Obama's socialism killing the economy already proven

[Evangelical]

If you want to know why banks aren't lending money to people, thus killing the economy, just read the following:

Calling Out Politically Connected Banks - Forbes.com

Yes, it's Obama's fault, for "changing" Washington by giving Washington Insiders and Lobbyists even MORE CONTROL over the Government than they already had.

The best part is where Banks that are able to lend are now unable to lend because the Federal Reserve is requiring those banks to pay more fees to the Fed's for insurance, in order to finance the "bail-outs".

There clearly would not be a "credit crisis" if successful banks were allowed to fill the void left by defunct and weaker banks which just happen to put their money to good use in lobbyists.

 

[midcan5]

You haven't a clue what socialism even is, and blaming Obama for bank stupidity just shows how low you losers can go.

here's a simple why
Why are Banks not Lending? | Economics Blog

"But in Westchester at least one bank is not in such trouble. While Citibank, Wells Fargo and Bank of America are sagging with foreclosed properties they can’t unload in a stagnant market, Community Mutual Savings Bank, which has its headquarters here and has only five branches in the county, has not had a foreclosure in three years.

Its officers say they achieved that record by running their bank the old-fashioned way: When people come in looking for a loan, they have to pass a common-sense test. After all, how many of us would lend money to people we weren’t sure could pay it back? Maybe to a brother-in-law, but that’s about it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/nyregion/westchester/26colwe.html?ref=business

 

[Lycurgus]

In terms of Obama, socialism and our nation, he will rip us apart at our heart, not our pockets. The financial situation is everyone's fault, no one in Washington totally owns it. Obama's damage to this nation will run much deeper! And let us never forget his accomplices.

 

[MaggieMae]

If you want to know why banks aren't lending money to people, thus killing the economy, just read the following:

Calling Out Politically Connected Banks - Forbes.com

Yes, it's Obama's fault, for "changing" Washington by giving Washington Insiders and Lobbyists even MORE CONTROL over the Government than they already had.

The best part is where Banks that are able to lend are now unable to lend because the Federal Reserve is requiring those banks to pay more fees to the Fed's for insurance, in order to finance the "bail-outs".

There clearly would not be a "credit crisis" if successful banks were allowed to fill the void left by defunct and weaker banks which just happen to put their money to good use in lobbyists.

The reason the major financial institutions and banks failed in the first place was because they over-leveraged: their liabilities far exceeded their assets. Thus, they had no money left to issue credit to ANYONE, including smaller banks and investors. What part of that don't you get?

It's hardly "socialism" that the Obama administration is trying to prop up those institutions in order to get credit moving to enable PRIVATE ENTERPRISE to move ahead. Where is that "socialism"?? If the banks had been nationalized, yes, that would have been considered "socialism."

 

[DavidS]

Yes! The credit market froze last September after the demise of Lehamn Brothers and the collapse of our housing market BECAUSE everyone knew Obama was going to get elected!! Yes! This is all Obama's fault even before he elected!! In fact, the Great Depression of the 1930s? Obama's fault.

 

[mash107]

Yes! The credit market froze last September after the demise of Lehamn Brothers and the collapse of our housing market BECAUSE everyone knew Obama was going to get elected!! Yes! This is all Obama's fault even before he elected!! In fact, the Great Depression of the 1930s? Obama's fault.

Of course it's not Obama's fault... but continuing the same failed policies that Bush and prior Presidents that got us into this dilemma is a way to ensure we become a banana republic. Seeing how excess spending and debt under Bush was so devastating, as well as allowing the Federal Reserve to expand the money supply at will, is exactly why we're in this mess and continuing that under a new President and hoping for a different result is ludicrous. Policies do not have magically different effect if they're enacted by a different political party, alright?

 

[Toro]

I completely agree with everything that is written in the article but to say that this somehow proves that Obama is "killing the economy" demonstrates the utter cluelessness of the OP.

 

[WorldAHope]

I completely agree with everything that is written in the article but to say that this somehow proves that Obama is "killing the economy" demonstrates the utter cluelessness of the OP.

All they know how to do is repeat the slogans du jour, as directed by their illustrious do nothing leaders - "socialist" one day, "banana republic" the next....
and they think by chattering away they are actually doing something.

Notice a key difference between Obama and the Obamahater noise makers -
He is actually doing stuff, taking real action to get things dones,
and they are not only NOT doing anything, they are refusing to do anything to help
address the nation's probelems.
All they want to do is yammer away at how bad Obama is.

Ignorant Kibbutzers. "Expert" spectators leaning on the fence and complaining to their lazy ass buddies about the men who are hard at work.

Not gonna promote your agenda doing nothing but kibbutz and complain.
Not gonna win ONE election that way.
They just don't seem to get it.
The nation is passing them by, totally ignoring every pipsqeaky sound they make.
I think they don't realize how irrelevant and useless and unwanted they have made themselves.

 

[sarahgop]

obamas damage is long term. he will continue to spend and tax more and more.

 

[007]

obamas damage is long term. he will continue to spend and tax more and more.

And it's not sustainable... but don't try and tell the obamabots that. They think he's "helping." I guess pretending everything is just fine makes them feel good, and to a liberal, everything is about feeling good, even if they have to lie to themselves to accomplish that.

Oblahma inherited a shitty situation, and then he made it worse... much, MUCH worse. The man is in WAAAAAAY over his head. Whoever thought a little junior senator/community organizer with ZERO experience at anything financial was smart enough to FIX our country's economy has to be one stupid sons a bitch.

 

[WorldAHope]

obamas damage is long term. he will continue to spend and tax more and more.

And it's not sustainable... but don't try and tell the obamabots that. They think he's "helping." I guess pretending everything is just fine makes them feel good, and to a liberal, everything is about feeling good, even if they have to lie to themselves to accomplish that.

Oblahma inherited a shitty situation, and then he made it worse... much, MUCH worse. The man is in WAAAAAAY over his head. Whoever thought a little junior senator/community organizer with ZERO experience at anything financial was smart enough to FIX our country's economy has to be one stupid sons a bitch.

How has he made it worse ?
By spending money to salvage some of the important parts of the economy ?
Should Obama have done what Hoover did in 1929 - 1932 - cut back spending, try to balance the budget, do NOTHING to alleviate the employment crisis and the cedit and the banking and the stock and bond markets collapsing.....because it would cost....money....... ?
What is a federal government good for in such a crisis - to sit there without taking any action, saying
"there's nothing we can do..." ? That is absurd. That is stupid.

You do a lot of complaining, but you offer no solutions or alternatives or opinions that are related to or based upon thoughtful analysis or facts.

 

[Iriemon]

If you want to know why banks aren't lending money to people, thus killing the economy, just read the following:

Calling Out Politically Connected Banks - Forbes.com

Yes, it's Obama's fault, for "changing" Washington by giving Washington Insiders and Lobbyists even MORE CONTROL over the Government than they already had.

The best part is where Banks that are able to lend are now unable to lend because the Federal Reserve is requiring those banks to pay more fees to the Fed's for insurance, in order to finance the "bail-outs".

There clearly would not be a "credit crisis" if successful banks were allowed to fill the void left by defunct and weaker banks which just happen to put their money to good use in lobbyists.

If this is all you require to deem something "proved" I could understand why you'd believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

 

[Againsheila]

If you want to know why banks aren't lending money to people, thus killing the economy, just read the following:

Calling Out Politically Connected Banks - Forbes.com

Yes, it's Obama's fault, for "changing" Washington by giving Washington Insiders and Lobbyists even MORE CONTROL over the Government than they already had.

The best part is where Banks that are able to lend are now unable to lend because the Federal Reserve is requiring those banks to pay more fees to the Fed's for insurance, in order to finance the "bail-outs".

There clearly would not be a "credit crisis" if successful banks were allowed to fill the void left by defunct and weaker banks which just happen to put their money to good use in lobbyists.

The reason the major financial institutions and banks failed in the first place was because they over-leveraged: their liabilities far exceeded their assets. Thus, they had no money left to issue credit to ANYONE, including smaller banks and investors. What part of that don't you get?

It's hardly "socialism" that the Obama administration is trying to prop up those institutions in order to get credit moving to enable PRIVATE ENTERPRISE to move ahead. Where is that "socialism"?? If the banks had been nationalized, yes, that would have been considered "socialism."

Bet you're one of the first people to cry "socialism" if the money were giving to the people with the homes so they wouldn't be foreclosed on instead of to the banks. Of course, that way, the banks still would have ended up with the money, but they wouldn't have the houses too.

Why is it people are only in favor of capitalism when it benefits them?

If our society were capitalistic, those banks would have been allowed to fail.

 

[mash107]

obamas damage is long term. he will continue to spend and tax more and more.

And it's not sustainable... but don't try and tell the obamabots that. They think he's "helping." I guess pretending everything is just fine makes them feel good, and to a liberal, everything is about feeling good, even if they have to lie to themselves to accomplish that.

Oblahma inherited a shitty situation, and then he made it worse... much, MUCH worse. The man is in WAAAAAAY over his head. Whoever thought a little junior senator/community organizer with ZERO experience at anything financial was smart enough to FIX our country's economy has to be one stupid sons a bitch.

How has he made it worse ?
By spending money to salvage some of the important parts of the economy ?
Should Obama have done what Hoover did in 1929 - 1932 - cut back spending, try to balance the budget, do NOTHING to alleviate the employment crisis and the cedit and the banking and the stock and bond markets collapsing.....because it would cost....money....... ?
What is a federal government good for in such a crisis - to sit there without taking any action, saying
"there's nothing we can do..." ? That is absurd. That is stupid.

You do a lot of complaining, but you offer no solutions or alternatives or opinions that are related to or based upon thoughtful analysis or facts.

Obama is doing exactly what Hoover did. Bailouts, bailouts and more bailouts. Hoover was not anymore laissez-faire than John Maynard Keynes is, and that's why we suffered through the first Great Depression, and more likely than not, follow Hoover's interventionist mistakes once again.

This is what Hoover had said in his 1932 campaign:

we might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action. . . . No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times. . . . For the first time in the history of depression, dividends, profits, and the cost of living, have been reduced before wages have suffered. . . . They were maintained until the cost of living had decreased and the profits had practically vanished. They are now the highest real wages in the world.

Creating new jobs and giving to the whole system a new breath of life; nothing has ever been devised in our history which has done more for . . . "the common run of men and women." Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom. . . . We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter-end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction.

The best course of action is liquidate the bad assets, restructure the economy so all elements can profitably produce things once more, and get going off a solid foundation. This would be expedited by drastic government spending cuts (and tax cuts, to follow) to allow more capital to flow through the economy. Remember, every time the government spends it takes money out of the economy.

Response to the Depression of 1921 was laissez-faire and it lasted barely longer than a year. Response to the Depression of 1929 was not laissez-faire and it lasted 15 years. I'll take the former, given the choice.

 

[HUGGY]

If you want to know why banks aren't lending money to people, thus killing the economy, just read the following:

Calling Out Politically Connected Banks - Forbes.com

Yes, it's Obama's fault, for "changing" Washington by giving Washington Insiders and Lobbyists even MORE CONTROL over the Government than they already had.

The best part is where Banks that are able to lend are now unable to lend because the Federal Reserve is requiring those banks to pay more fees to the Fed's for insurance, in order to finance the "bail-outs".

There clearly would not be a "credit crisis" if successful banks were allowed to fill the void left by defunct and weaker banks which just happen to put their money to good use in lobbyists.

If this is all you require to deem something "proved" I could understand why you'd believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

why weren't these people all up in arms to warn the world of Bush's bubble before it burst?

Now THAT would have been helpfull advice. And where was god while all this was going on?

 

[mash107]

If you want to know why banks aren't lending money to people, thus killing the economy, just read the following:

Calling Out Politically Connected Banks - Forbes.com

Yes, it's Obama's fault, for "changing" Washington by giving Washington Insiders and Lobbyists even MORE CONTROL over the Government than they already had.

The best part is where Banks that are able to lend are now unable to lend because the Federal Reserve is requiring those banks to pay more fees to the Fed's for insurance, in order to finance the "bail-outs".

There clearly would not be a "credit crisis" if successful banks were allowed to fill the void left by defunct and weaker banks which just happen to put their money to good use in lobbyists.

If this is all you require to deem something "proved" I could understand why you'd believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

why weren't these people all up in arms to warn the world of Bush's bubble before it burst?

Now THAT would have been helpfull advice. And where was god while all this was going on?

You mean this....

2003: https://mises.org/story/1177
2007: Did the Fed Cause the Housing Bubble? - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Institute
2006-2007:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YTY5TWtmU[/ame]

Oh right, I forgot, those that predicted the housing bubble has to be totally ignored when it opposes the government's desire to spend spend and spend.

 

[Iriemon]

If this is all you require to deem something "proved" I could understand why you'd believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

why weren't these people all up in arms to warn the world of Bush's bubble before it burst?

Now THAT would have been helpfull advice. And where was god while all this was going on?

You mean this....

2003: https://mises.org/story/1177
2007: Did the Fed Cause the Housing Bubble? - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Institute
2006-2007:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YTY5TWtmU[/ame]

Oh right, I forgot, those that predicted the housing bubble has to be totally ignored when it opposes the government's desire to spend spend and spend.

Here's what Mises said in 2003 from your article.

There are already signs that the housing market may not be far from its peak.

Real visionaries those guys. Only 4 years off.

 

[mash107]

why weren't these people all up in arms to warn the world of Bush's bubble before it burst?

Now THAT would have been helpfull advice. And where was god while all this was going on?

You mean this....

2003: https://mises.org/story/1177
2007: Did the Fed Cause the Housing Bubble? - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Institute
2006-2007:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YTY5TWtmU[/ame]

Oh right, I forgot, those that predicted the housing bubble has to be totally ignored when it opposes the government's desire to spend spend and spend.

Here's what Mises said in 2003 from your article.

There are already signs that the housing market may not be far from its peak.

Real visionaries those guys. Only 4 years off.

Home prices peaked in 2005.....so I'm missing your point?

Regardless, it's moot. They were examining the unnatural escalation in home prices as early as 2003, and given the ripe conditions for an asset bubble (easy credit, encouragement from the government to leverage, etc), they were surely correct.

 

[Evangelical]

If Obambam discontinued TARP then smaller banks would be allowed to loan money instead of paying exorbitant fees to pay for TARP.

Anyone who doesn't understand this fact is retarded.

 

[Toro]

If Obambam discontinued TARP then smaller banks would be allowed to loan money instead of paying exorbitant fees to pay for TARP.

Anyone who doesn't understand this fact is retarded.

TARP was conceived and implemented under Bush. Anyone who doesn't know this really is retarded.

The level of fees from banks is a fraction of one percent and is not high enough to stop banks from lending. If you are a good bank, you are minting money right now and this fee is not putting a dent in your bottom line. All you have to do is see the earnings the banks have been reporting this quarter. The spread business is off the charts because banks are borrowing at 0% and at the very worst buying government bonds for 3%. One banking analyst has said this is the best environment he has ever seen for banking. So if you have an unencumbered balance sheet, this is the most profitable time to be a bank in decades. TARP fees - whether fair or not, and the bank executive in the article has a point - does not change this fact.