Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 mateo45
Joined: 1/17/2008
Msg: 101
view profile
History
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?Page 5 of 22    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
What polls.... FAUX NEWS?! Actually folks ain't too happy with anybody right now, but the fact is that whenever 'wingers start pointing out some new poll indicating that Obama's numbers have "fallen".... ever notice how they always fail to mention that the approval ratings for Congress, the GOP, and especially the Tea Party are way lower still!?
 itechman63
Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 102
view profile
History
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 7/29/2011 2:58:02 PM

All of you who voted for him will undoubtedly vote for him again because of two reasons, your unwillingness to admit you were wrong about him, and your desire to see the United States remade into an image that suits your ideology...


Baffling that statement was used to finger point at others with some sort of assumption to be different and better. That describes practically every voter and is most of the problem as an example of the Sports Fan approach to voting and electing our pawns and criminals of choice in this country. It's thinking that's mired us in the status quo.

If the US miraculously came out of this mess that's been decades in the making by all but a few out of thousands of Congressmen, those that didn't vote for Obama still wouldn't out of an unwillingness to admit they were wrong about him and their desire to see the US remade into an image that suits your ideology.

Of course POTUS is an important position but when we want to look at all the policies and legislation that either lifts or damages, you have to look at Congress. The President is more figurehead/diplomat/head cheerleader/traffic cop than anything else. He can say and propose what he wants, but none of it can be accomplished unless Congress agrees by majority vote.

And we don't pay attention to Congress enough that they can sneak through damaging bills that a President elected 8 or 12 or 16 years later takes blame for and vice versa. For example, Bush took a ton of heat and Obama is taking a ton of heat for an economy that was shaped by legislation passed while Clinton was in office. Tom DeLay and Phil Gramm were examples of Congressmen hard at work for their Corporate campaign contributors destroying this economy before GW ever took office.
 CMonster
Joined: 12/4/2004
Msg: 103
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 7/29/2011 3:28:44 PM
I don't believe there is a plan that will make all people happy.


The art of compromise:
1) No one is happy
2) Everyone is happy
3) Both are meh

Poor compromise:
1) 1 is happy the other is pizzed


Yes, the polls seem to indicate that outside the "base", the general public isn't happy with Obama or his positions.

Bingo, bingo and bingo...

And while its safe to say that overall, the government as a whole is letting everyone down, the latest Gallup poll shows that there is at least some truth to the Fox poll.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148739/Obama-Approval-Drops-New-Low.aspx

And with the continuous drop in the state of America's financial situation being apparent for so many years, it still astounds me that Congress waited so long to truly start working on this problem.
 CMonster
Joined: 12/4/2004
Msg: 104
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 7/31/2011 12:40:41 PM
^^^^^^
Interesting exit strategy but the only reason that it's remotely plausible is that the President ran on a platform of 'change.' He led people to believe that he would be able to change things quickly. Bad move, it's the Government, not a deli where you can change your order on the fly.
 mateo45
Joined: 1/17/2008
Msg: 105
view profile
History
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 7/31/2011 6:41:42 PM
And with the continuous drop in the state of America's financial situation being apparent for so many years, it still astounds me that Congress waited so long to truly start working on this problem.

Yeah, like starting with the whopping federal spending increases and deficits of both Reagan and G.W. Bush, as well as the 5 times apiece each of them raised the Debt Ceiling during their own administrations. Funny how we never heard a peep out of the GOP then!

In fact the majority of the current federal debt increase is mainly from holdovers from the Bush administration, like the Prescription Drug benefit (8%), financing 2 wars (aka “discretionary spending”, 28%) and extending the Bush era tax cuts (47%, plus the 17% interest cost from the tax cuts). Dubya... the gift that just keeps on giving!! ;-p
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 106
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 7/31/2011 7:19:41 PM
"And with the continuous drop in the state of America's financial situation being apparent for so many years, it still astounds me that Congress waited so long to truly start working on this problem."

They still haven't started working on the problem.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 107
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 7/31/2011 7:22:26 PM

And we don't pay attention to Congress enough that they can sneak through damaging bills that a President elected 8 or 12 or 16 years later takes blame for and vice versa. For example, Bush took a ton of heat and Obama is taking a ton of heat for an economy that was shaped by legislation passed while Clinton was in office. Tom DeLay and Phil Gramm were examples of Congressmen hard at work for their Corporate campaign contributors destroying this economy before GW ever took office.
This bears repeating and a Amen .
 CMonster
Joined: 12/4/2004
Msg: 108
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/1/2011 3:10:07 PM


And we don't pay attention to Congress enough that they can sneak through damaging bills that a President elected 8 or 12 or 16 years later takes blame for and vice versa. For example, Bush took a ton of heat and Obama is taking a ton of heat for an economy that was shaped by legislation passed while Clinton was in office. Tom DeLay and Phil Gramm were examples of Congressmen hard at work for their Corporate campaign contributors destroying this economy before GW ever took office.

This bears repeating and a Amen .

Very true. But if people prefer to put aside the choices made over a dozen years ago, they can look toward the escapades of Barney Frank and Fannie Mae which has direct impact on the state of the existing housing market in the States. Something about allowing people to purchase homes that they had no ability to afford BUT it was their right to buy a home as expensive as someone else could afford.

And if people would default on the loans, the good ol' US Government would reimburse Fannie. But where the heck would the Government get the money? Oh yeahhh.... They'd just take it from those who could actually afford their mortgages. And lets not forget that because of all of loan defaults, the people who are still paying their mortgages are paying more than their homes are worth. Yeah, let's keep blaming the corporations and the President about creating that mess.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 109
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/1/2011 3:40:06 PM

Very true. But if people prefer to put aside the choices made over a dozen years ago, they can look toward the escapades of Barney Frank and Fannie Mae which has direct impact on the state of the existing housing market in the States. Something about allowing people to purchase homes that they had no ability to afford BUT it was their right to buy a home as expensive as someone else could afford. And if they'd default on the loan, the good ol' US Government would reimburse them. But where the heck would the Government get the money? Oh yeahhh.... They'd just take it from those who could actually afford their mortgages.


Well, it's too bad that Barney Frank was allowed to mind the Fannie Mae store by himself...imagine it was a democrat advocating loosening oversite and republicans asking for more...ironic...

And let us not forget that it was industry oversite that was lacking...preditory lending practices that were allowed or quite frankly never seen by any regulatory agency...because there were none....the industry was suppose to police itself....and then the bundling of these high risk mortgages to be resold in trenches of debit...with no real valuation of the security...and because the CDO was a security...it was suppose tio be policed by another self regulatory industry...the SEC...

So, which is it??? Let markets control and regulate themselves...or regulate the industry and it's practices.



Sept 30, 1995: Congress enacts Truth in Lending Act "reform," easing regulations on creditors; bill powered through by Rep. Bill McCollum (D-Fla.), a key recipient of finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) donations ($136,000 in 1993-94).

Dec 22: As part of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, Congress enacts a measure making it more difficult to sue companies for securities fraud.

Aug 2, 1996: Office of Thrift Supervision issues rule preempting almost all state laws regulating S&L credit activities.

1997-1998: FIRE sector spends more than $200 million on lobbying and $150 million on political donations; top agenda items include repealing Glass-Steagall to facilitate mergers.



March 4, 1998: First Union acquires The Money Store, nation's 5th-largest subprime lender (and home to ex-Yankee broadcaster Phil Rizzuto's commercials).

April 1998: Citicorp and Travelers announce biggest-ever corporate merger ($70 billion); transaction technically illegal under Glass-Steagall; CEO Sandy Weill launches $12 million campaign to repeal law.

June 1998: Conseco purchases mobile home lender turned subprime powerhouse Green Tree in $6 billion deal.

July 1999: North Carolina General Assembly bucks deregulation trend, passing landmark measure to curb predatory lending.

Nov 1999: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act guts Glass-Steagall, setting off wave of megamergers among banks and insurance and securities companies. Driving force is Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), who has received $4.6 million from FIRE sector over previous decade.



June 20, 2000: Treasury and HUD urge Fed to investigate subprime units of major banks. No Fed action follows.



June 26: First Union closes The Money Store, takes $2.8 billion write-down.

Dec 14: As Congress heads for Christmas recess, Sen. Gramm attaches 262-page amendment to an omnibus appropriations bill. Commodity Futures Modernization Act will deregulate derivatives trading, give rise to Enron debacle, and open door to an explosion in new, unregulated securities.

Dec 27: American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act makes it harder for consumers to get out of lender-required insurance. National Association of Realtors lobbies hard for it, spending $9 million, plus $4 million in contributions.



March 6, 2001: FTC sues Citigroup and its subsidiary Associates, nation's 2nd-largest subprime originator, charging "systematic abusive lending practices" involving 2 million borrowers; 18 months later Citigroup settles for a paltry $215 million.

April 6: Fed chair Alan Greenspan signals concern with "abusive lending practices that target vulnerable segments of the population and can result in unaffordable payments, equity stripping, and foreclosure."

July 27: "'Predatory' is really a high-profile word with no definition," Ameriquest chairman Stephen W. Prough tells Congress, urging rollback of subprime regulations.



April 22, 2002: Georgia's new anti-predatory law signed; Ameriquest helps lead campaign against it and announces that it won't do business in Georgia until law is changed. Standard & Poor's refuses to rate Georgia mortgage securities, choking credit supply to state's home buyers; law gutted within a year.

Oct 7: Swiss investment bank UBS announces that Sen. Gramm is joining it to "advise clients on corporate finance issues and strategy"; he will also lobby Congress, Treasury, and Fed on banking and mortgage issues as industry pushes to eliminate predatory-lending rules.

Dec 18: Conseco files for bankruptcy, mostly due to its purchase of subprime lender Green Tree. In all, 13 banks have failed during 2002—most, according to a Fed report, because of bad loans and "improper accounting related to the securitizing of assets."



March 2003: HSBC acquires Household Finance, nation's 4th-largest subprime lender.

May 1: New Jersey's anti-predatory-lending law signed. Again, Ameriquest and other lenders launch campaign to kill it and Standard & Poor's says it won't rate certain New Jersey securities; law gutted within a year.



2004: Ameriquest employees give total of $200,000 to Bush campaign; founder Roland Arnall and wife Dawn give more than $5 million to pro-Bush PACS. Arnall later appointed ambassador to Netherlands.

Jan 7, 2004: Federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issues final rule to preempt states from applying most of their credit laws to national banks and their subsidiaries.



March 2005: Rep. Robert Ney (R-Ohio)—who will later go to prison on corruption charges related to Abramoff scandal—introduces Responsible Lending Act, billed as an anti-predatory-lending measure but in fact designed to preempt stronger state laws. Key supporters include New Century Financial, nation's 2nd-largest subprime lender, which has contributed nearly $50,000 to Ney's campaign. Consumer advocates call it "Loan Shark Protection Act."

April: Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act makes it far harder for consumers (but not businesses) to discharge debts. Chief sponsor, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), has received $2 million-plus from fire sector since 1989.

Sept 1: As housing bubble begins to deflate, administration economist Patrick Lawler announces, "There is no evidence here of prices topping out. On the contrary, house price inflation continues to accelerate."

Sept 22: Illinois Supreme Court hands mortgage lenders a victory, blowing away a 3% cap on fees for loans with more than 8% interest.





Jan 23, 2006: Ameriquest settles 49-state investigation into deceptive subprime practices for $325 million.

April 27: Fed chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledges "signs of softening" in housing market, but says a "sharp slowdown" unlikely.

July 10: Henry M. Paulson Jr. sworn in as Treasury secretary, leaving job as Goldman Sachs chairman and CEO. In 2005, Goldman securitized $68 billion in residential mortgages and $23 billion in "other assets" primarily related to CDOS.



Jan 2, 2007: Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) assumes chairmanship of House Financial Services Committee. FIRE sector tops his list of contributors, with total of $746,000 for 2005-06 cycle.

Jan 29: Paulson tells Congress, "One of the pleasant surprises I had coming to government has been the strong economy we have today."

Feb 22: HSBC's head of mortgage-lending business resigns. Its losses reach $10.5 billion.

Feb 28: Bernanke tells House Budget Committee the housing sector "is a concern, but at this point we don't see it as being a broad financial concern or a major factor in assessing the course of the economy."

Feb 28: New-home sales reported down 20.1% from previous year.

March 12: Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign announces that Sen. Gramm will join it as cochair and economic policy adviser.

April 2: Subprime giant New Century Financial files for Chapter 11 after being forced to repurchase billions of dollars of bad loans.

May 3: UBS shuts down Dillon Read Capital Management, its US subprime arm. GM's finance unit announces deep losses on subprime mortgages. SEC task force begins meeting to examine Wall Street's handling of subprime loans.

June 9: In Wall Street Journal interview, former Fed governor Edward Gramlich accuses Greenspan of blocking a 2000 proposal to increase scrutiny of subprime lenders. Greenspan responds there are "a very large number of small institutions, some on the margin of scrupulousness and very hard to detect when they are doing something wrong."



July 16: Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's Mad Money, says the subprime "lending thing" is "completely meaningless...It has no relevance whatsoever." Less than 3 weeks later, Cramer will have meltdown on air, pleading with Fed to cut rates and save Wall Street.

July 19-20: In congressional testimony, Bernanke cuts growth forecasts for 2007 and 2008, blaming problems in housing market; warns that subprime crisis could cost up to $100 billion.

Aug 6: American Home Mortgage, one of the largest US independent home-loan providers, files for Chapter 11.

Aug 16: Countrywide, biggest US mortgage lender, narrowly avoids bankruptcy by taking out emergency $11.5 billion loan.

Aug 31: Ameriquest goes out of business.

Sept 14: Sen. Barney Frank in Boston Globe: Mortgage crisis "was in large part a natural experiment on the role of regulation." Sept 20: Treasury secretary Paulson tells House Financial Services Committee that "fundamental reappraisals in the pricing and appetite of risk have taken place numerous times...We are in the process of another such reappraisal."

Sept 30: UBS announces 3rd-quarter losses of $690 million.





Jan 2008: Number of homes facing foreclosure up 57% compared to same month of previous year. US unemployment rises sharply.

Jan 10: Cleveland files lawsuit against numerous financial institutions alleging that their activities in connection with securitization of subprime mortgages created a "public nuisance." (Litigation still pending.)

Jan 15: Citigroup reports $9.8 billion loss for 4th quarter and writes down $18 billion in subprime losses.

Jan 22 & 30: Fed makes biggest rate cut in 25 years—1.25 percentage points, to 3%.

Feb 6: Longest period of decline in nationwide house prices since 1990.

March 7: Former bosses of Merrill Lynch, Countrywide, and Citigroup questioned by a congressional panel about the $460 million in compensation they received between them during 5 years of subprime boom.

March 16: Bear Stearns announces takeover by JPMorgan Chase in Fed-engineered bailout; measure approved by Fed Board of Governors with fewer votes than required by law, under a post-9/11 "national security emergency" exception.

March 25: In speech on housing market, Sen. McCain calls for easing crisis by "removing regulatory, accounting, and tax impediments to raising capital."

April 18: Jerry Bowyer, chief economist for financial services firm Benchmark, says in New York Sun op-ed that fault for subprime crisis "lies with the small army of hard-left political hustlers who spent the early 1990s pushing risky mortgages on home lenders. And the fault lies especially with the legislators that gave them the power to do it."

April 29: Foreclosure activity reported up 112% from first quarter of 2007.

May 6: Bush announces he will veto legislation directing $15 billion to neighborhoods ransacked by foreclosures. Also threatens to veto legislation to provide $300 billion for struggling homeowners (and force lenders to renegotiate some mortgages) because it would be a "burdensome bailout" that "opens taxpayers to too much risk."

http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/07/where-credit-due-timeline-mortgage-crisis...

And President Obama is not responsible for not one little bit of this....though, the mortgage, housing, and securities industries have everthing to do with this...to place the blame on millions of Americans is just a bit of a stretch.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 110
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/1/2011 9:40:39 PM
"Nov 1999: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act guts Glass-Steagall, setting off wave of megamergers among banks and insurance and securities companies. Driving force is Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), who has received $4.6 million from FIRE sector over previous decade."

This articles misses an important point here. The bill was originally killed, but then a deal was made with Democrats. They agreed to vote for it if a provision was added that would require any bank wishing to expand services or merge with any other bank to demonstrate compliance with CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) standards. These standards were originally set so that banks wouldn't engage in "redlining". This was the practice of opening banks in poor neighborhoods but not loaning out money to people in the neighborhoods. Democrats assumed that this was due to racism rather than poor people being big default risks.

CEO's have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits for a business so if they ever wanted to expand their banks services or merger with other banks then they had to show compliance with CRA standards, which were weaker standards than banks would normally use. Naturally banks starting moving towards CRA compliance. Later, under the leadership of Barney "There is no housing bubble" Frank, the CRA standards were made even weaker than they already were, because he wanted to boost home ownership among minorities. Couple that with the government backing these mortgages and the FED loosening credit (because Bush wanted more people to own homes) and you had a recipe for disaster. The disaster happened and it would have never happened if it wasn't for government interference in the market.

"And President Obama is not responsible for not one little bit of this....though, the mortgage, housing, and securities industries have everthing to do with this...to place the blame on millions of Americans is just a bit of a stretch."

Americans who couldn't pay the mortgages they took certainly share some of the blame. And the article that you posted certainly places a lot of blame on the government's shoulders. So let's not pretend this had something to do with unregulated banks (they don't exist) and corporate greed (corporations are legally required to maximize profits for shareholders).

At the very least Obama gets the blame for voting for TARP. Whether he had anything to do with the problem in the first place, I can't say. But his reaction to it has been terrible.
 CMonster
Joined: 12/4/2004
Msg: 111
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/2/2011 3:57:51 PM

And President Obama is not responsible for not one little bit of this....though, the mortgage, housing, and securities industries have everthing to do with this...to place the blame on millions of Americans is just a bit of a stretch.

So you're saying that people who purchased homes that they could not afford have no accountability? That it was the government who made them buy the homes in the first place? So what does that say about the people who decided not to buy homes or to just buy homes which they could afford? Not only buying homes which they couldn't afford, but buying them with products based on rates which increase over time? What sense does that make? Inferring that they have no accountability isn't a stretch, it's ridiculous.

By the way, why doesn't your timeline include anything about the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977? You know when the Carter administration encouraged financial institutions to provide extra services and additional funds (i.e. beyond qualifying amounts) to borrowers low and moderate income neighborhoods in order to increase property values via revitalization. Mind you, this act was in addition to the Fair Housing Act passed by the Johnson administration in the 1960's which outlawed lending discrimination.

To add fuel to the fire, lenders who were backed by the FDIC were audited to ensure that they were actively providing funds based on the Reinvestment Act. If they didn't, they could lose FDIC services.

Now lenders were going to push back however the Government assured them that on "questionable loans" the new agency Fannie Mae would buy the loans so that the banks wouldn't be burdened by less than profitable loans. One guess as to where Fannie got their funds.

So in a nutshell, it wasn't enough to level the playing field by removing discrimination, it was decided to allow certain people to borrow more than they could pay back. But that's alright because the Government's FDIC would make sure that such services wouldn't fail.

And here we are, paying for it yet again because people chose to continue to spend more than they can afford; this includes the US Government. You know, there's a reason why the average teenager isn't given a credit card with unlimited spending ability. Yet we allow our government to have that ability in order to support people with similar spending habits. Fortunately most of those families eventually realize that they have to cut back. The Government on the other hand....
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 112
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:34:26 PM
Listen...every time I looked at a house in what I thought was my price range the realitor showed me homes 25% higher then what I thought I could afford....every time I looked for a 30 yr fixed the mortgage broker tried to sell me an adjustable rate mortgage...but, I happen to come from depression era parents who counselled me...I happen to be in the securities industry....

Yeppers...there were people who leveraged everything to the hilt...and some of these people actually did this with several purchases...and they actually did know what they were doing...but Joe six pak could not possibley understand the issues...he didn't know he was part of the subprime lending snowball....

It's funny that the term preditory lending is thrown around quite a bit and few know what it is...hmmmm...

The government didn't make these people victims of preditory lending...the housing and mortgage industry did....just what qualifications and oversite is required of a mortgage broker or realitor....none
 RichenLosAngeles
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 113
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/2/2011 9:59:25 PM
Irish - I grew up in a real estate family, and when you see TV and radio ads going on and on about no money down mortgages, and everybody at work wants to talk about their credit score, and prices are leaping and re-fi's are everywhere,,,, well, you know that you're headed for some deep doo-doo .
When I hear about poor dimwitted Joe Sixpack and how he got took to the cleaners by those slick banker fellas, I cannot help but think back to Nancy Pelosi proudly holding up this massive 2,200 page Health Bill document and saying to the nation, "We must PASS this bill so we can find out what's in it."
How can a national leader convince us that it's good to sign ANYTHING without first reading it??
 CMonster
Joined: 12/4/2004
Msg: 114
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/2/2011 10:11:57 PM
Listen...every time I looked at a house in what I thought was my price range the realitor showed me homes 25% higher then what I thought I could afford....every time I looked for a 30 yr fixed the mortgage broker tried to sell me an adjustable rate mortgage...


Mortgage Lender (Wanting a higher commission): Congratulations! You've been approved for a mortgage 2.5 times what you can actually afford!

Smart Shopper: I'm shopping for a home that will cost only a third of that amount but thank you anyway.



Real Estate Agent (Wanting a higher commission):
Here's a great home which you are qualified for that just opened on the market!

Smart Shopper: It's nice but I don't think that I would ever need a home with seven bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

Real Estate Agent: But it has a heliport!

Smart Shopper: Thanks, but I think I'll pass anyway...


Alright, I'll go out on a limb and say that I'm pretty sure that you and I weren't the only people in the country who didn't buy a too expensive home just because we were qualified to do so.

The government didn't make these people victims of preditory lending...the housing and mortgage industry did....

No one held a gun to my head to force me into a bad situation. I'll also guess that the people who agreed to those terms didn't have a gun held to their heads either, but I could be wrong.

People can call it "predatory lending" but you have to ask yourself why then, the term "predatory policing" doesn't exist. Why can't people disregard any accountability when they break the law due to ignorance?

Ignorance of the law is not a suitable defense in criminal cases yet that standard isn't held for financial situations such as this. However, there is always the old saying "buyer beware." Although, it seems that people don't need to worry as long as there is some system that will bail them out (this includes corrupt financial institutions).
 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 115
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/3/2011 4:37:44 AM
Predatory lending? Really? How about greedy consumers, ignorant consumers, materialistic consumers, consumers living way above their means.......

It is typical of Liberals to blame everyone except for the people responsible. All the terms of a mortgage are explained by the Loan Officer, if you do not fully understand the terms you do not have to sign. You also have three days after you sign to change your mind..

It was not "Corporate Greed " that was the cause it was "Individual Greed and Entitlement Mentality"

Obama is not responsible for the meltdown, but he is through his policies, responsible for the lack of recovery, Remember "Recovery Summer"? WTF? GDP 1 point whatever still, unemployment over 9% still, more lay offs on the horizon....
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 116
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/3/2011 6:10:29 AM

Alright, I'll go out on a limb and say that I'm pretty sure that you and I weren't the only people in the country who didn't buy a too expensive home just because we were qualified to do so.


Let me tell you a little tue story....I wanted to repave my driveway in 2007. So, I called a friend of mine who's a bank VP at a local bank (not a big national). I told Joan I wanted a small home equity loan. Before I was done explaining what I wanted Joan was trying to convince me to refi my very small existing mortgage (that I'd already done in 2003) and cash out the rest of my equity in a home equity loan...I asked why I would do such a thing, and she replied that I could put the money in the market and get great returns...The funny thing is...this was a legal suggestion coming from someone not in the securities industry...but, if I made that to one of my clients it would be illegal...because I work in the securities industry which has come under so much critisim about it's business practices that it is a highly self-regulated industry....so, I went to my credit union and got the smallest home equity they offered.



It was not "Corporate Greed " that was the cause it was "Individual Greed and Entitlement Mentality"


I can see you've never owned a new car, home, or had a mortgage....but, you certianly have a valid point...greed

So, these poor unwitting corporations went about selling millions of subprime mortgages to over-extended customers...and these customers bought these mortgages because property values always go up 10%/year...

And then these poor unwitting corporations went about selling these subprime mortgages in bundle trenches of debit derivatives...they sold this debit derivative to investors as quality debit...and valued the security as one who's value goes up 10%/year....and so these poor unwitting corporations went about this...selling mortgages to subprime customers by the millions...and it was these greedy customers who forced these poor unwitting corporations ino creating CDO's and then forced the securities iundustry to sell these derivatives as quality debit instruments while betting against the same market they were touting by creating another instrument of derivative CDI's...which is an insurance bet against the default of a particular CDO....so companies like Goldman Sack's sold CDO's as quality and bought credit default insurance from AIG as a hedge against the CDO's defaulting...

But, it was customer driven greed that created this whole mess. And unlike the banking crisis of the 80's....this mess involves 10's of millions of greedy subprime customers who saw the value of their property go down 35% while the last administration created a bailout for banks"TOO BIG TO FAIL"...the very same banks that sold CDO's as quality debit instruments to unwitting investors.

So, while there is still significant home forclosure going on, non-existant housing starts, virtually zero lending by the banks....a dysfunctional congress held hostage by the teapublicans...there will be no economic recovery...in fact...I forsee massive government layoffs adding to the unimployment rolls...So yes Obama is to blame...still...the GOP has not one quality candidate to run against him....so, until they do I'll be a democrat voting independant.

A friend sent me this...it's a letter he emailed to Chris Mathews:

Chris Matthews, First the douchbags in the repubican party try and gut social security and medicare to feed the RICH and keep their tax breaks!

NOW you propose biting the bullet, and adding to the woes of the needy by "tightening our belt on entitlements" to create jobs? Your an idiot!!!!!!!!!

We don't even know yet what those shisters in Washington, will cut to get to that trillion dollars, the one thing we "DO" know, it won't come out of the pockets or programs for the rich, corporations and special interests backed by the lobbyists!

You know, if this is all you can come up with, PLEASE apply immediately for a job with people who see it your way FOX NEWS!!!!! With shit like this, you'll fit right in.

I can just see the photo op of you, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Beck having your kumbya moment.

You wanna fix something, why not say something intelligent, end farm subsidies, end both wars, close redudant military bases(we have 70 worldwide with a million men) how about we close 1/3? end ethenol subsidies, reduce tax breaks for special interests, end pet projects like the millions spent by the govenrment advertising american cars, planes and other businesses, close the post office at least saturday, if not saturday and wednesday. Reduce the pension plans for ALL federal workers, make them equate with what's available to the average corporate worker, have federal workers pay 10% for healthcare, most corporate workers do. End congressional pension plans that are 100% after a single term and make them more like what is available in the private sector. End oil and gas subsidies, increase by a fractional amount the fee on securities transactions, this will not only produce income, but reduce volitility in the markets, increase taxes on the rich(they can afford it).

As for Obama and the rest of the govenrment workers, why not do an Iacocoa, anyone who is a millionaire or billionaire, cut their salary to $1 a year till the government is be more stable financially.

Now this took all of 5 or 7 minutes while I was typing, to think of all these suggestions. Will any of them be instituted? HELL NO! Personally I say wait a year, maybe a little longer, then this will cease to be a problem. By then you talking heads, and the phony politicians will have starved, and ruined enough poor people that they will arrive in washington guillotine in hand, and set it up on the steps of the capital and K street, drag these parasites from their cushy offices and 250k incomes and chop off some of their heads!

Corporations are sitting on the biggest nest egg in history 2 trillion dollars, and you want to fleece entitlements so seniors can't even afford cat food. Again YOUR AN IDIOT!!! Why not pass a tax on corporate retained earnings held over 30 months? Then either they use it to build out their businesses or return it to shareholders.

But NOOOOOOOOOO, you all sit smugly by getting and giving sound bites to these schmucks who wouldn't understand the plight of the poor if it bit them in the ass!

Frankly after the last 5 months of horseshit, watching these assholes, play out this game until the last 8 hours, only made me more cynical. You guys sat there with you smarmy faces, exchanging pleasantries with parasites, boosting your ratings, increasing your ad revenue, giving them the required sound bite for reelection from the dolts they were trying to screw. Now all of you are happy and secure in your jobs, looking forward to your bonuses and the rest of us have to worry, what we will have to give up just to live, when they're done with deciding what to cut.

No wonder I'm getting an ulcer, but I better not get sick, cause 3 years from now, medicare will not be there for me, and you schmucks will be part of the reason that's so.


 CMonster
Joined: 12/4/2004
Msg: 117
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/3/2011 12:47:56 PM
....so, I went to my credit union and got the smallest home equity they offered.

So, no gun was ever involved, right? No one gave you special privileges in to go to a competitor; everyone has the right to do that, don't they?

So, these poor unwitting corporations went about selling millions of subprime mortgages to over-extended customers...and these customers bought these mortgages because property values always go up 10%/year...

Absolutely. They exist in order to make a profit, just like your banker friend. As long as there are people (greedy or not, seller or buyer) who want to take advantage of a system, they'll attempt to. One can't survive without the other though, sellers need buyers and vice-versa.

...I forsee massive government layoffs adding to the unimployment rolls...

I'd be surprised to see this happen. My local government shut down for three weeks because of funding. In the end a plan was passed which made neither party nor the Governor happy but everyone went back to work, no layoffs what so ever. What happened in Congress pretty much mirrored what happened here.

Scary to think that they took their cue from our state government. For example, our state is so "progressive" on social programs, unemployed people from other states move here because the benefits are better and easier to obtain. Don't laugh, it's true!

You wanna fix something, why not say something intelligent, end farm subsidies, end both wars, close redudant military bases(we have 70 worldwide with a million men) how about we close 1/3? end ethenol subsidies, reduce tax breaks for special interests, end pet projects like the millions spent by the govenrment advertising american cars, planes and other businesses, close the post office at least saturday, if not saturday and wednesday. Reduce the pension plans for ALL federal workers, make them equate with what's available to the average corporate worker, have federal workers pay 10% for healthcare, most corporate workers do. End congressional pension plans that are 100% after a single term and make them more like what is available in the private sector. End oil and gas subsidies, increase by a fractional amount the fee on securities transactions, this will not only produce income, but reduce volitility in the markets, increase taxes on the rich(they can afford it).

Ummm, most of that makes sense but sounds like a plan reduce government spending. I believe one of the parties are vehemently against that. It's alright for families and for-profit corporations to do that but not the federal government (even though it's the largest, most disfunctional corporation in America).

As for Obama and the rest of the govenrment workers, why not do an Iacocoa, anyone who is a millionaire or billionaire, cut their salary to $1 a year till the government is be more stable financially.

That's an interesting concept given being a politician is now considered a profession. Most of the billionaires in this country give directly to charities and social organizations. The money goes to good use because it's not misappropriated bya government agency.

Do you know that the reason why Bill Gates is not the wealthiest man in the world is because he gave over a third (almost 35%) of his fortune to charity on top of paying his taxes? The President donated less than 15% of his income to charity; and he's the leader of the entire country!!! It's also interesting to see that even though he's considered one of the "top tier" (most wealthy) earners in the country he was not taxed at the top rate. Seems a bit odd given his stance on the tax system.

Corporations are sitting on the biggest nest egg in history 2 trillion dollars, and you want to fleece entitlements so seniors can't even afford cat food.

You should also know that the government agency that runs MEDICARE admitted that they paid over $34 BILLION dollars in claims WHICH WERE NOT ELIGIBLE. And there are politicians who want to raise taxes in order to funnel more funds into this dysfunctional system.

But NOOOOOOOOOO, you all sit smugly by getting and giving sound bites to these schmucks who wouldn't understand the plight of the poor if it bit them in the ass!

Nah, it's really looks like your friend's the one giving the sound bytes. Unfortunately the majority of Americans also listen to the same sound bytes without learning about the system and what's actually happening.

No wonder I'm getting an ulcer, but I better not get sick, cause 3 years from now, medicare will not be there for me, and you schmucks will be part of the reason that's so.

Sorry to hear about your friend's health. Unfortunately when you're completely dependent on systems run by others, you are held at their mercy. There are still people who will pay into the system for 20, 30, 40 or more years and will never see anything from that nor a couple of other systems which they helped support.

This is why a select few choose to support themselves and plan to live off of their own earnings because they see that the system is corrupt and going bankrupt yet needs their money in order to sustain itself first and foremost. There was once a time when politicians took office in order to serve the people, nowadays it's the other way around.
 itechman63
Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 118
view profile
History
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/3/2011 1:21:17 PM
In all of this back and forth like this I am always reminded of what a wise man once told me... the quickest way for a Republican to become a Democrat is for the Republican to lose his job, get injured or sick, or to reach retirement age because in the end even the Republicans show up for their hand outs when they need them.

Dad died a pro-Capitalist Republican in spite of this statement... he didn't turn Democrat after retirement but he also didn't buy into the preachy disingenuous superiority complex either because as he also said... "I realize that I was FORTUNATE". And that is a key word... we may work hard and possess strong personal responsibility but in the end we're still only one bad break from turning Democrat.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 119
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/3/2011 2:31:42 PM

we may work hard and possess strong personal responsibility but in the end we're still only one bad break from turning Democrat.

"When I was on unemployment and food stamps, no one was helping me out."
-actor Craig T. Nelson boasting about how he made it "on his own"
 laxref41
Joined: 7/20/2008
Msg: 120
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/3/2011 3:35:41 PM
"Obama is not responsible for the meltdown, but he is through his policies, responsible for the lack of recovery, Remember "Recovery Summer"? WTF? GDP 1 point whatever still, unemployment over 9% still, more lay offs on the horizon...."

i can't wait to hear from the experts here on what Obama should have done instead.


As for Corporate Greed, Individual Greed or Entitlement Mentality, it was none of those. Very simply, the Grahm, Leach, Bliley act... passed by a republican congress and signed by a democrat president essentially deregulated banks to the situation which brought on the 1929 crash... and guess what we got?... the 2008 crash!
After 1929, it took the U.S. 16 years including the first spending over the budget and a World War after which we were the only industrial power to exit unscathed to get out of that situation. Since 1945, we've lived in relative prosperity but with McCarthyist paranoia so we've annually spent more on defense and the military than all other nations combined... and that spending is effectively bankrupting us.
We've also deluded ourselves into thinking that lower corporate and personal taxes, particularly on the wealthy, will result in more job creation. Guess what, the very wealthy only calculate how to keep even more for themselves... as the IRS reports... over the last 30 years, 3% of total wealth has been shifted from the 20% poorest people in the country to the wealthiest 5%. Have you forgotten the headlines where many CEOs took multimillions from corporations as they lay people off? If they actually created more jobs with that wealth over 30 years, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Our laws need to be changed to significantly tax the wealthy so if they take substantial percentages of money out of the company for personal gain, they get hammered... otherwise, the way for them to achieve extreme wealth is through building the company and taking more modest amounts over a longer period... hence nation building.
 CMonster
Joined: 12/4/2004
Msg: 121
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/3/2011 3:39:20 PM
... we may work hard and possess strong personal responsibility but in the end we're still only one bad break from turning Democrat.

Now that's one of the scariest things that I've heard in a long while. Regardless of partisan issues, being in a state where one bad break would leave a person completely dependent on a system which is completely out of their hands sounds like a living nightmare. We didn't know this type of fear as toddlers when we were completely dependent on our parents yet as adults we choose to support a system that creates and sustains this type of dependency???!!!

"When I was on unemployment and food stamps, no one was helping me out."
-actor Craig T. Nelson boasting about how he made it "on his own"

While accurate and confusing on its own, Nelson's statement was a rant about not letting certain banks fail. He said "...I go into business, if I don't make it I go bankrupt; nobody is going to bail me out. I've been on food stamps and welfare, anyone bail me out? No." While he did receive support, he had ownership in actually making himself solvent again; not quite a complete bailout.

He also said that he was upset that the veterans protecting this country and children should supported first. The fact that the Vets aren't being taken care of well enough and the fact that the educational system can't hold a candle to those in other countries makes it a bit hard to accept that our tax dollars were spent to support mismanaged banks.

It makes sense to me but in the respect of full disclosure, all of this took place during an interview with Glenn Beck so any snippets of truism are subdued in the din of self-promoting conjecture.


i can't wait to hear from the experts here on what Obama should have done instead.

I don't profess to be an expert, but he should of made Congress start working on this mess when he was first elected since the previous President ignored the problem for far too long. He should have done more than just ask his predecessor to sign the TARP bill. There's already an agency who has drafted a report on specific government programs which are wasting billions of dollars on duplicated efforts and mismanagement of funds which could take care of the first trillion dollars which needs to be cut.

Out of curiosity, what would you suggest he had done?
 laxref41
Joined: 7/20/2008
Msg: 122
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/3/2011 3:59:34 PM
Obama, in my opinion, has it as close to precisely right as one can get...

Substantially raise the personal tax on the wealthy... they're going to work to stay wealthy so they'll be properly motivated going forward...
Overhaul personal and corporate tax law to promote research, development and business expansion, hence job creation. The talented wealthy will remain wealthy by reverting back to what built this country... taking risk, inventing and building great companies.
Promote and heavily invest in education to achieve a global advantage... and not in disciplines such as law or finance...
And invest in long term research and development projects that private business would not embark on (i.e. like what going to the moon did for computer, communications and materials science). The R&D that Obama proposes is solar, geothermal and tidal power... energy in the future is key... these new products need to be made in America.
 CMonster
Joined: 12/4/2004
Msg: 123
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/3/2011 6:30:55 PM

Substantially raise the personal tax on the wealthy... they're going to work to stay wealthy so they'll be properly motivated going forward...

I'm assuming that you're talking about raising the personal income tax on the wealthy. If that's the case, your premise that they will work to stay wealthy is exactly why raising their income tax will never work. The reason is because the wealthy realize that no matter how much earned income they generate, they will be penalized by having more taxes taken out of their paycheck than someone who chooses not to make as much money. That's why these people make the bulk of their money through passive income. The funny thing is that people who don't understand how to do that say that it's a tax loophole for the rich. The fact is that it's not a loophole but a tax law which is available to everyone, no matter how much they make.

Overhaul personal and corporate tax law to promote research, development and business expansion, hence job creation.

Promote it how? What benefit would it be for me to spend money on R&D when I could make a ton with a smaller investment if I became a professional gambler and make a fortune playing Internet Poker?

The talented wealthy will remain wealthy by reverting back to what built this country... taking risk, inventing and building great companies.

You think so? Would you choose to take on a risky endeavor knowing that if you do achieve it, you will be penalized more than someone who chose not to take the risk? Is that logical?

Promote and heavily invest in education to achieve a global advantage...

We already spend tons of money on education, much more than we did 20 years ago and more kids graduated with a higher level of literacy than they do now. Besides, most teachers in the educational system don't have the skillset to teach what we're competing against internationally. Those that do have moved to work at professional businesses. Now if we privatized public education we may have a chance to turn things around but the teacher's unions would never go for that.

The R&D that Obama proposes is solar, geothermal and tidal power... energy in the future is key... these new products need to be made in America.

This I agree with. It won't take off in full force if companies are penalized if they become profitable. I'm not saying that they'd necessarily need to be subsidized but they should at least be allowed make a decent profit after reinvesting in their businesses. They shouldn't be imposed upon since they're taking all of the risk.
 Smiley_mcgee
Joined: 7/30/2011
Msg: 124
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/3/2011 7:59:44 PM

The R&D that Obama proposes is solar, geothermal and tidal power

These (at the very least solar and wind, for photocells and turbine parts) are reliant on rare earth metals.elements...which (u.s.) companies aren't allowed to mine much of due to the environmental impact.
So we might be able to really develop environmentally friendly energy...if we are allowed to destroy the environment to get the resources we need to develop the environmentally friendly technology.
But oh well, let's let China and Russia do it that way we aren't responsible for pissing off the greenies, and they can do it cheaper because they don't have all the regulation loopholes to go through.

"We need to develop new technologies! Cheaper! More environmentally friendly! Renewable! We need to research this! Future of America, to be less dependent on foreign resources! It's for the kids!"
"Okay, but, you won't let us use the resources we have to do so. We have to buy them from China, and they are charging more and more for less and less. And if you did let us use ours, it wouldn't be environmentally friendly. Kind of like the ethanol BS and offshore drilling. All we are doing is hiding the impact and costs under the rug. We are just becoming more dependent on foreign resources, just not oil."

I would never vote for someone that either blatantly, and constantly lies or has absolutely no idea of reality.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 125
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 8/3/2011 8:21:54 PM

I would never vote for someone that either blatantly, and constantly lies or has absolutely no idea of reality.


Then we can take for granted that no incumbant from the executive branch thru local government will be getting your vote???
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?