers receive bonuses? The same thing would have more than likely happen to the other banks if the government did not buy their worthless assets using TARP.

                1. profile image0
                  A Texanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  You are wanting Banks to donate money to those who lost their homes because they couldn't afford them? Is that what you are saying?

                  1. profile image0
                    Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    No that is not what I mentioned above. You may want to reread my post.

                2. Flightkeeper profile image75
                  Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  So if I understand you correctly, you think the banks have an obligation to the government.  The same government who forced them to issue these bad loans and then offered to buy back the bad loans from them, which they already lost money on? lol
                  So the gov't acts like the mafia and you think the bank owes them? Yeah, I don't agree with you.  I should have known you would think it was ok, you're a democrat. lol lol lol

                  1. profile image0
                    Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Financial innovation, greed, and excessive risk taking caused this crisis... i.e... the financial institutions creating various securities ("weapons of mass destruction" or "troubled assets") from the pool of loans acquired by both government and private entities...

                    1. Flightkeeper profile image75
                      Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      You're like a broken record, we already went through this.  You just can't admit it was government interference in banking that started this whole thing. lol

              2. JOE BARNETT profile image60
                JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                flight krrper- the banks were gonna spend the money. they asked for it . bush had assigned the first and they invested in china with the money, they went on a 400,000 dollar junket weekend . the weekend after they got the money. then Obama was appalled and said you will have to account for this money . when that happened they gave it back. if a republican had been in they would have blown that money. oh yeah one of the wall street guys had his office remodeled for "ten million dollars".

      15. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        By the way, you can say bye-bye to the money given to the banks that weren't so healthy. We're not going to see most of that again.

      16. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago

        You said
        "However, the banks should show some compassion by donating some of their money to help others in need (like responsible homeowners who lost their jobs and as a result are in foreclosure)"

        I guess you are right you said "responsible homeowners"

        They shouldn't donate a dime to anyone responsible or otherwise! What they should do is loan money to those who can show an ability to pay the money back!

        They should never again be lorded over by corrupt politicians like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, they should never again be told who to loan to based on the color of someones skin or economic status.

        1. profile image0
          Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          There are responsible homeowners who lost their jobs but had fixed rate instead of ARM mortgages...

          The problem occurred from the complex financial securities (that were later called toxic assets or troubled assets) the financial institutions created from the pool of loans the government and private institutions purchased...

      17. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago

        Community Reinvestment Act ever hear of it?

        1. profile image0
          Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Like I stated, the main problem derived from the complex financial securities or troubled assets...

          Here is a simple example: banks made loans > government and private entities purchased several of them and place them into pools > complex financial securities were created from these pools > investors invested in these complex financial securities

          When foreclosures began > Bear Stearns, who was a leader in securitization and asset-backed securities, balance sheet eventually transformed into one with high debt and illiquid and worthless assets>leading to investor lawsuits and eventually low investor and lender confidence and despite an emergency loan> the company could not be saved.

          The government did not force Bear Stearns to create these risky assets and to be highly leveraged.

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            But how many others did they force? Bear Sterns was one company out of how many, one company did not cause the mess.

            1. profile image0
              Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers did not make it as well. Like Bear Stearns these banks were Wall Street powerhouses... I believe Bear Stearns collapse was the first time in its history that it did not earn a profit.

              Several financial institutions invested in these instruments... That's why The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was created to purchase these worthless assets to improve the banks' balance sheets and reduce their losses...

              However, some banks like the ones who did not make it, took on too much risk by using too much debt and creating too many of these assets..

              That's the problem... Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered... When times were good these institutions made tons of money. However, when times got bad some of them evaporated and others needed government assistance.

              1. Flightkeeper profile image75
                Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                You can say the same about individuals and agencies.

      18. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        Unfortunately those responsible homeowners were miniscule compared to the irresponsible ones and got swept in the avalanche. It's unfortunate but there's not much the banks can do about that.

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Or should do about it.

      19. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        Again with the broken record, how many times do I have to tell you that the banks didn't do anything different from previous mortgages. You think highly leveraged derivatives didn't exist before?  The only difference is that this time it was those fannie and freddie loans that were used.  If you're looking at who is greedy you can spread that all over the place.  The government and the mortageholder were not innocent of greed.

        1. profile image0
          Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I had to illustrate to you that this crisis was predominantly caused by these complex instruments that many Americans and politicians including several bank executives did not clearly understand... Foreclosures always existed and will continue to exist.

      20. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago

        What about the bailout of Fannie mae and Freddie Mac, will we see that money? What caused their downfall?

        1. profile image0
          Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The private mortgage business lenders including loan brokers began to market aggressive and shaky loans (due to greed) without considering future consequences since they knew Fannie and Freddie would buy them; reducing their risk...

      21. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        And I'm telling you again for the third time. These complex strategies were applied before but the only difference here is fannie and freddie loans.

        roll

        1. profile image0
          Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          No the private mortgage business lenders taking advantage of the housing acts put in place by several presidents including George W to generate tons of revenue and profit growth since they knew Fannie and Freddie would buy their shaky loans... and then the Wall Street banks taking on too much debt and too much risk to participate in securitization.  What's your point? Foreclosures always existed as well... However, companies tried to game the system and then want to point their fingers at the poor for the crisis. The poor people are not as knowledgeable as these companies' representatives and are very easy to be taken advantage of by mortgage lenders or brokers trying to make thousands of dollars in commission by getting as many of  them approved for the biggest ARM loans possible...

      22. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        Oh please, it was George Bush who tried to tell Frank, freddie and fannie that something wrong was going on except they kept testifying everything was fine.  You go through these long-winded explanations trying to place the blame on everybody except where it rightly belongs, Frank, freddie and fannie.

        roll

        1. profile image0
          Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I am not blaming Bush W. for the greedy financial institutions who gamed the system due to greed and then try to shift the blame to the poor.

          I blame Bush W for his actions of reducing revenue while increasing spending;  transforming a projected surplus into a deficit...

          Bush W also signed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit Act, American Dream Down Payment Act, tripled funding for organizations which include Habitat for Humanity, and so on. But these were good measures that unfortunately were taken advantage of by private sector companies for revenue and profit growth.

          1. Flightkeeper profile image75
            Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Those are tax credits and small grants - they don't put the banking system into a hole.  No it was the fannie and freddie loans.

          2. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            projected surplus? A surplus only existed in the minds of Democrat lackeys, there is no surplus when there is a debt, and it wasn't Clinton who balanced the budget it was a Republican Congress. However, you are correct about Bush's spending, but he said he was a compassionate conservative.

          3. JOE BARNETT profile image60
            JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            KENRICK- they don't understand or care to understand. they think it is like going to jc pennys customer service desk ha ha ha . these are the people that you say " we'll do it for god and freedom and they understand that ha ha ha . it has nothing to do with god and freedom . . . . ever , but they believe that ha ha ha . there are some here too that i think are attempting to be conservative activists and don't know how.they say some of the most idiotic things and then uninformed people believe them . these people are not sorry  they wrecked the economy. they are scared and trying to keep the light off themselves

            1. profile image0
              Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Joe, I like to give back by educating people on occasions.

      23. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        That's right, the democrats think that the poor are too stupid to add.  If you're making a $20,000 salary and the bank allows that person to buy a $300,000 house no money down interest payments only for the first 3 years -- that's supposed to make sense?  Please, they were thinking that they were going to stay at the house for a monthly payment cheaper than renting for at least 3 years and then they were going to flip it.  The problem was everybody thought the same way.  As I said before, greed was spread all through out the system.

        1. profile image0
          Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          You're talking about investors and not the poor. I grew up in the inner city and visited several inner cities across this country (due to family) and you give the poor more credit for their personal finance knowledge... You are probably one of the same individuals who believe that the few "smart" minorities who went to college only made it because of affirmative action. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

          I worked as a bird dog who located properties that could be flipped for investors who would use traditional financing, short-term loans from private investors, or owner financing and then will sell these loans to securitization firms..

          Just like when you visit a car dealer... they would ask how much do you want your car payments to be? Then add all kinds of crap into the loan contract which allowed them to make a lot of money while keeping the car payment around the desired monthly amount.

          The mortgage lenders or brokers would ask the poor how much do you want your loan mortgage payments to be? Instead of setting them up on a fixed rate mortgage, they set them up on an ARM with a lower or teaser interest rate so they can make a larger commission from a larger sized loan... The poor did not realize that their rates will fluctuate... but who cares when the mortgage broker is trying to make thousands of dollars for an approved loan.

          For individuals with horrible credit, they will set them up with lease-option deals to improve their credit to the point that a lender would approve the loan... They will get the poor agreement by asking how would you like to buy a nice home for the same amount of money you are currently paying for rent? The poor will state, is this for real? They will state yes, I will get you all set up.

          The poor will be happy as can be until they realize their mortgage payments increased several months or a few years later and they did not know the reason why.

          Let me ask you this?

          Did the government force the underwriters to approved these loans? Or were these loans approved for revenue and profit growth purposes since the risk was going to be shifted to Freddie and Fannie once they purchased them?

        2. JOE BARNETT profile image60
          JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          you only see greed when republicans are around

      24. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        Texan, I get really tired of these socialists who know very little about how things work but think they know so much.  If he could this guy would probably recite more crap on these boards from the book he's looking up.

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I'm with ya!

        2. profile image0
          Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Just like the right. Instead of using fact-based knowledge to try to prove your points, you resort to name calling... "Socialists, ignoramuses, and so on"

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            And just like the left to deny their true beliefs.

      25. Flightkeeper profile image75
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

        Goodnight Tex!

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Goodnight!

      26. wsp2469 profile image61
        wsp2469posted 7 years ago

        I just published an Obama-related hub and have another in the works.  I can't post a link in here though--sorry

      27. M. T. Dremer profile image96
        M. T. Dremerposted 7 years ago

        I'm a little confused about why people keep saying that Obama is cramming his agenda down our throat. I mean, the only major bill passed since he was elected was the stimulus bill. So, does one passed bill mean he has forced his policy on us? Now, he has a bunch of other bills in the senate right now, the most notable being the healthcare bill, but I'm not sure how that one is his agenda either. I mean, democrats want universal healthcare, right? The one where everyone is covered by the government. But that isn't in the healthcare bill, and neither is the public option (which would be like diet universal healthcare). Then they removed the medicare buy-in too, so the bill they have now is actually pretty far away from what his original plan was. So I'm not sure how that's his agenda being forced on us (especially since it hasn't passed yet, and might not pass at all). So, I don't know. Just based on what I've been seeing, it looks like Obama and democrats have been compromising down their bills since the beginning and yet still no republicans will agree with it. It makes me wonder what they do want in a healthcare bill because the only thing they've proposed is that law about blocking lawsuits against doctors.

        But again, I'm confused by the 'agenda down our throats' thing because the majority of America voted for him. And they voted for him, knowing he would be trying to pass these types of bills on heathcare, energy and jobs. So, now that he's trying to pass these bills, everyone thinks he's betraying us and forcing us to do things. That doesn't really make sense; did the people who voted for him not know what his platform was? Why would we be angry at a president for trying to do what he said he would? Yeah he hasn't succeeded on a lot of things yet, but it's only his second year as president, and he isn't the reason they haven't passed. And it's not just the republicans that are standing in the way. Democrats in the senate need to get their act together if they want to accomplish anything.

        So I suppose in answer to the post, Obama is living in a very pessimistic world, one that refuses to help him or compromise with him. That is certainly something that Bush got right; his party agreed with him 100% of the time, for better or for worse. It's a shame that we'll never really know what sort of president Obama could be because everyone is too busy stopping him from making any sort changes.

        1. Sab Oh profile image54
          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          "That is certainly something that Bush got right; his party agreed with him 100% of the time"


          That is absolutely not the case

       
      working