Universalist
New member
I don't think he has done any different ( worse or better ) than Bush. The man is not God, even though I am sure at times he thinks so and a few other people.
toldailytopic: How do you feel about Obama's handling of the economy?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
What has really done damage recently is Obama's stimulus package. The $787 billion that Obama spent only made the economy worse. The statistic stating that jobs were "created or saved" by this stimulus package is phony. The government is talking through its hat on this one. In one study 34 jobs were created at the cost of about $36,000 each by Obama's stimulus package. However, closer study shows that the people were working in a meat industry for only one week and each of their jobs got counted in the record as a full-time permanent job. $36,000 were wasted on a one week temp job. Was it just a political pay off for someone?
Is Obama really helping the poor? He has ties to ACORN. The media has been silent about this lately. For two years he was an ACORN lawyer. ACORN had its fingers in the sub-prime loan scams. ACORN pressured banks into making sub-prime loans. ACORN would put poor people into homes they couldn't afford. When the economy slumped they were the ones who suffered the most.
Source
During his years in Chicago Obama himself had part in brow-beating and shaking-down mortgage lenders to force them to make thousands of knowingly bad loans to people. These borrowers were never able to repay these loans and went into default. ACORN was already eating away at the housing market before Obama came into office. ACORN tactics helped bring him into office.
Now the economy of this nation has gone from bad to worse under the leadership of this man. He has already shown himself to be dishonest. This administration is definitely bought.
Is Obama really helping the poor? He has ties to ACORN. The media has been silent about this lately. For two years he was an ACORN lawyer. ACORN had its fingers in the sub-prime loan scams. ACORN pressured banks into making sub-prime loans. ACORN would put poor people into homes they couldn't afford. When the economy slumped they were the ones who suffered the most.
| Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in “direct action” – organizers’ term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a “living wage” law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans. |
Source
During his years in Chicago Obama himself had part in brow-beating and shaking-down mortgage lenders to force them to make thousands of knowingly bad loans to people. These borrowers were never able to repay these loans and went into default. ACORN was already eating away at the housing market before Obama came into office. ACORN tactics helped bring him into office.
Now the economy of this nation has gone from bad to worse under the leadership of this man. He has already shown himself to be dishonest. This administration is definitely bought.
Nope. The credit yes, for the huge economic growth that increased tax revenues. And the spending cuts from the congress under Newt.
And two other slightly important principles.
Exodus 20
15“You shall not steal.
17“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Alate_One
Well-known member
Really, Nick? I'm thinking it's you that is the ignorant one, as usual. How about you explain your neg rep comment about how "spending caused the crisis"?
How exactly did government spending cause privately held banks to fail? I thought it was credit default swaps and predatory lending in leading to a massive bubble in the housing market which was allowed because of government de-regulation by both parties over the last 10 -20 years?
Lets hear your alternative rendition of history.
Also Nick, here's some other important principles.
Romans 13:6-7
| This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. |
Yazichestvo
New member
First of all, I have to admit that economics is a murky field for me- and I think it is even for many economists. As they say, "for each economist, there is an equal and opposite economist."
His stimulus package does seem to have some economic basis. Some say the same sort of spending helped get Japan out of a rut. I don't advocate spending much more though; If he follows through with his recent talk of scaling back spending, I think it will turn out alright. As for the health care plan, it remains to be seen if it will be better or worse than the original. I'm all for health care reform- our current system has a lot of problems, and is far from the best in the world despite what some may say. However I'm afraid that his reform wasn't the correct kind.
His stimulus package does seem to have some economic basis. Some say the same sort of spending helped get Japan out of a rut. I don't advocate spending much more though; If he follows through with his recent talk of scaling back spending, I think it will turn out alright. As for the health care plan, it remains to be seen if it will be better or worse than the original. I'm all for health care reform- our current system has a lot of problems, and is far from the best in the world despite what some may say. However I'm afraid that his reform wasn't the correct kind.
Lev Lafayette
New member
That would be Clinton; $230 billion in 2000 and $122.7 billion in 1999.
Reagan did not produce any surplus budgets.
1PeaceMaker
New member
That was the funny thing about Clinton, but I'm sure he didn't really deserve the credit for that anymore than he gets credit for making the grass grow. As he himself said, presidents don't have any power anymore. He felt controlled by all the other interests around him.
Sure, I worry about the economy ... it's a mess, but it more than the economy and more than just Obama. It is a way of thinking ... where men in charge of governments, men who have money and power, and citizens also think they are smarter than God... that they don't need him.
They don't believe God is in control any more ... It's about our leaders and citizens going through this cycle of falling away from HIM... being unappreciative to the ONE who blesses men and nations, and being out-right rebellious against HIM.
What is it going to take to bring our people back to God? The economy is secondary to so many other ailments in our country. We will never have a good government, a good economy, or live in peace and security until we are on God's side again. Until we value HIM ... value life and honesty... and start living a more moral life-style... Until then, we can expect that our people will elect foolish leaders... our young people and their future will remain in jeopardy.
They don't believe God is in control any more ... It's about our leaders and citizens going through this cycle of falling away from HIM... being unappreciative to the ONE who blesses men and nations, and being out-right rebellious against HIM.
What is it going to take to bring our people back to God? The economy is secondary to so many other ailments in our country. We will never have a good government, a good economy, or live in peace and security until we are on God's side again. Until we value HIM ... value life and honesty... and start living a more moral life-style... Until then, we can expect that our people will elect foolish leaders... our young people and their future will remain in jeopardy.
Last edited:
The President doesn't control the purse strings. It was Newt, and Reagans massive tax cuts that trippled tax revenues leading to the surplus after Newt shut down government.
There is the first problem.
Yep. That started the recession. Why did they default?
Predatory lending?
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
Janet Reno, murderer of Waco, said they would be prosecuted if they didn't start passing out large loans to unqualified recipients. Who else would do such things? Obama of course, before he was faking being born in Hawaii.
Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.
U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0d2_1223594831
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/...a-and-acorn-sued-citibank-for-subprime-loans/
Now, what was his response to the economy shrinking in the last quarter of 08 as a result of his direct actions before he was in the WH? He devalued money making it worthless and causing $5.00 gas and outrageous food prices. $7.99 for Oscar Meyer bacon when not on sale. He has wrecked (intentionaly) the economy. He said he would do it out of spite. He and Jimmy Carter are probably the most responsible. Reagn shelved the program Carter started. It was restarted in 1993. George Bush being sometimes spineless said this needs to stop when the housing was roaring along, instead of stopping it in 2006.
Anything else, Einstein?
Predatory lending...You dishonest communist Christ hating pig.
| Obama Carter and Clintons fault | |
Thanks for the inflation and 20% unemployment. (underemployment)
Alate_One
Well-known member
It wasn't because of "government spending". That's for sure. That was your original statement, and you have ZERO support for it in your whole copy/paste diatribe.
I note you bolded the part that agrees with your supposition and ignored the rest. You also seem to be forgetting President Bush's "Ownership society" EVERYONE in both political parties has been pushing home ownership for decades.
Did you actually read the case title you cited?
Still holding onto that one Nick? You're completely insane.
So you think they lied in the case just so those ebil minorities could get housing?
There's nothing wrong with taking a risk on people, the problem is the risk needs to be PRICED APPROPRIATELY with a recognition that a default is possible.
What actually caused the crash was this:
| Credit markets froze in August 2007 after two hedge funds run by New York-based Bear Stearns Cos., the fifth-largest U.S. securities firm, collapsed due to the deteriorating value of its mortgage-related holdings. An inability to set a price on such securities has frozen the market, said Joshua Rosner, managing director at Graham Fisher & Co. in New York. ``It's not a liquidity problem, it's a valuation problem,'' Rosner said. |
Everyone assumed that banks were smart enough to figure out how much risk they were taking in subprime loans and act appropriately. You know, letting the market "work". Problem was, they made lots and lots of serious errors. And we are still talking about handing banks more money (tax cuts) and more power (less regulations). Both of these are the exact OPPOSITE of what we should be doing.
Credit default swaps bundled and hid the risk. And Credit default swaps were (and still are) unregulated so nobody really knew what was actually in them and the actual risks of the sub prime Mortgages.
Hey, Nick. Why would Obama intentionally destroy the economy? So he can NOT get re-elected? Or do you think he's demon possessed or something?
Oh and your video looks at the wiki article on the CRA but seems to neglect some important information.
| At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA, calling it a "scapegoat" and declaring it "NOT guilty." |
And from her original remarks:
| Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules. |
Gee, looks like it was a lot of PRIVATE institutions that were involved hmmm . . .
Any more "facts" you want to give me Nick?
Says the man who reads his Bible to selectively to cut out any reference to helping the poor or paying taxes. How about YOU *start* reading the Bible. Looks to me like you never have.
Thanks for being the biggest moron on ToL. :wave:
Alate_One
Well-known member
Except Bush and Clinton RAISED taxes from Reagan levels and magically the economy still grew! And Reagan's tax cuts led to a tripling of revenue when exactly . . . 15 years later after tax rates had been changed multiple times? I see a massive revenue loss during the Reagan years. :kookoo:
Lev Lafayette
New member
It was the White House administration that provided budget surplus for the fiscal years of 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, not Congress. It was Bentsen, Rubin and Summers that were Secretary of the Treasury.
Like it our not, Clinton's presidency included one of the greatest periods of economic growth in America's history. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the longest in history. Unemployment fell to the lowest level in 30 years, inflation was at the lowest level since the Kennedy administration
As for Regan during that period tax revenues were not "trippled" but rather grew by 8.2% per annum.
El DLo
New member
I personally, like others, think Obama is controlled, but that's not to say he is a bad president. I think that he is being controlled in a way that prevents him from accomplishing many of the goals he set out to accomplish, and unfortunately, the right is a huge proprietor of this. I think Obama's policies would work. I think that they are good plans or at the very least good starting points, but the right is on a crusade to prevent him from accomplishing anything. Any attempts he makes at progress, they stand in his way and fight it, and understandably, as his mission goes against their beliefs.
However, I think if things could have gone as smoothly as Obama would have liked, we would be much better off right now as a country.
So how do I think Obama's handling the economy? Excellently. How do I think he's succeeding in handling in the way he wants? Absolutely terribly. I don't hold him at fault for that.
And even still, many things have started to show success, such as the bailouts. Just because Fox News won't report his successes doesn't mean they don't exist.
However, I think if things could have gone as smoothly as Obama would have liked, we would be much better off right now as a country.
So how do I think Obama's handling the economy? Excellently. How do I think he's succeeding in handling in the way he wants? Absolutely terribly. I don't hold him at fault for that.
And even still, many things have started to show success, such as the bailouts. Just because Fox News won't report his successes doesn't mean they don't exist.
But what about when he had a congress with a significant Democrat majority?
El DLo
New member
Well that's when a lot of the changes that are now working took place. The thing everyone needs to remember is that change is a long drawn out process. It's for the same reason that we didn't see the worst of Bush's economic impact until Obama was in office. Similarly, things that Obama implemented in the beginning of his term (namely bailouts) are finally showing their positive benefits now.
One can't expect instant gratification with economies. It's called a stimulus because it's made to set people on the right track. To expect him to wave his magic wand and wish away everyone's debt is ludicrous and impossible.
It is actually the greed of the American people that put liberals into office. Liberals promise buy outs and programs for those who don't work. Then a year or so down the road it is discovered what an lemon they bought. When the memory fades the voters go and try it again. They is why the US flips back and forth between parties. Righteous presidents were appreciated. But we don't read about them. Spin doctors will just as soon bury it with their historic revisionism.
I remember the furor over Clinton's dalliances and the rude bumper stickers that resulted. I also remember Hilliary's bus ride for government run healthcare. People were vocally expressing for that healthcare to fall through. There were a lot of cheers when it did.
Americans forget too soon and now we have a boondoggle of a healthcare package.
Proverbs 29:2 - When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.
It is. Our economy (not the GDP) is in the tank. You just don't know because you are a flaming moron. We are sunk, America is over.
You stated predatory lending. I showed they were forced to do it by liberals. Obama then made it worse with his spending bill. Well, him and Pelosi who actually did the spending.
:mock: a-latebrain
- Status