At What Point Did You Decide That You Were Against Obama No Matter What?

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you saying you have never been to college? They don't keep people who aren't exceptional.

Do you have any interests other than Obama? I find the subject of always talking about a person rather boring. It should be obvious that the President has lead an exceptional life, but you will argue against reality to try and make a stupid hack point. You talk about Obama on every thread.

They also keep people who are married to someone who can help them politically. If he was exceptional, as you claim, why was he never offered tenure?

How do you know a Lecturer doesn't also get tenure? Obama wasn't a professor at the law school.

I said he was never offered tenure. The rest of your post is nothing but spam.

 

[Dubya]

I think we both know, there are no college transcripts of any President and you just want to continue the lie.

Are you trying to tell me I couldn't find the poor grades of Bush if I looked for them?

George W. Bush Transcript

How many other President's transcripts can you pull up?

It's my understanding that none of the Presidents have ever submitted a college transcript and that's why I asked the liars to post one. These people are beyond reason, so they will just lie to avoid reality and make all kinds of groundless claims against Obama.

The idiots don't even have the sense to know that my motive is not to support Obama in this discussion, but to support the truth. I don't like people going on the internet and lying. The internet should be used to spread information and not to spread misinformation.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So your point is the worst recession since the Great Depression has the worst recovery. It's hard to take such bullshit objections seriously. Where have you been lately that you can't figure out why this recovery is so slow? You damn well know the Repubicans have been suggesting the exact opposite of what would make a quick recovery. You damn well know they have obstructed government all the way through this economic disaster. We had growth that would be good economic growth, but the Repubican free trade agreements put the benefits of that growth in other countries and not here. Take a look at what happened to the Republican Party during the Great Depression! The 70th United States Congress served from March 4, 1927 – March 4, 1929. It had Republican (R): 48 (majority) and Democratic (D): 46 in the Senate and Republican (R): 238 (majority) and Democratic (D): 194 in the House. That's definitely before the Great Depression, so I'll just post the data and let's see what happened to the Democrats and Republicans.

SIZE="5"]71st United States Congress, March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1931[/SIZE]

Senate

Republican (R): 56 (majority)
Democratic (D): 39

House

Republican (R): 270 (majority)
Democratic (D): 164

72nd United States Congress, March 4, 1931 – March 4, 1933

Senate

Republican (R): 48 (majority)
Democratic (D): 47

House

Democratic (D): 217 (majority)
Republican (R): 217

It's rather interesting you are taking this route with respect to the economy, looking to Congress instead of blaming President Obama. That being said, which political party enjoyed a nice majority in the House and Senate when we got this economic mess to begin with? Did they not become the Congressional majority back in 2006 BEFORE the economy took a nose dive?

Also who had the majority in the house and bogged it down for months to choose the direction of going for ObamaCare over the economy? Didn't unemployment go to over 10% and that's why Pelosi lost her job? Let us know which side of the fence you want to ride on when it comes to placing blame.

How many months did Obama have a super-majority in the Senate to get legislation passed? The Republicans obstructed all change and even voted against their own legislation to delay the Senate as much as possible. They also filibustered legislation they unanimously voted for.

When the Democrats controlled the house during Obama's first term, he had no problems spending taxpayer dollars (despite any Republican opposition) on the stimulus bill, obamacare, cash for clunkers, additional bailout funding of GMC along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Federal Government incentives for the Chevy Volt, cash for appliances, funding Solyndra and Nevada Geothermal failures..... seems the Democrats had no problems getting their way with wasting taxpayer dollars. How many jobs were created from these plans listed above? If you looked at the unemployment rate that followed for the next two years (over 10% with underemployment bringing it up to around 17%), I'd say not much. That's why his plan for the Federal Government to "spend" it's way out if a recession, was a proven failure. Now we have a drastic increase in our national debt with nothing to show for it. Great job!!

 

[Dubya]

It's rather interesting you are taking this route with respect to the economy, looking to Congress instead of blaming President Obama. That being said, which political party enjoyed a nice majority in the House and Senate when we got this economic mess to begin with? Did they not become the Congressional majority back in 2006 BEFORE the economy took a nose dive?

Also who had the majority in the house and bogged it down for months to choose the direction of going for ObamaCare over the economy? Didn't unemployment go to over 10% and that's why Pelosi lost her job? Let us know which side of the fence you want to ride on when it comes to placing blame.

How many months did Obama have a super-majority in the Senate to get legislation passed? The Republicans obstructed all change and even voted against their own legislation to delay the Senate as much as possible. They also filibustered legislation they unanimously voted for.

When the Democrats controlled the house during Obama's first term, he had no problems spending taxpayer dollars (despite any Republican opposition) on the stimulus bill, obamacare, cash for clunkers, additional bailout funding of GMC along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Federal Government incentives for the Chevy Volt, cash for appliances, funding Solyndra and Nevada Geothermal failures..... seems the Democrats had no problems getting their way with wasting taxpayer dollars. How many jobs were created from these plans listed above? If you looked at the unemployment rate that followed for the next two years (over 10% with underemployment bringing it up to around 17%), I'd say not much. That's why his plan for the Federal Government to "spend" it's way out if a recession, was a proven failure. Now we have a drastic increase in our national debt with nothing to show for it. Great job!!

You idiots have claimed there are less jobs now than in 2007, but I posted the stats from the BLS proving there were around 12.5 million more jobs now and you can get the exact figure.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

The economy was in a freefall that Republicans created during their watch, so I don't care what was needed to stop that and keep us out of a depression. You can ***** all you want about the cure, but you assholes created the desease. No one buys your bullshit.

Having control of the House didn't give Obama a super-majority in the Senate and as I recall having posted the data, the Democrats had a super-majority for less than 6 months, but it was on the order of 5 days less. You can only get so much done when the Repubicans are intentionally obstructing Congress. They should have solved our economic problems long ago, but the Republicans work to destroy and not create good economies. That's why they need to cease to exist in America.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Gives a ****?..Ok, then why does Obama feel compelled to comment on just about every issue important and unimportant?
A word of caution. Barack Obama is THE LEAST vetted individual to ever hold the Office of POTUS.

What a coincidence.

Turns out Barack Obama is THE LEAST QUALIFIED individual to ever hold the Office of POTUS as well.

Sorry. But that would be George W. Bush. Next?

Lets see a Texas governor with a leadership role making decisions for the state vs. a simple community organizer? Please don't tell me you were actually trying to be SERIOUS when you posted that?

Ok all joking aside ..... what previous leadership executive position does Obama actually have prior to becoming President? You know something that involves "budgeting" (which this administration has yet to pass by the way) and some kind of executive responsibilities? I'm sure you would have no problems listing a few, with all of Obama's AMAZING "qualifications" that you happen to boast about???

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

How many months did Obama have a super-majority in the Senate to get legislation passed? The Republicans obstructed all change and even voted against their own legislation to delay the Senate as much as possible. They also filibustered legislation they unanimously voted for.

When the Democrats controlled the house during Obama's first term, he had no problems spending taxpayer dollars (despite any Republican opposition) on the stimulus bill, obamacare, cash for clunkers, additional bailout funding of GMC along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Federal Government incentives for the Chevy Volt, cash for appliances, funding Solyndra and Nevada Geothermal failures..... seems the Democrats had no problems getting their way with wasting taxpayer dollars. How many jobs were created from these plans listed above? If you looked at the unemployment rate that followed for the next two years (over 10% with underemployment bringing it up to around 17%), I'd say not much. That's why his plan for the Federal Government to "spend" it's way out if a recession, was a proven failure. Now we have a drastic increase in our national debt with nothing to show for it. Great job!!

You idiots have claimed there are less jobs now than in 2007, but I posted the stats from the BLS proving there were around 12.5 million more jobs now and you can get the exact figure.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

The economy was in a freefall that Republicans created during their watch, so I don't care what was needed to stop that and keep us out of a depression. You can ***** all you want about the cure, but you assholes created the desease. No one buys your bullshit

You see you want to blame President Bush and the Republicans for the crippled economy, yet the legislative branch was in control by the Democrats (does Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed ring a bell?). Now you want to blame Congress and the Republicans (notice the flip flopping of blame?) for the recovery, when I JUST listed all of what the Democrats were able to pass without the help of Republicans (none of which you were able to refute). So all this "blame Bush" for the economic mess, and now blame Congress because of the Republicans, tells me you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. You can try passing that crap to your liberal cheering section, but I doubt anyone else is gullible enough to buy that - hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Gadawg73]

How many months did Obama have a super-majority in the Senate to get legislation passed? The Republicans obstructed all change and even voted against their own legislation to delay the Senate as much as possible. They also filibustered legislation they unanimously voted for.

When the Democrats controlled the house during Obama's first term, he had no problems spending taxpayer dollars (despite any Republican opposition) on the stimulus bill, obamacare, cash for clunkers, additional bailout funding of GMC along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Federal Government incentives for the Chevy Volt, cash for appliances, funding Solyndra and Nevada Geothermal failures..... seems the Democrats had no problems getting their way with wasting taxpayer dollars. How many jobs were created from these plans listed above? If you looked at the unemployment rate that followed for the next two years (over 10% with underemployment bringing it up to around 17%), I'd say not much. That's why his plan for the Federal Government to "spend" it's way out if a recession, was a proven failure. Now we have a drastic increase in our national debt with nothing to show for it. Great job!!

You idiots have claimed there are less jobs now than in 2007, but I posted the stats from the BLS proving there were around 12.5 million more jobs now and you can get the exact figure.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

The economy was in a freefall that Republicans created during their watch, so I don't care what was needed to stop that and keep us out of a depression. You can ***** all you want about the cure, but you assholes created the desease. No one buys your bullshit.

Having control of the House didn't give Obama a super-majority in the Senate and as I recall having posted the data, the Democrats had a super-majority for less than 6 months, but it was on the order of 5 days less. You can only get so much done when the Repubicans are intentionally obstructing Congress. They should have solved our economic problems long ago, but the Republicans work to destroy and not create good economies. That's why they need to cease to exist in America.

How many of those "new" jobs are in the government sector?
Obama has not created ONE SINGLE JOB.
The private sector handcuffed by a lack of investment capital for expansion, uncertainty in the tax code, runaway deficits that limit available capital in the marketplace, increases in capital gains and corporate taxes, massive small bank failures due to the ignorance of the Obama administration giving large banks a different set of rules and the massive growth of social programs leaves NO $$$ for business to expand thus small increases in new employees.
Government Policy is the ONLY thing that government can do that increases job growth and Obama is openly ANTI BUSINESS.

 

[Dubya]

When the Democrats controlled the house during Obama's first term, he had no problems spending taxpayer dollars (despite any Republican opposition) on the stimulus bill, obamacare, cash for clunkers, additional bailout funding of GMC along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Federal Government incentives for the Chevy Volt, cash for appliances, funding Solyndra and Nevada Geothermal failures..... seems the Democrats had no problems getting their way with wasting taxpayer dollars. How many jobs were created from these plans listed above? If you looked at the unemployment rate that followed for the next two years (over 10% with underemployment bringing it up to around 17%), I'd say not much. That's why his plan for the Federal Government to "spend" it's way out if a recession, was a proven failure. Now we have a drastic increase in our national debt with nothing to show for it. Great job!!

You idiots have claimed there are less jobs now than in 2007, but I posted the stats from the BLS proving there were around 12.5 million more jobs now and you can get the exact figure.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

The economy was in a freefall that Republicans created during their watch, so I don't care what was needed to stop that and keep us out of a depression. You can ***** all you want about the cure, but you assholes created the desease. No one buys your bullshit

You see you want to blame President Bush and the Republicans for the crippled economy, yet the legislative branch was in control by the Democrats (does Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed ring a bell?). Now you want to blame Congress and the Republicans (notice the flip flopping of blame?) for the recovery, when I JUST listed all of what the Democrats were able to pass without the help of Republicans (none of which you were able to refute). So all this "blame Bush" for the economic mess, and now blame Congress because of the Republicans, tells me you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. You can try passing that crap to your liberal cheering section, but I doubt anyone else is gullible enough to buy that - hook, line, and sinker.

The Republicans passed legislation when Clinton was President, the GBLA and the CFMA. Bush had the agenda of not using regulation, like the SEC. Legislation didn't crash the economy during Bush, it was prior legislation that allowed this shit to happen, while Bush didn't allow government to do it's job. There is no good reason why those toxic asset bonds were allowed to be traded as triple A securities. Thanks to Republicans, we don't have a triple A bond rate anymore.

People who study economics know what happened to crash the economy and they know people like you are liars trying to cover up who was involved.

 

[Dubya]

When the Democrats controlled the house during Obama's first term, he had no problems spending taxpayer dollars (despite any Republican opposition) on the stimulus bill, obamacare, cash for clunkers, additional bailout funding of GMC along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Federal Government incentives for the Chevy Volt, cash for appliances, funding Solyndra and Nevada Geothermal failures..... seems the Democrats had no problems getting their way with wasting taxpayer dollars. How many jobs were created from these plans listed above? If you looked at the unemployment rate that followed for the next two years (over 10% with underemployment bringing it up to around 17%), I'd say not much. That's why his plan for the Federal Government to "spend" it's way out if a recession, was a proven failure. Now we have a drastic increase in our national debt with nothing to show for it. Great job!!

You idiots have claimed there are less jobs now than in 2007, but I posted the stats from the BLS proving there were around 12.5 million more jobs now and you can get the exact figure.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

The economy was in a freefall that Republicans created during their watch, so I don't care what was needed to stop that and keep us out of a depression. You can ***** all you want about the cure, but you assholes created the desease. No one buys your bullshit.

Having control of the House didn't give Obama a super-majority in the Senate and as I recall having posted the data, the Democrats had a super-majority for less than 6 months, but it was on the order of 5 days less. You can only get so much done when the Repubicans are intentionally obstructing Congress. They should have solved our economic problems long ago, but the Republicans work to destroy and not create good economies. That's why they need to cease to exist in America.

How many of those "new" jobs are in the government sector?
Obama has not created ONE SINGLE JOB.
The private sector handcuffed by a lack of investment capital for expansion, uncertainty in the tax code, runaway deficits that limit available capital in the marketplace, increases in capital gains and corporate taxes, massive small bank failures due to the ignorance of the Obama administration giving large banks a different set of rules and the massive growth of social programs leaves NO $$$ for business to expand thus small increases in new employees.
Government Policy is the ONLY thing that government can do that increases job growth and Obama is openly ANTI BUSINESS.

The BLS makes reports every month and there hasn't been government jobs added to the economy. The governments have been losing jobs. Why don't you get the reports and prove your point? I've looked at them, so I know better. The only time there was an increase in government jobs was when the census was taken and that was only during a short period.

Investment in the economy has nothing to do with present income of the rich and everything to do with wealth stored through the centuries. The only questions in the tax code now are attempts to close loopholes.

 

[Clementine]

When the Democrats controlled the house during Obama's first term, he had no problems spending taxpayer dollars (despite any Republican opposition) on the stimulus bill, obamacare, cash for clunkers, additional bailout funding of GMC along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Federal Government incentives for the Chevy Volt, cash for appliances, funding Solyndra and Nevada Geothermal failures..... seems the Democrats had no problems getting their way with wasting taxpayer dollars. How many jobs were created from these plans listed above? If you looked at the unemployment rate that followed for the next two years (over 10% with underemployment bringing it up to around 17%), I'd say not much. That's why his plan for the Federal Government to "spend" it's way out if a recession, was a proven failure. Now we have a drastic increase in our national debt with nothing to show for it. Great job!!

You idiots have claimed there are less jobs now than in 2007, but I posted the stats from the BLS proving there were around 12.5 million more jobs now and you can get the exact figure.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

The economy was in a freefall that Republicans created during their watch, so I don't care what was needed to stop that and keep us out of a depression. You can ***** all you want about the cure, but you assholes created the desease. No one buys your bullshit.

Having control of the House didn't give Obama a super-majority in the Senate and as I recall having posted the data, the Democrats had a super-majority for less than 6 months, but it was on the order of 5 days less. You can only get so much done when the Repubicans are intentionally obstructing Congress. They should have solved our economic problems long ago, but the Republicans work to destroy and not create good economies. That's why they need to cease to exist in America.

How many of those "new" jobs are in the government sector?
Obama has not created ONE SINGLE JOB.
The private sector handcuffed by a lack of investment capital for expansion, uncertainty in the tax code, runaway deficits that limit available capital in the marketplace, increases in capital gains and corporate taxes, massive small bank failures due to the ignorance of the Obama administration giving large banks a different set of rules and the massive growth of social programs leaves NO $$$ for business to expand thus small increases in new employees.
Government Policy is the ONLY thing that government can do that increases job growth and Obama is openly ANTI BUSINESS.

There are going to be a total of 20,000 new IRS agents hired to make sure people obey Obamacare laws. I don't know how many have been hired already, but that will be a lot of new bureaucrats.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How many months did Obama have a super-majority in the Senate to get legislation passed? The Republicans obstructed all change and even voted against their own legislation to delay the Senate as much as possible. They also filibustered legislation they unanimously voted for.

When the Democrats controlled the house during Obama's first term, he had no problems spending taxpayer dollars (despite any Republican opposition) on the stimulus bill, obamacare, cash for clunkers, additional bailout funding of GMC along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Federal Government incentives for the Chevy Volt, cash for appliances, funding Solyndra and Nevada Geothermal failures..... seems the Democrats had no problems getting their way with wasting taxpayer dollars. How many jobs were created from these plans listed above? If you looked at the unemployment rate that followed for the next two years (over 10% with underemployment bringing it up to around 17%), I'd say not much. That's why his plan for the Federal Government to "spend" it's way out if a recession, was a proven failure. Now we have a drastic increase in our national debt with nothing to show for it. Great job!!

You idiots have claimed there are less jobs now than in 2007, but I posted the stats from the BLS proving there were around 12.5 million more jobs now and you can get the exact figure.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

The economy was in a freefall that Republicans created during their watch, so I don't care what was needed to stop that and keep us out of a depression. You can ***** all you want about the cure, but you assholes created the desease. No one buys your bullshit.

Having control of the House didn't give Obama a super-majority in the Senate and as I recall having posted the data, the Democrats had a super-majority for less than 6 months, but it was on the order of 5 days less. You can only get so much done when the Repubicans are intentionally obstructing Congress. They should have solved our economic problems long ago, but the Republicans work to destroy and not create good economies. That's why they need to cease to exist in America.

You are changing the story to fit the liberal narrative.
The GOP was not obstructing Congress. The GOP Reps and Sens were doing what their constituents sent them to do. That is to block the liberal agenda of the democrat party. That's how our government works.
Your premise presupposes having to kowtow to the whims of the majority.
That's pure democracy. This is a Representative Republic. NOT a democracy.
Now democrats are busily creating dependency upon government for as many people as possible. The goal is to provide the public dole to as many as possible to create in lockstep voters for democrats.
The liberal democrats care not for the people or the nation. They are fixated on the acquisition and retention of political power.
Today Obama repeated the lib talking point HE created by saying "we cannot cut our way to prosperity"..
He believes we can tax our way to prosperity.
So, your job is to give one example of how any nation has been able to tax itself into prosperity.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You idiots have claimed there are less jobs now than in 2007, but I posted the stats from the BLS proving there were around 12.5 million more jobs now and you can get the exact figure.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

The economy was in a freefall that Republicans created during their watch, so I don't care what was needed to stop that and keep us out of a depression. You can ***** all you want about the cure, but you assholes created the desease. No one buys your bullshit

You see you want to blame President Bush and the Republicans for the crippled economy, yet the legislative branch was in control by the Democrats (does Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed ring a bell?). Now you want to blame Congress and the Republicans (notice the flip flopping of blame?) for the recovery, when I JUST listed all of what the Democrats were able to pass without the help of Republicans (none of which you were able to refute). So all this "blame Bush" for the economic mess, and now blame Congress because of the Republicans, tells me you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. You can try passing that crap to your liberal cheering section, but I doubt anyone else is gullible enough to buy that - hook, line, and sinker.

The Republicans passed legislation when Clinton was President, the GBLA and the CFMA. Bush had the agenda of not using regulation, like the SEC. Legislation didn't crash the economy during Bush, it was prior legislation that allowed this shit to happen, while Bush didn't allow government to do it's job. There is no good reason why those toxic asset bonds were allowed to be traded as triple A securities. Thanks to Republicans, we don't have a triple A bond rate anymore.

People who study economics know what happened to crash the economy and they know people like you are liars trying to cover up who was involved.

Plucked out of thin air, your theories are.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You idiots have claimed there are less jobs now than in 2007, but I posted the stats from the BLS proving there were around 12.5 million more jobs now and you can get the exact figure.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

The economy was in a freefall that Republicans created during their watch, so I don't care what was needed to stop that and keep us out of a depression. You can ***** all you want about the cure, but you assholes created the desease. No one buys your bullshit.

Having control of the House didn't give Obama a super-majority in the Senate and as I recall having posted the data, the Democrats had a super-majority for less than 6 months, but it was on the order of 5 days less. You can only get so much done when the Repubicans are intentionally obstructing Congress. They should have solved our economic problems long ago, but the Republicans work to destroy and not create good economies. That's why they need to cease to exist in America.

How many of those "new" jobs are in the government sector?
Obama has not created ONE SINGLE JOB.
The private sector handcuffed by a lack of investment capital for expansion, uncertainty in the tax code, runaway deficits that limit available capital in the marketplace, increases in capital gains and corporate taxes, massive small bank failures due to the ignorance of the Obama administration giving large banks a different set of rules and the massive growth of social programs leaves NO $$$ for business to expand thus small increases in new employees.
Government Policy is the ONLY thing that government can do that increases job growth and Obama is openly ANTI BUSINESS.

The BLS makes reports every month and there hasn't been government jobs added to the economy. The governments have been losing jobs. Why don't you get the reports and prove your point? I've looked at them, so I know better. The only time there was an increase in government jobs was when the census was taken and that was only during a short period.

Investment in the economy has nothing to do with present income of the rich and everything to do with wealth stored through the centuries. The only questions in the tax code now are attempts to close loopholes.

What the hell are you babbling about? None of what you posted here is true save the short lived reduction in federal employment.
Hell in about 6 months there will be at least 16k new IRS employees to oversee Obamacare.
Question.....What is "the governments"?
Wealth stored through the centuries? WHAT?!!!!!!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You idiots have claimed there are less jobs now than in 2007, but I posted the stats from the BLS proving there were around 12.5 million more jobs now and you can get the exact figure.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

The economy was in a freefall that Republicans created during their watch, so I don't care what was needed to stop that and keep us out of a depression. You can ***** all you want about the cure, but you assholes created the desease. No one buys your bullshit

You see you want to blame President Bush and the Republicans for the crippled economy, yet the legislative branch was in control by the Democrats (does Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed ring a bell?). Now you want to blame Congress and the Republicans (notice the flip flopping of blame?) for the recovery, when I JUST listed all of what the Democrats were able to pass without the help of Republicans (none of which you were able to refute). So all this "blame Bush" for the economic mess, and now blame Congress because of the Republicans, tells me you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. You can try passing that crap to your liberal cheering sectiaon, but I doubt anyone else is gullible enough to buy that - hook, line, and sinker.

The Republicans passed legislation when Clinton was President, the GBLA and the CFMA. Bush had the agenda of not using regulation, like the SEC. Legislation didn't crash the economy during Bush, it was prior legislation that allowed this shit to happen, while Bush didn't allow government to do it's job. There is no good reason why those toxic asset bonds were allowed to be traded as triple A securities. Thanks to Republicans, we don't have a triple A bond rate anymore.

People who study economics know what happened to crash the economy and they know people like you are liars trying to cover up who was involved.

I find it hilarious how you simply call those who you can't refute with facts "liars". Gotta love it, especially when you can't even provide in your post, where it is exactly that I have "supposedly" lied and back that up with some actual facts.

Now I will say the economy began to show signs of trouble through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You see President Clinton passed what us to be known as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA for short). This regulation onto banks, was meant to get people that wouldn't ordinarily be able to "afford" [key word] a home to have the ability to purchase one. Banks were no longer allowed to ask those credit questions, they normally would, to see if they the customer inquiring is a risk to be given the loan. Sure enough, you would have those who had no business OWNING a home in the first place (never mind being given such a substantial "risk" loan), beginning to get behind with the threat of even losing the home through bankruptcy.

Now President Obama didn't help the situation by giving Freddie Mac a huge bailout. Nor did it help for Obama to look at those about to lose their home and provide them with government "taxpayer" assistance, without FIRST inquiring if they could afford the mortgage to start with.

The Government Did It
Yaron Brook

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?

According to one enforcement agency, "discrimination exists when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants." Note that these "arbitrary or outdated criteria" include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history--the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring.

The government has promoted bad loans not just through the stick of the CRA but through the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which purchase, securitize and guarantee loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself implicitly guaranteed by the federal government.

The Government Did It - Forbes.com

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
Howard Husock

"Our job," says Marks, "is to push the envelope." Accordingly, he gladly lends to people with less than $3,000 in savings, or with checkered credit histories or significant debt. Many of his borrowers are single-parent heads of household. Such borrowers are, Marks believes, fundamentally oppressed and at permanent disadvantage, and therefore society must adjust its rules for them. Hence, NACA's most crucial policy decision: it requires no down payments whatsoever from its borrowers. A down-payment requirement, based on concern as to whether a borrower can make payments, is—when applied to low-income minority buyers—"patronizing and almost racist," Marks says.

. . . A no-down-payment policy reflects a belief that poor families should qualify for home ownership because they are poor, in contrast to the reality that some poor families are prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to own property, and some are not. Keeping their distance from those unable to save money is a crucial means by which upwardly mobile, self-sacrificing people establish and maintain the value of the homes they buy. If we empower those with bad habits, or those who have made bad decisions, to follow those with good habits to better neighborhoods—thanks to CRA's new emphasis on lending to low-income borrowers no matter where they buy their homes—those neighborhoods will not remain better for long.

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities by Howard Husock, City Journal Winter 2000

http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/true-cost-fannie-freddie-bailouts-317-billion-cbo-says

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/22/news/companies/fannie_freddie_bailout/



You see how easy that was? I even included some actual FACTS to support my argument

 

[Dubya]

When the Democrats controlled the house during Obama's first term, he had no problems spending taxpayer dollars (despite any Republican opposition) on the stimulus bill, obamacare, cash for clunkers, additional bailout funding of GMC along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Federal Government incentives for the Chevy Volt, cash for appliances, funding Solyndra and Nevada Geothermal failures..... seems the Democrats had no problems getting their way with wasting taxpayer dollars. How many jobs were created from these plans listed above? If you looked at the unemployment rate that followed for the next two years (over 10% with underemployment bringing it up to around 17%), I'd say not much. That's why his plan for the Federal Government to "spend" it's way out if a recession, was a proven failure. Now we have a drastic increase in our national debt with nothing to show for it. Great job!!

You idiots have claimed there are less jobs now than in 2007, but I posted the stats from the BLS proving there were around 12.5 million more jobs now and you can get the exact figure.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

The economy was in a freefall that Republicans created during their watch, so I don't care what was needed to stop that and keep us out of a depression. You can ***** all you want about the cure, but you assholes created the desease. No one buys your bullshit.

Having control of the House didn't give Obama a super-majority in the Senate and as I recall having posted the data, the Democrats had a super-majority for less than 6 months, but it was on the order of 5 days less. You can only get so much done when the Repubicans are intentionally obstructing Congress. They should have solved our economic problems long ago, but the Republicans work to destroy and not create good economies. That's why they need to cease to exist in America.

You are changing the story to fit the liberal narrative.
The GOP was not obstructing Congress. The GOP Reps and Sens were doing what their constituents sent them to do. That is to block the liberal agenda of the democrat party. That's how our government works.
Your premise presupposes having to kowtow to the whims of the majority.
That's pure democracy. This is a Representative Republic. NOT a democracy.
Now democrats are busily creating dependency upon government for as many people as possible. The goal is to provide the public dole to as many as possible to create in lockstep voters for democrats.
The liberal democrats care not for the people or the nation. They are fixated on the acquisition and retention of political power.
Today Obama repeated the lib talking point HE created by saying "we cannot cut our way to prosperity"..
He believes we can tax our way to prosperity.
So, your job is to give one example of how any nation has been able to tax itself into prosperity.

Nothing is what it is, right?

What is the sense for me to discuss something with a person who denies the obvious? We have been having a record number of filibuster and that is obstruction of the Senate by a minority of at least 40%. It takes more than words to prove your case and you can't change facts. Having a 40% representation in the Senate can shut it down from passing legislation and some of that legislation is necessary daily business. The act of doing so is called obstruction of government. When you drag out passing a bill that you totally support, that is obstruction of government.

In the 2007–08 session of Congress, there were 112 cloture votes[25] and some have used this number to argue an increase in the number of filibusters occurring in recent times. However, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster. For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.[27]

On July 17, 2007, Senate Democratic leadership allowed a filibuster, on debate about a variety of amendments to the 2008 defense authorization bill,[31] specifically the Levin-Reed amendment.[32] The filibuster had been threatened by Republican leadership to prompt a cloture vote.[citation needed]

Usually proposals for constitutional amendments are not filibustered. This is because a two-thirds majority is needed to pass such a proposal, which is more than the three-fifths majority needed to invoke cloture. So usually a filibuster cannot change the outcome, because if a filibuster succeeds, the amendment proposal would not have passed anyway. However, in some cases, such as for the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006, the Senate did vote on cloture for the proposal; when the vote on cloture failed, the proposal was dropped.

The Senate Republicans of the 111th Congress again broke the record for the number of filibusters in a session, passing 100 cloture votes in the first eleven months.[33] In March 2010, freshman senator Al Franken attacked the majority of the filibusters—some on matters which later passed with little controversy—as a "perversion of the filibuster".[34]

On December 6, 2012, another milestone in filibuster history was reached when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader, became the first senator to filibuster his own proposal,

January 2013 filibuster reform

Negotiations between the two parties resulted in two packages of amendments to the rules on filibusters being approved by the Senate on January 24, 2013.[43] Changes to the standing orders affecting just the 2013-14 Congress were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, eliminating the minority party's right to filibuster a bill as long as each party has been permitted to present at least two amendments to the bill.[43] Changes to the permanent Senate rules were passed by a vote of 86 to 9.[43]

The series of changes to the filibuster rules announced represented a compromise between the major reforms put forward by some Democratic senators and the changes preferred by Republican senators.[44] Those seeking reform, including Democrats and liberal interest groups, had originally proposed a variety of strong reforms including: ending the filibuster completely; banning the use of filibusters on the motion to proceed; re-introducing the "talking filibuster" where the minority would have to remain on the Senate floor and speak in order to impede passage of a vote; banning the use of filibusters on House-Senate conferences; and forcing the minority to produce 41 votes in order to block cloture.[45][46] These more extensive reforms of the filibuster could only have been implemented by the nuclear option.[43]

Source: Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's how government works? You propose legislation and endlessly debate your own proposal to waste the time of the Senate. Why isn't that obstruction of government? The Senate rules allows a minority to use legislation that even the minority supports and cause an endless debate to waste the Senate's time.

If it wasn't obstruction of government, why were the rules changed and don't you think the Republicans helped to change the rules, because they didn't want to risk having the same thing done to them? They were hoping they could get power in the Senate, but didn't and that's why they supported changing the rules they've been abusing. They had a shot at controlling the Senate, but they didn't have a chance to get close to a super-majority that is able to prevent a filibuster. Under the old rules, 60 Senators are needed to pass legislation. Legislation isn't usually anything new and is usually slight changes to present law. The law still exists whether new law is made. Our government functions under plenty of previous Republican laws, so it isn't a wonder that things are often fucked up.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Sounds reasonable. I'll have to keep an eye on you.

Actually after his infamous "You didn't build that,someone else made that happen" that did it for me...I will NEVER be able to support this man.Not until he cleans this up which he will never do.

Did you actually hear his speech or just the recontextualized version that the Republicans fed the masses?

WTF is 'recontextualized'? Do you ******* libtards make up new words by the hour, or do you get commissions for doozies like this?

 

[Dubya]

Actually after his infamous "You didn't build that,someone else made that happen" that did it for me...I will NEVER be able to support this man.Not until he cleans this up which he will never do.

Did you actually hear his speech or just the recontextualized version that the Republicans fed the masses?

WTF is 'recontextualized'? Do you ******* libtards make up new words by the hour, or do you get commissions for doozies like this?

con·tex·tu·al·ize (kn-tksch--lz)
tr.v. con·tex·tu·al·ized, con·tex·tu·al·iz·ing, con·tex·tu·al·iz·es
To place (a word or idea, for example) in a particular context.

con·textu·al·i·zation (--l-zshn) n.

Source: contextualized - definition of contextualized by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

1. Again; anew: rebuild.

Source: re- - definition of re- by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Dictionaries can be your friends.

Consider: taken out of context to purposely change the original meaning.

 

[Dubya]

You see you want to blame President Bush and the Republicans for the crippled economy, yet the legislative branch was in control by the Democrats (does Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed ring a bell?). Now you want to blame Congress and the Republicans (notice the flip flopping of blame?) for the recovery, when I JUST listed all of what the Democrats were able to pass without the help of Republicans (none of which you were able to refute). So all this "blame Bush" for the economic mess, and now blame Congress because of the Republicans, tells me you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. You can try passing that crap to your liberal cheering section, but I doubt anyone else is gullible enough to buy that - hook, line, and sinker.

The Republicans passed legislation when Clinton was President, the GBLA and the CFMA. Bush had the agenda of not using regulation, like the SEC. Legislation didn't crash the economy during Bush, it was prior legislation that allowed this shit to happen, while Bush didn't allow government to do it's job. There is no good reason why those toxic asset bonds were allowed to be traded as triple A securities. Thanks to Republicans, we don't have a triple A bond rate anymore.

People who study economics know what happened to crash the economy and they know people like you are liars trying to cover up who was involved.

Plucked out of thin air, your theories are.

Taken from encyclopedias, fool! That is history and it is and will be taught in colleges around the world.

 

[Dubya]

How many of those "new" jobs are in the government sector?
Obama has not created ONE SINGLE JOB.
The private sector handcuffed by a lack of investment capital for expansion, uncertainty in the tax code, runaway deficits that limit available capital in the marketplace, increases in capital gains and corporate taxes, massive small bank failures due to the ignorance of the Obama administration giving large banks a different set of rules and the massive growth of social programs leaves NO $$$ for business to expand thus small increases in new employees.
Government Policy is the ONLY thing that government can do that increases job growth and Obama is openly ANTI BUSINESS.

The BLS makes reports every month and there hasn't been government jobs added to the economy. The governments have been losing jobs. Why don't you get the reports and prove your point? I've looked at them, so I know better. The only time there was an increase in government jobs was when the census was taken and that was only during a short period.

Investment in the economy has nothing to do with present income of the rich and everything to do with wealth stored through the centuries. The only questions in the tax code now are attempts to close loopholes.

What the hell are you babbling about? None of what you posted here is true save the short lived reduction in federal employment.
Hell in about 6 months there will be at least 16k new IRS employees to oversee Obamacare.
Question.....What is "the governments"?
Wealth stored through the centuries? WHAT?!!!!!!

Post the proof and stop running your cockhole! I've looked at the BLS reports when they are released and looked at BLS reports on the jobs sectors to see what has changed. It takes more than right-wing hot air to make something a fact.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Did you actually hear his speech or just the recontextualized version that the Republicans fed the masses?

WTF is 'recontextualized'? Do you ******* libtards make up new words by the hour, or do you get commissions for doozies like this?

con·tex·tu·al·ize (kn-tksch--lz)
tr.v. con·tex·tu·al·ized, con·tex·tu·al·iz·ing, con·tex·tu·al·iz·es
To place (a word or idea, for example) in a particular context.

con·textu·al·i·zation (--l-zshn) n.

Source: contextualized - definition of contextualized by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

1. Again; anew: rebuild.

Source: re- - definition of re- by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Dictionaries can be your friends.

Consider: taken out of context to purposely change the original meaning.

Christ Almighty, there was NO 'recontextualization' of Obama's words, we ALL saw the video! Uncut, unedited and uninterrupted!

How the **** can ANYBODY change the context of that?

You fuckers are on some drugs that I don't know anything about, and I thought I knew about ALL of them!

Batshit crazy, that's what you are!