Signs accumulate that liberals are embarrassed by Obama - The tides have turned

reply to post by michael1983l

Bush was in office when the cards came tumbling down, when your in office you are supposed to protect your nation from that happening. Bush failed, he was too busy riding the artificially empowered economy which was essentially being driven by money that did not exist. Bush did not want to regulate the banks because if he wanted to he would have done it.

Breaking NEWS!

Bush isn’t running in 2012

Obama had 4 years to at least get the country going in the right direction and he’s done the opposite. That is the point here….

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by michael1983l

 

You call allowing banks to hold 40 times more than their assets in leveraged debt a sollution? Jeeze no wonder it happened in America.

I call that working within the free market to find a solution….yes. Allowing them to further leverage their assets allows them to ‘bail themselves out’ in a way. It obviously didn't fix the problem though.

Do you call tax payer funded bailouts a solution? Those didn't fix the problem either.

History will be the judge on whether it was a good or bad decision on Bush’s part but I’m glad he tried to give the markets a chance to correct themselves. I think businesses that go under should go through the bankruptcy process, so I certainly disagree with bailouts or the “too big to fail” mantra.

edit on 7-10-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

The tax payer funded bailouts was a sollution but not the sollution to the banking crisis, it was the sollution to the consumers that had assets tied up in the Toxic US banks from losing everything. The banks held the Government to randsome and the banks knew the government had to bail them out. All along the banksters keep taking their multi million dollar bonuses and for what, breaking the system.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by michael1983l

 

Bush was in office when the cards came tumbling down, when your in office you are supposed to protect your nation from that happening. Bush failed, he was too busy riding the artificially empowered economy which was essentially being driven by money that did not exist. Bush did not want to regulate the banks because if he wanted to he would have done it.

Breaking NEWS!

Bush isn’t running in 2012

Obama had 4 years to at least get the country going in the right direction and he’s done the opposite. That is the point here….

#Thats not exatly fair is it, the country was already in a deep financial crisis by the time Obama arrived. You should be thankful that your GDP is still in growth because all logic states you should still be in recession. That is a miracle in itself.

In 2008 the Obama campaign ran on "Hope and Change".

In 2012, they slammed the Romney campaign for not being "specific" enough.



I love politics!

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by michael1983l

 

Bush was in office when the cards came tumbling down, when your in office you are supposed to protect your nation from that happening. Bush failed, he was too busy riding the artificially empowered economy which was essentially being driven by money that did not exist. Bush did not want to regulate the banks because if he wanted to he would have done it.

Breaking NEWS!

Bush isn’t running in 2012

Obama had 4 years to at least get the country going in the right direction and he’s done the opposite. That is the point here….

Breaking NEWS!

you are making things up!

The economy went from 10% unemployment to under 8%, manufacturing is experiencing a resurgence and
exports are up 35%

reply to post by seabag

Breaking NEWS! Bush isn’t running in 2012

Bush the longest serving Potus since Roosevelt. lol:

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by seabag

 

Breaking NEWS! Bush isn’t running in 2012

Bush the longest serving Potus since Roosevelt. lol:

His policies are like the turd that won't flush, he was so bad America is still suffering

reply to post by campanionator

His policies are like the turd that won't flush, he was so bad America is still suffering

I agree Obama policies are.

reply to post by michael1983l

#Thats not exatly fair is it, the country was already in a deep financial crisis by the time Obama arrived.

YEP….it’s fair!

By his own definition he’s made NO PROGRESS.

reply to post by campanionator

Breaking NEWS!

you are making things up!

The economy went from 10% unemployment to under 8%, manufacturing is experiencing a resurgence and
exports are up 35%

AHEM….

And the jobs numbers are rigged!!

edit on 7-10-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by campanionator

 

Breaking NEWS!

you are making things up!

The economy went from 10% unemployment to under 8%, manufacturing is experiencing a resurgence and
exports are up 35%

AHEM….

And the jobs numbers are rigged!!

edit on 7-10-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

Ya, Obama created the 10% unemployment!

I guess conservatives benefit from their own incompetence

It's a hell of a strategy to take the fruits of your "labor" and use it against your
competition.

Bush took a great economy and turned it into a bowl of sh!t

Obama took a bowl of sh!t and turned it into a bowl of oatmeal

You should be proud

For 16 years reformers in Congress have tried to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and prevent the government-chartered companies from putting the housing market and the whole economy at risk. All that time, Frank was involved in efforts to block those attempts, and in the last eight years he was a leader of those efforts.

In 2002, shortly before accounting irregularities were exposed at both companies, Frank said, “I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems,” The Wall Street Journal reported. After the Freddie Mac accounting scandal in 2003, Frank said, “I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis.”

But there was a crisis, thanks in large part to Frank, Sen. Charles Schumer and others on the leash of these companies. In Congress, they made sure there was no additional oversight, no additional limit on executive behavior and compensation, and no further restraint on the growth of the companies’ mortgage-backed-securities portfolios, among other changes.

(All of these needed reforms, by the way, have been championed for years by Sen. John Sununu.)

In fact, Frank & Co. made matters worse by pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on greater risk. They wanted more loans to people who might not qualify for traditional bank financing. And, as The Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Frank “pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements — which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall.”


americaswatchtower.com...

reply to post by campanionator


That was hilarious considering 2000 to 2006 the economy was going fine not until the Democrats took power in the House did the things started going down hill.

The economy is doing fine?

unemployment at 7.9 percent that same percentage when he started?

And people want to give him a trophy for showing up.

Meh.

To Fanny and Freddy:

Originally posted by popcornmafia
With that debate performance from obama
it is justified.

Obama showed himself to be only a good teleprompter reader.

Obama is not.true presidential material and now the intelligent democrats
are finally starting to see that.

Obama will be a one term president and i am starting to like mitt more.and more.

He will be a.good president. Finally people are smartening up to obamas BS

Mitt did a very good job of changing and hiding his positions, I'll give him that!

Obama did a great job of letting Mitt lie his brains out too

reply to post by campanionator


Come again on that unemployment? Obama walked into 10%? No he did not. Nothing even remotely close to it. It took 10 months of Obama and the Pelosi Express with their policies to strike 10% in October of 2009.



Now... If Obama wasn't responsible for his disaster of an economy then like I said earlier. Fine. Bush wasn't responsible for 9/11. He'd been in office a full month less than Obama had for that 10% spike some seem to think can't be HIS fault. See how silly that sounds?? I'm sorry, but annual unemployment figures and more importantly, the averages for each Presidential term show the truth and the truth is, Obama couldn't manage a Taco stand long before bankruptcy came knocking.


(Source of data for both above: BLS - The first one is a direct copy/paste of the Gov't chart. Nothing changed. The second's columns are copy/paste with the 3 averages calculated..including the 7.8 figure this week)

His policies simply don't work and the only way to present the numbers some other way is to act like they don't exist and claim they are something else.

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by popcornmafia
With that debate performance from obama
it is justified.

Obama showed himself to be only a good teleprompter reader.

Obama is not.true presidential material and now the intelligent democrats
are finally starting to see that.

Obama will be a one term president and i am starting to like mitt more.and more.

He will be a.good president. Finally people are smartening up to obamas BS

Mitt did a very good job of changing and hiding his positions, I'll give him that!

Obama did a great job of letting Mitt lie his brains out too

really? lied his brains out hmm?? care to provide some proof of that..........be warned that any false information you put out there, will be countered with the real information.........

Ive seen you on other threads, you readily drink the coolaid........so make really really sure before you come back with your links and stats that they are vetted.........

Im no Romney fan, and wont be voting for him, but neither do i condone intellectual dishonesty for gungho support of ANYONE......

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by campanionator

 

That was hilarious considering 2000 to 2006 the economy was going fine not until the Democrats took power in the House did the things started going down hill.

The economy is doing fine?

unemployment at 7.9 percent that same percentage when he started?

And people want to give him a trophy for showing up.

Meh.

To Fanny and Freddy:

edit on 7-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Even if the economy stayed slow for four years, unemployment would be 5.6% at this rate.

And Bush is hurting your "reality"

reply to post by jimmiec

For 16 years reformers in Congress have tried to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and prevent the government-chartered companies from putting the housing market and the whole economy at risk. All that time, Frank was involved in efforts to block those attempts, and in the last eight years he was a leader of those efforts.

Excellent point!!

…Republicans tried to stop it and Democrats continued to defend it! Not only that, they actively tried to bury it!!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by campanionator

 

Come again on that unemployment? Obama walked into 10%? No he did not. Nothing even remotely close to it. It took 10 months of Obama and the Pelosi Express with their policies to strike 10% in October of 2009.

UR,,,, Obama's fiscal policies did not take into effect until September 30 2009

NICE POINT

fiscal year - The fiscal year is the accounting period for the federal government which begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends; for example, fiscal year 2013 begins on October 1, 2012 and ends on September 30, 2013. Congress passes appropriations legislation to fund the government for every fiscal year.

www.senate.gov...