The Obama Record is a Record

Spoken like a true and dedicated leftist Old Rocks And we could derail the thread by going back to the Bush administration 'sins' for sure. But just looking at the Glass Steagall issue alone, trying to pin that one on the Republicans alone is pretty hard to do. And the issue also tracks all the way into the Obama record.

I'm using Wiki because of the pretty exhaustive research somebody has done on the subject and because it fits pretty close to what I understand of the whole history of the Glass Steagall issue. . . .

. . . .just to keep it honest

President Bill Clinton’s signing statement for the GLBA summarized the established argument for repealing Glass-Steagall Section’s 20 and 32 in stating that this change, and the GLBA’s amendments to the Bank Holding Company Act, would “enhance the stability of our financial services system” by permitting financial firms to “diversify their product offerings and thus their sources of revenue” and make financial firms “better equipped to compete in global financial markets.”[353]

On January 4, 1995, the new Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Representative James A. Leach (R-IA), introduced a bill to repeal Glass-Steagall Sections 20 and 32.[287] After being confirmed as Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin announced on February 28, 1995, that the Clinton Administration supported such Glass-Steagall repeal.[288] Repeating themes from the 1980s, Leach stated Glass-Steagall was “out of synch with reality”[289] and Rubin argued “it is now time for the laws to reflect changes in the world’s financial system.”[288]

(Keeping in mind that the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats in 2009)
During the 2009 House of Representatives consideration of H.R. 4173, the bill that became the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) proposed an amendment to the bill that would have reenacted Glass-Steagall Sections 20 and 32 and also prohibited bank insurance activities. The amendment was not voted on by the House.[411]

On December 16, 2009, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced in the Senate the “Banking Integrity Act of 2009” (S.2886), which would have reinstated Glass-Steagall Sections 20 and 32, but was not voted on by the Senate.[411][412]

Before the Senate acted on its version of what became the Dodd-Frank Act, the Congressional Research Service issued a report describing securities activities banks and their affiliates had conducted before the GLBA. The Report stated Glass-Steagall had “imperfectly separated, to a certain degree” commercial and investment banking and described the extensive securities activities the Federal Reserve Board had authorized for “Section 20 affiliates” since the 1980s.[413]

The Obama Administration has been criticized for opposing Glass-Steagall reenactment.[411][414] Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testified to the Joint Economic Committee that he opposed reenacting Glass-Steagall and that he did not believe “the end of Glass-Steagall played a significant role” in causing the financial crisis.[415]
Glass

You are correct. The Republicans pushed the bill, and Clinton traded on it. Very dumb move on his part. However, it was still the GOP that pushed it.

As for the failure to repeal it, there are all too many Dems just as willing to take bank money as there are GOP.
 
Just playing devil's advocate here, but I can think of at least one reason someone might vote for Obama despite those points, assuming all are true : if they consider them not his fault/responsibility.
True - partisan bigots do whateever they can to defend their guy, even if it means lying to themselves.
 
The wealthy pay more of a percentage of their income in taxes than working Americans, that's why it's a progressive tax system.

The wages of working Americans declined in the last four years, and the democrats are just fine with that because it may mean that rich people lost their companies.

Really? I paid more on the 100,000 plus that I made than did Romney on the millions that he made.
Raw dollars? Bet not.
Percentage? You're going something wrong, 'cause I paid half what he did on the same income as yours.
 
Spoken like a true and dedicated leftist Old Rocks And we could derail the thread by going back to the Bush administration 'sins' for sure. But just looking at the Glass Steagall issue alone, trying to pin that one on the Republicans alone is pretty hard to do. And the issue also tracks all the way into the Obama record.

I'm using Wiki because of the pretty exhaustive research somebody has done on the subject and because it fits pretty close to what I understand of the whole history of the Glass Steagall issue. . . .

. . . .just to keep it honest

President Bill Clinton’s signing statement for the GLBA summarized the established argument for repealing Glass-Steagall Section’s 20 and 32 in stating that this change, and the GLBA’s amendments to the Bank Holding Company Act, would “enhance the stability of our financial services system” by permitting financial firms to “diversify their product offerings and thus their sources of revenue” and make financial firms “better equipped to compete in global financial markets.”[353]



(Keeping in mind that the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats in 2009)


Before the Senate acted on its version of what became the Dodd-Frank Act, the Congressional Research Service issued a report describing securities activities banks and their affiliates had conducted before the GLBA. The Report stated Glass-Steagall had “imperfectly separated, to a certain degree” commercial and investment banking and described the extensive securities activities the Federal Reserve Board had authorized for “Section 20 affiliates” since the 1980s.[413]

The Obama Administration has been criticized for opposing Glass-Steagall reenactment.[411][414] Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testified to the Joint Economic Committee that he opposed reenacting Glass-Steagall and that he did not believe “the end of Glass-Steagall played a significant role” in causing the financial crisis.[415]
Glass

You are correct. The Republicans pushed the bill, and Clinton traded on it. Very dumb move on his part. However, it was still the GOP that pushed it.

As for the failure to repeal it, there are all too many Dems just as willing to take bank money as there are GOP.

However, if you want to keep it honest, you will also see that it is Republicans who have pushed for reinstatement of the key provisions and it is the Democrats who have blocked that reinstatement. Including the Obama Administration.

It doesn't really matter who introduces the legislation. Both sides of the aisle introduce lots and lots of legislation and certainly there have been Democrats in the past who have introduced legislation to repeal all or portions of Glass Steagall. Most never made it out of committee. Other were voted down with no media interest or fanfare.

In the end, it only matters who votes on it and who signs it into law. The Obama Administration is on record that Glass Steagall had little or nothing to do with the 2008 housing bubble crash and are on record that they are opposed to reinstating it. THAT is part of the Obama record. You either like it or you don't.
 
Last edited:
Obama's Stimulus Bill was based on the theory of Keynesian Economics. The European Socialists tried to use it more than once and each time it failed. Why would a rational person try a failed policy and expect a different out come?

The economies of European Socialism are close to being bankrupt and are not buying US products which is starting to have negative impact on our economy.

However, our president wants to head us in the same direction as Socialist Europe.


Talk to any small business owners and they will tell you the uncertainty created by this administration keeps them from expanding and hiring more workers.

Large businesses are doing exactly the same as the small ones.

The cost estimates of Obama's policies continue to grow.

What types of governments instigate inclass warfare?

"It's absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine," President Obama said at the White House shortly after declaring "the private sector is doing fine" at a press conference Friday morning. That’s the reason I had a press conference. That’s why I spent yesterday, the day before yesterday, this past week, this past month and this past year talking about how we can make the economy stronger. The economy is not doing fine. There are too many people out of work. The housing market is still weak, too many homes underwater and that’s precisely why I asked Congress to start taking some steps that can make a difference.”
http://www.realclearpoliti[urlcs.com/video/2012/06/08/obama_backtracks_its_absolutely_clear_the_economy_is_not_doing_fine.html]Obama Backtracks: "It's Absolutely Clear Economy Is Not Doing Fine" | RealClearPolitics[/url]

Obama stated: No one has built a business without government help. I don't think so.
OBama has done nothing to decrease our National Debt but he certainly knows how to increase it.
You don't raise taxes in a poor economy.“None so blind as those that will not see.”
 
Last edited:
Obama's Stimulus Bill was based on the theory of Keynesian Economics. The European Socialists tried to use it more than once and each time it failed. Why would a rational person try a failed policy and expect a different out come?

The economies of European Socialism are close to being bankrupt and are not buying US products which is starting to have negative impact on our economy.

However, our president wants to head us in the same direction as Socialist Europe.


Talk to any small business owners and they will tell you the uncertainty created by this administration keeps them from expanding and hiring more workers.

Large businesses are doing exactly the same as the small ones.

The cost estimates of Obama's policies continue to grow.

What types of governments instigate inclass warfare?

"It's absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine," President Obama said at the White House shortly after declaring "the private sector is doing fine" at a press conference Friday morning. That’s the reason I had a press conference. That’s why I spent yesterday, the day before yesterday, this past week, this past month and this past year talking about how we can make the economy stronger. The economy is not doing fine. There are too many people out of work. The housing market is still weak, too many homes underwater and that’s precisely why I asked Congress to start taking some steps that can make a difference.”
http://www.realclearpoliti[urlcs.com/video/2012/06/08/obama_backtracks_its_absolutely_clear_the_economy_is_not_doing_fine.html]Obama Backtracks: "It's Absolutely Clear Economy Is Not Doing Fine" | RealClearPolitics[/url]

Obama stated: No one has built a business without government help. I don't think so.
OBama has done nothing to decrease our National Debt but he certainly knows how to increase it.
You don't raise taxes in a poor economy.“None so blind as those that will not see.”

The national debt clock will very soon reach $16 trillion dollars. Most people cannot conceive of such a number that has become so big we just shove it aside in our minds and declare it meaningless. But how big is a million dollars to any of us? More than you ever hope to have? More than you will earn in a lifetime? That $16 trillion equals more than a million dollars a day spent every single say since the birth of Christ. How do we get people to understand how serious that is and what it will mean to all of us, our children and grandchildren, if it is not reversed? That the sheer volume of interest we are paying on all that debt will eventually crush us under its own weight?

President Obama doesn't understand it with a corrupted Keynesian economic policy that is adding a trillion or more to that debt every single year and, if his current system is not turned around, will continue to add a trillion or more to the debt every single year for as far as the eye can see. (I say 'corrrupted' Keynesiian policy because Keynes intended for government spending to boost the economy to be limited, short term, and quickly repaid to the national treasury thus not adding to the long term national debt.)

This is all part of Obama's record. Money he has to spend it one thing. But the mega billions he is spending to buy votes, to buy influence, to pay off cronies and political debts, I honestly don't see how anybody with a clue can defend it.
 
Reading the President's reception in his most recent campaign bus tour, and the commentary being related or printed about that, it seems that he is avoiding his own record like the plague and is focusing on what needs to be done--you know all that stuff he had promised to do the first time--and also of course in attacking Romney and Ryan. Gone from the rhetoric this year however are all those magnificent and glowing words of 'hope and change', of restoring honesty and integrity and responsibility to government, of promising transparency and complee fiscal accountability and resonsibility, etc.

And it appears that folks in those states he is visiting aren't nearly so star struck as they were the first time around:
Enthusiasm -- and Signs of Trouble -- on Obama's Iowa Bus Route | RealClearPolitics
 
From reading some posts on this thread it looks like the GOP's plan to discredit the president through congress is working.

How so? The GOP is passing bill after bill in the House that would make Obama look really good if he would just push them and encourage his Democratic majority in the Senate to deal with them. But none are making it out of committee in the Senate, much less to the Senate floor for debate and a vote.

Most of the Obama record is in the legislation that was passed when he had a Democratic majority, and he passed everything he wanted in those two years. And most of that legislation now gets a thumb down from a majority of voters. That would include that horrendous appropriations bill they passed in early 2009, the handling of the auto bailouts, the debt ceiling increases, the stimulus package, and of course Obamacare.

All that is part of the Obama record.

For the last two years he has been pretty ineffective--some of us would say, thank God--and his legacy will be in that ineffectiveness, his failure to promote or support initiatives that could have improved the economy, wasting of most of the stimulus money on programs and initiatives that nowhere near resembled what he said would be promoted when he lobbied for it, and signing statements that will not be treasted kindly by history.

The GOP has not needed to do anything to make Obama look bad in any of these things.
 
Presidents don't affect the economy for the most part. About the only thing some presidents could do is inspire confidence in the hopes of stimulating spending through optimism. But when a candidate says something positive, generally they are blasted for being out of touch! But don't let Obama bashers and Romney supporters stand in the way of this fact. This is one of the reasons I'm not voting for Romney because I don't think he can make much of a difference except perhaps in hurting the middle class (which is where most of us are).

Does the president actually influence the economy?

...
Dubner: Look, personally, I have no horse in any race -- I dislike both political parties about equally. But here's the thing: We're heading into a presidential campaign now that is likely to focus on the economy, and rightly so. And I'm here to tell you and your listeners that of all the areas in which the president's influence is overrated, the economy is probably No. 1.

I'd like you here to listen to Austan Goolsbee, who's a former chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

Austan Goolsbee: I think the world vests too much power -- certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general -- for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
...

And...from a separate article...

The President's Effect on the Economy: Less than you'd think...

The two most significant ways that a President can affect the economy is through taxes and government spending. Although, most of that power resides with Congress and the President merely lends a signature at the end of the process to make the proposal law. The President can and will state his opinion on such matters, but ultimate responsibility for fiscal policy is Congress’ alone. Thus, while the President has enormous influence over fiscal policy, Congress is the ultimate authority.

...

Trump is responsible

The first half of the year has been weaker than expected for the global economy, and the main cause is a significant slowdown in manufacturing and trade.

What's happening: The IMF wrote down its global growth expectations for the third time this year, pointing squarely to the U.S.-China trade war that has thrown a wet blanket on cross-border trade and investment, sending manufacturing into a recession in the U.S. and in an increasing number of countries around the globe.

The U.S.-China trade war is to blame for the continuing global slowdown

Let's ask Trump 2013 if he is responsible

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

11:01 AM - 8 Nov 2013
 
Obama's foreign policy: F. Arab Spring, if there ever was such a thing was squelched when Obama backed the Mullahs and did nothing to support the Iranian people's revolt. He ordered the "stand down" that resulted in the slaughter of 4 innocent Americans. He decided that the American lives were a small price to pay to maintain his good graces with the Libyans.

Obama's economic policies: D. He was not responsible for the collapse and he was not responsible for the anemic recovery. That was the Fed dropping interest rates to near zero for his entire tenure. He also pushed for the greatest expansion of the Food Stamp program in history.

Obama's ulterior motives: F. It was clear that Obama's intent was to "transform" America into some Euro trash PC state. He that by undermining Police, inflaming Black-White hatred and violence, and attacking the successful. His Fast and Furious gun running operation to the Drug Cartel was dutifully covered up by the Media and his minions. He and Holder think the book is closed, but it will soon be cracked open again.
 
Obama's foreign policy: F. Arab Spring, if there ever was such a thing was squelched when Obama backed the Mullahs and did nothing to support the Iranian people's revolt. He ordered the "stand down" that resulted in the slaughter of 4 innocent Americans. He decided that the American lives were a small price to pay to maintain his good graces with the Libyans.

Obama's economic policies: D. He was not responsible for the collapse and he was not responsible for the anemic recovery. That was the Fed dropping interest rates to near zero for his entire tenure. He also pushed for the greatest expansion of the Food Stamp program in history.

Obama's ulterior motives: F. It was clear that Obama's intent was to "transform" America into some Euro trash PC state. He that by undermining Police, inflaming Black-White hatred and violence, and attacking the successful. His Fast and Furious gun running operation to the Drug Cartel was dutifully covered up by the Media and his minions. He and Holder think the book is closed, but it will soon be cracked open again.

That's because Bush's Great Recession put those people on foodstamps fool.

Did you hear Trump is responsible for the Feds dropping interest rates? First time since 2008. Sounds like Trump's tariffs are fucking things up.

No, Obama and Democrats aren't trying to turn America into Europe. We were trying to put America back together again. The middle class is disappearing because the rich have waged war on the rest of us. They've cut every social program so they could get tax breaks. That's just one of many reasons the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer.

When will you stupid mother fucking Republicans realize that America is greater now than it's ever been. And under Obama, they were richer than they were under Bush. And they were richer under Bush than they were Clinton.

In other words, the rich are doing great and who are you blaming for your woes? You're blaming liberals and poor people? Why don't you blame the GOP and the rich people who pay them to pass policies that only benefit them?

Stupid fuckers.
 
Obama's foreign policy: F. Arab Spring, if there ever was such a thing was squelched when Obama backed the Mullahs and did nothing to support the Iranian people's revolt. He ordered the "stand down" that resulted in the slaughter of 4 innocent Americans. He decided that the American lives were a small price to pay to maintain his good graces with the Libyans.

Obama's economic policies: D. He was not responsible for the collapse and he was not responsible for the anemic recovery. That was the Fed dropping interest rates to near zero for his entire tenure. He also pushed for the greatest expansion of the Food Stamp program in history.

Obama's ulterior motives: F. It was clear that Obama's intent was to "transform" America into some Euro trash PC state. He that by undermining Police, inflaming Black-White hatred and violence, and attacking the successful. His Fast and Furious gun running operation to the Drug Cartel was dutifully covered up by the Media and his minions. He and Holder think the book is closed, but it will soon be cracked open again.

That's because Bush's Great Recession put those people on foodstamps fool.

Did you hear Trump is responsible for the Feds dropping interest rates? First time since 2008. Sounds like Trump's tariffs are fucking things up.

No, Obama and Democrats aren't trying to turn America into Europe. We were trying to put America back together again. The middle class is disappearing because the rich have waged war on the rest of us. They've cut every social program so they could get tax breaks. That's just one of many reasons the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer.

When will you stupid mother fucking Republicans realize that America is greater now than it's ever been. And under Obama, they were richer than they were under Bush. And they were richer under Bush than they were Clinton.

In other words, the rich are doing great and who are you blaming for your woes? You're blaming liberals and poor people? Why don't you blame the GOP and the rich people who pay them to pass policies that only benefit them?

Stupid fuckers.
We weren't the ones duped by a unknown con man with a murky past. If you want to cling to your shining image of Obama go ahead. And yeah everything bad that has ever happened in America was because of a Republican and Democrats are always the saviors. What a childish, simplistic view. And do you understand the concept of DEBT? We currently pay nearly 10% of our entire revenue on interest on the debt. Our entitlement programs are going insolvent in a few short years. Spare me your F-bomb insults you are the one who is apparently lacking in basic reasoning.
 

Forum List

Back
Top