Can win Obama win a debate Against Newt ??

[cbirch2]

Fannie, Freddie and the CRA had almost nothing to do with the financial calamity that was wrought by the Bush administration. They did not make the bulk of the subprimes. That was done by predatory lenders backed by financial institutions like Goldman.

Even more:

If more loans were regulated by the CRA we would be better off today!

Loans issued by banks regulated by the CRA had significantly lower default rates.

 

[JoeB131]

Fannie, Freddie and the CRA had almost nothing to do with the financial calamity that was wrought by the Bush administration. They did not make the bulk of the subprimes. That was done by predatory lenders backed by financial institutions like Goldman.

But it was the CRA requiring that market exist to start with and Freddie/Fannie buying up the bad paper that made it palatable to these banks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Newt will spout "You are not a qualified leader" in every other sentence. The same thing Republicans have been babbling for four years

Obama is more than capable of handling it

Read what I said.

Obama, as with any incumbant, will be forced to defend his...er....record.

And as his people have been doing for him for the last several months, he will blame congress.

And Newt will simply say...."a good leader can get congress to work with him....a child can get things done when everyone agrees with what he wants....but it takes a great leader to get different minds working together"

And as I said.....

that will be that.

Ummmmm......you do realize we are talking about Newt right?
The man who shut down Government?

"A good leader can get congress to work with him?"

Newt was the one who wrote the playbook for the Republican Congress

Ummmmm......you do realize we are talking about Newt right?
The man who shut down Government?

Ummmmm.....I bet the majority of Americans wouldn't mind shutting down the government right now.

 

[rightwinger]

Read what I said.

Obama, as with any incumbant, will be forced to defend his...er....record.

And as his people have been doing for him for the last several months, he will blame congress.

And Newt will simply say...."a good leader can get congress to work with him....a child can get things done when everyone agrees with what he wants....but it takes a great leader to get different minds working together"

And as I said.....

that will be that.

Ummmmm......you do realize we are talking about Newt right?
The man who shut down Government?

"A good leader can get congress to work with him?"

Newt was the one who wrote the playbook for the Republican Congress

Ummmmm......you do realize we are talking about Newt right?
The man who shut down Government?

Ummmmm.....I bet the majority of Americans wouldn't mind shutting down the government right now.

It cost Newt his career

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ummmmm......you do realize we are talking about Newt right?
The man who shut down Government?

"A good leader can get congress to work with him?"

Newt was the one who wrote the playbook for the Republican Congress

Ummmmm......you do realize we are talking about Newt right?
The man who shut down Government?

Ummmmm.....I bet the majority of Americans wouldn't mind shutting down the government right now.

It cost Newt his career

It cost Clinton his law license.

 

[oreo]

HELL NO !!!the idiot that libtards voted into office will get trounced !!

Obama would have to bring 10 teleprompters with him and he would still get his butt kicked in any debate with Newt Gingrich.

Obama may go 1 debate and refuse to do the others--like he did when Hillary nailed him to the wall in one of the debates. She kicked his butt--and the next day he said he had had enough of her---

So then Gingrich would have to resort to his Lincoln/Douglas strategy. Follow him all over the country--let Obama give a speech--next up Newt Gingrich--to counter his speech. It turns out during the Lincoln era--that the media paid more attention to what Lincoln was saying than Douglas----henceforth Douglas finally gave in and submitted to Lincoln's request for debates.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Sooo, you ask a question - and then answer it...

Obama is brilliant; he's the incumbent - and he has inside knowledge that Newt isn't privy to...

So, yes, I would expect Obama to win a debate against Newt.

"Obama is brilliant;" Great comedy because there is no proof...

 

[Wiseacre]

I think Newt would win, Obama has to defend some unpopular policies. I also think Gingrich is better ad hoc, but also possible to say something dumb.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Obama has never been good at winging it or speaking without the words written down for him..

Plus... now he'll have a history to defend in short order, with follow up questions, hopefully..

I suppose it also depends on whether the questioners powder his butt and change his diapers or require him to man-up for a change...

 

[cbirch2]

HELL NO !!!the idiot that libtards voted into office will get trounced !!

Obama would have to bring 10 teleprompters with him and he would still get his butt kicked in any debate with Newt Gingrich.

Obama may go 1 debate and refuse to do the others--like he did when Hillary nailed him to the wall in one of the debates. She kicked his butt--and the next day he said he had had enough of her---

So then Gingrich would have to resort to his Lincoln/Douglas strategy. Follow him all over the country--let Obama give a speech--next up Newt Gingrich--to counter his speech. It turns out during the Lincoln era--that the media paid more attention to what Lincoln was saying than Douglas----henceforth Douglas finally gave in and submitted to Lincoln's request for debates.

Lol in the 90's the republicans had to send someone along with gingrich to to the white house so he didnt totally fold next to bill clinton.

Your image of gingrich as the leader of some sort of intelligensia is hilarious. I could out-debate newt. The man is a moron.

As proven when i challenged anyone to simulate such a debate, and some fool got stomped right away.

And what of obamas debating skills?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/29/president-holds-open-discussion-across-aisle/?e=29&ref=image

You ignore my responses here because you assume there must be some rebuttle to it, even though you cant think of it. Well theres the people you presumably support getting ******* stomped consistently on every one of their positions. They have no rebuttal, nothing coherent to respond with at all.

Good luck. Your side has no arguments, and doesnt even have a competent person to articulate their lack of arguments.

The republican party has just died. In 2008, if someone had asked me who the republicans would nominate in 2012, Newt Gingrich probably would have been the first idiot that came to mind.

 

[JoeB131]

Your image of gingrich as the leader of some sort of intelligensia is hilarious. I could out-debate newt. The man is a moron.

.

Guy. I've read your posts. No, you can't.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Actually, if you looked at the graph unemployment skyrocketed after 2009 under President Obama. Underemployment also nearly doubled what we saw under President Bush. Show me a graph a with side by side comparison of both administrations that says otherwise. Also take note how the stimulus of 2009 didn't reverse the climb in both these numbers. Why did unemployment go up? In the first two years of Obama's term, Democrats held both houses of Congress. With that Democrats were able to pass Stimulus Bill which didn't create any permanent jobs, Obamacare, his Financial reform bill giving bureaucrats more control of the financial sector (which tightened bank loans to small businesses) without touching Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae the real culprits within the mortgage crisis.

Sources:
Tightening of bank loans
Credit card lending standards keep tightening, Fed report says
Banks tighten credit standards to ward off rise in loan defaults | Inquirer Business
Banks tighten loan standards - Dayton Business Journal

So dispite the drastic increase in unemployment since 2008, you want to focus on the current small percent drop in unemployment around a seasonal holiday, is that it? We couldn't possibly be seeing a drop now because of the drastic influx of temporary imployment, that has never happened in out nation's history I'm sure

It's also interesting how you tout deregulation when throughout President George W. Bush's administration, Democrats opposed . . . yes opposed any restaraints on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You do recall how the housing market that involved these two government giants started this economic domino effect. A result, mind you, from the CRA Act under President Clinton that sited banks investigating into the credit history of a somone's financial background discriminatory, if it was done to a minority group.

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 Did It - Forbes.com

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


The entire time line surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Democrats refusal for government oversight, is found through this link below.
Archived-Articles: Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened

Dude are you ******* dumb!!!!!!??!?!?

Of course the unemployment rate went up in the first few year of obamas term, bush left an economy losing 800,000 jobs every month!

Before you can bring the unemployment rate down you have to stop it from skyrocketing in the first place. Blaming obama for an increasing unemployment rate is the same as blame obama for not reversing an 800,000 job/month exodus in a single month. Its wishful thinking driven by people that are already predisposed to dislike obama (sore losers from 2008).

Anyone that that thinks unemployment skyrocketed under obama, and that it isnt the consequence of the pile of shit bush left behind, is a god damn moron.

You are a god damn moron.

This is what happens when you stick to the blame Bush Kool-Aid after 3 years of Obama policies.

Use your head an explain to me in your next post how Obama introducing policies and regulations on banks, making them tighten up on giving business loans didn't have an negative effect on job creation? You want to talk about increase in job numbers yet UNDERemployment went up to an average of 18% since Obama became president. In fact Decembers numbers show underemployment at 18.40%.
Underemployment Rate Chart and Data - YCharts
Obviously you don't have a clue to what the term "underemployment" refers to.


Word of the day:

underemployment - A situation in which a worker is employed, but not in the desired capacity, whether in terms of compensation, hours, or level of skill and experience. While not technically unemployed, the underemployed are often competing for available jobs.

(breaking it down in more "simple to understand" terms)

1. Employed only part-time when one needs and desires full-time employment.
2. Inadequately employed, especially employed at a low-paying job that requires less skill or training than one possesses.
3. Not fully or adequately used or employed.




This means that for the last 3 years people have been unable to regain their lost revenue but are working part time, full time if they are lucky enough, earning substancially less. Simply an increase in job numbers don't mean ANYTHING if they are unable to regain their lost income, without getting TWO jobs to make up for the loss of ONE higher paying job. Are we clear as to what underemployment means, finally? Why has forclosures been going up the last 3 months if these "job numbers" were sufficient enough for them to keep their homes? Are you simply unable to connect the dots, or is "BLAME BUSH" your typical B.S. answer because it's much easier to do?

look at the underemployment rate from 2001 - 2010

Notice below how underemployment increased and remained high under Obama for the last 3 years, dispite the stimulus, dispite the boasting of job numbers (worthless if you are having to live with earning a lot less). You have to look at unemployment and UNDERemployment, as well as data showing the length of time people have been out of work for, before you get a clear overall picture of the state of the economy. It's that simple. Just throwing up job numbers only shows you don't have the slightest CLUE how bad this economy REALLY is, or what an economic "recovery" really means. All the data points to the economy getting worse, not better, dispite all the policies and Obama's government interference tinkering of the private sector.


The state of underemployment (increased) in the years 2010 - 2011:

If you think this current economy is all about Bush and has nothing to do with Obama and his tinkering policies, you are an idiot. Do us a favor, quit drinking the Kool-Aid and get your head back into this little world called "reality".

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Fannie, Freddie and the CRA had almost nothing to do with the financial calamity that was wrought by the Bush administration. They did not make the bulk of the subprimes. That was done by predatory lenders backed by financial institutions like Goldman.

Even more:

If more loans were regulated by the CRA we would be better off today!

Loans issued by banks regulated by the CRA had significantly lower default rates.

I suppose these Forclosure Rates increasing at record levels just "HAPPENED" overnight, it had absolutely nothing to do with banks being forced to give out loans to those who can't afford them. You must have slept through all the problems surrounding Fannie and Freddie. However for those who DO believe in government regulations without question, and don't believe such policies emposed by the Federal Government could ever possibly screw things up, I'm not surprised.

 

[cbirch2]

Your image of gingrich as the leader of some sort of intelligensia is hilarious. I could out-debate newt. The man is a moron.

.

Guy. I've read your posts. No, you can't.

 

[cbirch2]

Fannie, Freddie and the CRA had almost nothing to do with the financial calamity that was wrought by the Bush administration. They did not make the bulk of the subprimes. That was done by predatory lenders backed by financial institutions like Goldman.

Even more:

If more loans were regulated by the CRA we would be better off today!

Loans issued by banks regulated by the CRA had significantly lower default rates.

I suppose these Forclosure Rates increasing at record levels just "HAPPENED" overnight, it had absolutely nothing to do with banks being forced to give out loans to those who can't afford them. You must have slept through all the problems surrounding Fannie and Freddie. However for those who DO believe in government regulations without question, and don't believe such policies emposed by the Federal Government could ever possibly screw things up, I'm not surprised.

What part of "mortgages issued by banks regulated by the CRA had a lower default rate", do you not get???

The CRA is the legislation that conservatives claim made banks lend to poor people. Yet CRA-related loans were of a higher quality than those not subject to regulation.

Your statement is entirely at odds with the facts. Disprove the above statement or shut up.

Not only were CRA rated loans of a higher quality, they declined in market share as the bubble grew.

 

[cbirch2]

Actually, if you looked at the graph unemployment skyrocketed after 2009 under President Obama. Underemployment also nearly doubled what we saw under President Bush. Show me a graph a with side by side comparison of both administrations that says otherwise. Also take note how the stimulus of 2009 didn't reverse the climb in both these numbers. Why did unemployment go up? In the first two years of Obama's term, Democrats held both houses of Congress. With that Democrats were able to pass Stimulus Bill which didn't create any permanent jobs, Obamacare, his Financial reform bill giving bureaucrats more control of the financial sector (which tightened bank loans to small businesses) without touching Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae the real culprits within the mortgage crisis.

Sources:
Tightening of bank loans
Credit card lending standards keep tightening, Fed report says
Banks tighten credit standards to ward off rise in loan defaults | Inquirer Business
Banks tighten loan standards - Dayton Business Journal

So dispite the drastic increase in unemployment since 2008, you want to focus on the current small percent drop in unemployment around a seasonal holiday, is that it? We couldn't possibly be seeing a drop now because of the drastic influx of temporary imployment, that has never happened in out nation's history I'm sure

It's also interesting how you tout deregulation when throughout President George W. Bush's administration, Democrats opposed . . . yes opposed any restaraints on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You do recall how the housing market that involved these two government giants started this economic domino effect. A result, mind you, from the CRA Act under President Clinton that sited banks investigating into the credit history of a somone's financial background discriminatory, if it was done to a minority group.

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


The entire time line surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Democrats refusal for government oversight, is found through this link below.
Archived-Articles: Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened

Dude are you ******* dumb!!!!!!??!?!?

Of course the unemployment rate went up in the first few year of obamas term, bush left an economy losing 800,000 jobs every month!

Before you can bring the unemployment rate down you have to stop it from skyrocketing in the first place. Blaming obama for an increasing unemployment rate is the same as blame obama for not reversing an 800,000 job/month exodus in a single month. Its wishful thinking driven by people that are already predisposed to dislike obama (sore losers from 2008).

Anyone that that thinks unemployment skyrocketed under obama, and that it isnt the consequence of the pile of shit bush left behind, is a god damn moron.

You are a god damn moron.

This is what happens when you stick to the blame Bush Kool-Aid after 3 years of Obama policies.

Use your head an explain to me in your next post how Obama introducing policies and regulations on banks, making them tighten up on giving business loans didn't have an negative effect on job creation? You want to talk about increase in job numbers yet UNDERemployment went up to an average of 18% since Obama became president. In fact Decembers numbers show underemployment at 18.40%.
Underemployment Rate Chart and Data - YCharts
Obviously you don't have a clue to what the term "underemployment" refers to.


Word of the day:

underemployment - A situation in which a worker is employed, but not in the desired capacity, whether in terms of compensation, hours, or level of skill and experience. While not technically unemployed, the underemployed are often competing for available jobs.

(breaking it down in more "simple to understand" terms)

1. Employed only part-time when one needs and desires full-time employment.
2. Inadequately employed, especially employed at a low-paying job that requires less skill or training than one possesses.
3. Not fully or adequately used or employed.




This means that for the last 3 years people have been unable to regain their lost revenue but are working part time, full time if they are lucky enough, earning substancially less. Simply an increase in job numbers don't mean ANYTHING if they are unable to regain their lost income, without getting TWO jobs to make up for the loss of ONE higher paying job. Are we clear as to what underemployment means, finally? Why has forclosures been going up the last 3 months if these "job numbers" were sufficient enough for them to keep their homes? Are you simply unable to connect the dots, or is "BLAME BUSH" your typical B.S. answer because it's much easier to do?

look at the underemployment rate from 2001 - 2010

Notice below how underemployment increased and remained high under Obama for the last 3 years, dispite the stimulus, dispite the boasting of job numbers (worthless if you are having to live with earning a lot less). You have to look at unemployment and UNDERemployment, as well as data showing the length of time people have been out of work for, before you get a clear overall picture of the state of the economy. It's that simple. Just throwing up job numbers only shows you don't have the slightest CLUE how bad this economy REALLY is, or what an economic "recovery" really means. All the data points to the economy getting worse, not better, dispite all the policies and Obama's government interference tinkering of the private sector.


The state of underemployment (increased) in the years 2010 - 2011:

If you think this current economy is all about Bush and has nothing to do with Obama and his tinkering policies, you are an idiot. Do us a favor, quit drinking the Kool-Aid and get your head back into this little world called "reality".

Ok you really must not understand that graph....or the concept of a "rate of change"....Do math????

You realize that math an integral part of economics right...you should probably understand simple graphs.

The unemployment rate is fairly mislead, because it doesnt include a rate of change. Or at least, most idiots dont understand the concept of slope.

When bush left office the economy was shrinking by 7% every quarter. It took until Q3 2009 for obama to reverse the economic contraction and then just one more month to reach 4% GDP growth. Then as the stimulus winds down GDP growth slows to around 2.5%, a fairly strong growth rate.

Which corresponds to unenemployment hitting its maximum

Which agrees pretty well with the payroll numbers. payrolls stagnant as jobs do, right as the stimulus ends.

You cant just wish away everything bush did.

He left an economy contracting at 7% every quarter. Thats not easily reversible, and job losses will continue until its reversed. And obama did a great job at reversing it and creating growth. And then republicans came in and prevented him from doing anything.

Do you have a problem with graphs and numbers and math and logic???

 

[cbirch2]

Here is what i picture as the modern conservative spin on reality:

George bush left office and things were pretty much ok. And then obama came into office and every single person owning a business freaked out and fired everyone. Then when the republicans came into the house in 2011, everything was better!

Lol. right the crisis didnt peak in sep 2008? obama hasnt done all the hard work of fixing bush shit hole? and the republicans havent stopped him from doing anything at all for the past 2 years?

And im sure the graphs and stats dont support that view at all....


Fool.

 

[cbirch2]

Also, understand the concept of a lagging indicator

What are leading, lagging and coincident indicators? What are they for?

"Lagging - A lagging indicator is one that follows an event. Back to our traffic light example: the amber light is a lagging indicator for the green light because amber trails green. The importance of a lagging indicator is its ability to confirm that a pattern is occurring or about to occur. Unemployment is one of the most popular lagging indicators. If the unemployment rate is rising, it indicates that the economy has been doing poorly.

Read more: What are leading, lagging and coincident indicators? What are they for?"
​

 

[Meister]

Here is what i picture as the modern conservative spin on reality:

George bush left office and things were pretty much ok. And then obama came into office and every single person owning a business freaked out and fired everyone. Then when the republicans came into the house in 2011, everything was better!

Lol. right the crisis didnt peak in sep 2008? obama hasnt done all the hard work of fixing bush shit hole? and the republicans havent stopped him from doing anything at all for the past 2 years?

And im sure the graphs and stats dont support that view at all....


Fool.

You haven't a clue on modern conservatives...obviously. There aren't too many conservatives who think things were ok when Bush left office. But, conservatives do believe things have gotten worse with Obama in office. I'm sure you won't be able to understand this, but, that would be your problem with comprehension.
If this economy isn't turned around (I'm mean "turned around") and the unemployment isn't below 8% in this next year....we have the wrong person as president.

 

[SAT2]

yup, all these women were lying.

And when Anita Hill's co-workers said she was lying, they were paid off.

It's amazing how you put your mind into pretzels to defend your reality.

Even Clinton's own staff made sure he was never in a car alone with a woman. That's telling in and of itself, but that's exactly what Leon Panetta said in his memoir...

Please get back to reality. You have attacked Hill and defended Jones for weeks. But you're being objective, not partisan, right?

IActually I have witnessed cases in the Air Force where an individual received a dishonorable discharge, because they were caught having an affair during the time they happened to be serving on active duty. If President Clinton was subject to the same standards as we give our military men and women, as he did after all carry the title Commander-in-Chief, he would have been removed from office. However there is political power to be found in the means of persuasion.

Actually, that sometimes happens, and sometimes not.

Putting aside for the moment what Fannie and Freddie really do and who made the most subprime loans etc, no lender and I mean NO lender wants loans to defualt and go in to foreclosure and the politically expedient argument that they do is just out and out false.

Fannie and Freddie did not make subprime loans. Period.

Obama has never been good at winging it or speaking without the words written down for him..

Plus... now he'll have a history to defend in short order, with follow up questions, hopefully..

I suppose it also depends on whether the questioners powder his butt and change his diapers or require him to man-up for a change...

Obama ruled McCain in all three debates. There were no teleprompters. The moderators did not treat the candidates differently. Obama didn't need a teleprompter, nor did he need special treatment.