• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America's Fed Up: Obama Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low, Poll Shows [W:256]

Conservative said:
Makes you wonder why so many still support Obama. Guess it has something to do with the supporters being the ones who need the Federal Govt. to take care of them. Most have no idea where the money comes from that Obama spends
Click to expand...

Greetings, Conservative. :2wave:

They know it doesn't come from them, though, and that's all they care about! The woman who was interviewed by a TV reporter said she thought it came from "Obama's stash," whatever that is. ? Why she thought he would be willing to share that stash is anybody's guess. And these people probably vote - that's the scary part! :shock:
 
MMC said:
Yeah, I have noticed Krugman not being as vocal as he was.....plus he screwed the Pooch in all areas of Foreign Policy. It's getting to the point that the MS Media just wont be able to give him any more cover. That there will now, always be something bad happening and there will be no place to turn and run away from that news.
Click to expand...

Krugman must be off pouting because no one believed him and how much he wanted the government to spend in stimulus, or everyone is fed up with his far left ideology memes.

Of all the poof visuals for the administration, the one that seems to strike home the hardest is Obama on weeks long vacation while seemingly the world burns (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Ukraine) similar to some sort of uncaring Nero, off fund raising instead of doing the people's business (now why does that sound familiar? Benghazi)

But yet, he sticks his nose into the Ferguson affair, a local police come state police matter, of which not everyone knows the details and the truth. Brilliant timing that, as the police released the video from the convenience store, this huge young man bullying the storekeeper to get a free $50 box of cigars. He was just as wrong at the 'beer summit' one as he is on this one.

Yeah, he's earned his down poll numbers, and he's got no one else besides himself to blame. New territory for Obama.
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
Krugman must be off pouting because no one believed him and how much he wanted the government to spend in stimulus, or everyone is fed up with his far left ideology memes.

Of all the poof visuals for the administration, the one that seems to strike home the hardest is Obama on weeks long vacation while seemingly the world burns (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Ukraine) similar to some sort of uncaring Nero, off fund raising instead of doing the people's business (now why does that sound familiar? Benghazi)

But yet, he sticks his nose into the Ferguson affair, a local police come state police matter, of which not everyone knows the details and the truth. Brilliant timing that, as the police released the video from the convenience store, this huge young man bullying the storekeeper to get a free $50 box of cigars. He was just as wrong at the 'beer summit' one as he is on this one.

Yeah, he's earned his down poll numbers, and he's got no one else besides himself to blame. New territory for Obama.
Click to expand...



He says all will be okay.....he hugged Hillary. :mrgreen:
 
eohrnberger said:
Krugman must be off pouting because no one believed him and how much he wanted the government to spend in stimulus, or everyone is fed up with his far left ideology memes.

Of all the poof visuals for the administration, the one that seems to strike home the hardest is Obama on weeks long vacation while seemingly the world burns (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Ukraine) similar to some sort of uncaring Nero, off fund raising instead of doing the people's business (now why does that sound familiar? Benghazi)

But yet, he sticks his nose into the Ferguson affair, a local police come state police matter, of which not everyone knows the details and the truth. Brilliant timing that, as the police released the video from the convenience store, this huge young man bullying the storekeeper to get a free $50 box of cigars. He was just as wrong at the 'beer summit' one as he is on this one.

Yeah, he's earned his down poll numbers.
Click to expand...

BHO just doesn't seem to understand when it's best to stay quiet sometimes! "If I had a son, he'd be just like TrayVon." Didn't hear too much after the truth came out, but he did fan the flames when he did speak - and that may have actually been his intent! Several has posted on here that they feel he would like nothing better than to declare martial law, and delay the upcoming elections. Can you imagine the turmoil and outrage that would generate, not only on the part of the public, but the big money donors? :eek:

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:
 
Obama's approval ratings are irrelevant.

He is not running again and everyone after him can condemn what the public dislikes about him and praise what they do like about him.

Obama is starting to quack...how low/high he is in the polls is meaningless, IMO.


Btw...I am neither Dem nor Rep.
 
DA60 said:
Obama's approval ratings are irrelevant.

He is not running again and everyone after him can condemn what the public dislikes about him and praise what they do like about him.

Obama is starting to quack...how low/high he is in the polls is meaningless, IMO.


Btw...I am neither Dem nor Rep.
Click to expand...



Mornin' DA. :2wave: The lower his numbers go. The worse it is for the Demos who are up for re-election or jumping in the first time. Also it will be worse this time for them as none will be seeking out BO peep for any advice once he hits pasture.

Even then.....many will look to keep his ass muted. Which would be a very good thing to do.
 
MMC said:
Mornin' DA. :2wave: The lower his numbers go. The worse it is for the Demos who are up for re-election or jumping in the first time. Also it will be worse this time for them as none will be seeking out BO peep for any advice once he hits pasture.

Even then.....many will look to keep his ass muted. Which would be a very good thing to do.
Click to expand...

Based on his flagging engagement with his job, seeing to be record lows, seems like he's already quacking, on his own accord, losing more relevance every passing day, at least how he's conducting himself in office anyway.
 
eohrnberger said:
Interesting, to observe, that they trace that right back to Obama's failed economic and stimulus policies, rather than what one would expect from socialists, which is the evils and unfairness of the capitalistic economic system itself, as well as the 1%ers, and businesses exploiting the bourgeois. Almost out of character, one could imagine.
Click to expand...

You should dig a little deeper. It all traces back to the largest recession in our lifetimes. The one that happened when bush* was president
 
sangha said:
You should dig a little deeper. It all traces back to the largest recession in our lifetimes. The one that happened when bush* was president
Click to expand...

Really? Were you around in 1980 when we had a recession and then a double dip in 81-82? Amazing how so many live for today and ignore history. How exactly did this recession hurt you and your family since you call it the largest recession in our lifetime? Maybe yours but certainly not mine. I lived and worked during both and there is no comparison between this one and the double dip of 81-82 especially when it comes to leadership or the lack of it during this one.
 
sangha said:
You should dig a little deeper. It all traces back to the largest recession in our lifetimes. The one that happened when bush* was president
Click to expand...

You mean the one caused by many people, some of which were congressmen that insisted on F&F to increase their exposure and purchasing of toxic subprime mortgages? That one?
 
eohrnberger said:
You mean the one caused by many people, some of which were congressmen that insisted on F&F to increase their exposure and purchasing of toxic subprime mortgages? That one?
Click to expand...

Yes, when bad things happen while a repub is president, it's the fault of many people; When bad things happen while a dem is president, it's the president's fault.
 
sangha said:
Yes, when bad things happen while a repub is president, it's the fault of many people; When bad things happen while a dem is president, it's the president's fault.
Click to expand...

No, not really, in either case.

The mortgage bubble was a clear case of the former, and not the latter, although many who take a ridiculously narrow perspective I'm sure would disagree.
 
sangha said:
Yes, when bad things happen while a repub is president, it's the fault of many people; When bad things happen while a dem is president, it's the president's fault.
Click to expand...

Do you really not see the projection in your statement here? Change "repub" to "dem" and vice versa and you have your mindset.
 
Conservative said:
I lived and worked during both and there is no comparison between this one and the double dip of 81-82 especially when it comes to leadership or the lack of it during this one.
Click to expand...

Considering your failure to grasp even the most basics notions of business, you probably aren't even working now. Unlikely you're even old enough to hold such a job.

Furthermore, the recession of the early 80s was largely due to Reagan's inflation war. That is easily fixed compared to a financial crisis which historically takes between 4 and 6 years to recover from. An interest hike war on inflation can be slowed by putting pressure on the Fed, which Reagan did. A financial global crisis cannot be solved easily by any one man.

Some of us actually understand the topics and see right through you.
 
eohrnberger said:
You mean the one caused by many people, some of which were congressmen that insisted on F&F to increase their exposure and purchasing of toxic subprime mortgages? That one?
Click to expand...

Not to mention an Administration policy to dismantle every obstacle to home ownership it could. There were many architects of this disaster.
 
obvious Child said:
Not to mention an Administration policy to dismantle every obstacle to home ownership it could. There were many architects of this disaster.
Click to expand...

Yes, there were many architects of this disaster.

Although, generally speaking, home ownership is a good thing, as long as the owners can afford the mortgage they negotiated for. When they can't, or end up not being able to, it does get pretty ugly pretty quickly.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Not to mention an Administration policy to dismantle every obstacle to home ownership it could. There were many architects of this disaster.
Click to expand...


In 1993 Homeowner-ship rates were 63 percent.

By 2000 they rose to 68 percent.

Under Bush they rose another 1 percent and only a fraction of that 1 percent was subprime.

Its clear the damage had been done before he stepped into office.
 
Fenton said:
In 1993 Homeowner-ship rates were 63 percent.

By 2000 they rose to 68 percent.

Under Bush they rose another 1 percent and only a fraction of that 1 percent was subprime.

Its clear the damage had been done before he stepped into office.
Click to expand...

Hard to imagine how less 1% of 1% of mortgages could have possibly caused all that financial chaos. Something in addition to that must have been going on to make the bubble that huge.
 
Fenton said:
In 1993 Homeowner-ship rates were 63 percent.

By 2000 they rose to 68 percent.

Under Bush they rose another 1 percent and only a fraction of that 1 percent was subprime.

Its clear the damage had been done before he stepped into office.
Click to expand...

If that was so...why didn't the housing market collapse before that?

You do realize you only need a fraction of houses with mortgages to go under before the securitization of those mortgages starts sending financial instruments into a domino right? With the push for reduced obstacles to home ownership along with bad policies towards F&F, that set the blocks for what really screwed us.

Honestly, I don't think the problem itself was the bad loans. It was how Wall Street repackaged the securities under those loans that did us in along with the totally fraudulent rating systems. Bad loans were an issue, but housing itself as a total percent of the GDP is not enough to cause that level of damage.
 
obvious Child said:
If that was so...why didn't the housing market collapse before that?

You do realize you only need a fraction of houses with mortgages to go under before the securitization of those mortgages starts sending financial instruments into a domino right? With the push for reduced obstacles to home ownership along with bad policies towards F&F, that set the blocks for what really screwed us.

Honestly, I don't think the problem itself was the bad loans. It was how Wall Street repackaged the securities under those loans that did us in along with the totally fraudulent rating systems. Bad loans were an issue, but housing itself as a total percent of the GDP is not enough to cause that level of damage.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Wall Street securitization of mortgages was definitely a big part of it. Not sure how a loan, a mortgage, someone's debt becomes some sort of investment vehicle. Anyway, when the banks 'insured' these financial vehicles with CDSs, as soon as the belief that they were bad investments got around, the house of cards came down. The CDSs had to pay off, and AIG lost allot of money.

It's the lack of belief that the investments would be OK which spread like wildfire, and caused the bubble to pop. Remember, credit, Latin for 'to believe' as in the one who loans the money believes the borrower will pay it back, is a powerful thing, and when it's gone, well, it doesn't return easily or quickly.
 
obvious Child said:
If that was so...why didn't the housing market collapse before that?

You do realize you only need a fraction of houses with mortgages to go under before the securitization of those mortgages starts sending financial instruments into a domino right? With the push for reduced obstacles to home ownership along with bad policies towards F&F, that set the blocks for what really screwed us.

Honestly, I don't think the problem itself was the bad loans. It was how Wall Street repackaged the securities under those loans that did us in along with the totally fraudulent rating systems. Bad loans were an issue, but housing itself as a total percent of the GDP is not enough to cause that level of damage.
Click to expand...


Wall street ??

Fannie and Freddie started buying, packaging and then securitizing those loans as early as 1998.

They pushed billions of " AAA " trash securities out into the Capital markets.

And from 2000-2004 Fannie and Freddie were the primary consumers of securities backed by Subprime loans.

Their participation not only influenced the markets, but created demand for a product that should have been exposed as worthless junk years before the collapse.

I'm not saying Wall street was blameless, but you had two Government Service Enterprises that were exempt from SEC reporting requirements, who had a direct line of credit to the US Treasury, who's debt carried with it a inherent Government guarantee that were buying up massive amounts of worthless securities.

Imagine two massive totally unregulated, totally corrupt investment banks with near unlimited access to cheap Government credit and who could run on Capital requirements of 3-5 percent buying up massive amounts of worthless debt to the point of creating demand for that toxic product.

That was Fannie and Freddie.

Without their participation the sub prime mortgage crisis would have never gotten off the ground because Banks wouldn't have had a way to unload all of their worthless subprime loans
 
obvious Child said:
Considering your failure to grasp even the most basics notions of business, you probably aren't even working now. Unlikely you're even old enough to hold such a job.

Furthermore, the recession of the early 80s was largely due to Reagan's inflation war. That is easily fixed compared to a financial crisis which historically takes between 4 and 6 years to recover from. An interest hike war on inflation can be slowed by putting pressure on the Fed, which Reagan did. A financial global crisis cannot be solved easily by any one man.

Some of us actually understand the topics and see right through you.
Click to expand...

Reagan's inflation war? Reagan took office with an extremely high inflation rate and misery index. It wasn't Reagan's inflation war it was the war he inherited due to Carter's failed economic policies as he does what most liberals want to do, micromanage the economy from the Federal level

The recession was a double dip according to NBER and the double dip began before any of Reagan's economic policies were implemented. Liberals love to point out that he tripled the debt ignoring that he doubled GDP, his economy created 17 million jobs, and he had a 60% increase in Federal Income tax revenue even after cutting FIT three years in a row. Too many have no concept of incentive and how it drives our private sector economy. Putting more money into the hands of the consumer creates positive economic activity which of course I don't expect you to understand as apparently you don't even understand your own activity.

As for the rest of your drivel, I love personal attacks from you because they show exactly what a hack you are
 
eohrnberger said:
Yeah, the Wall Street securitization of mortgages was definitely a big part of it. Not sure how a loan, a mortgage, someone's debt becomes some sort of investment vehicle. Anyway, when the banks 'insured' these financial vehicles with CDSs, as soon as the belief that they were bad investments got around, the house of cards came down. The CDSs had to pay off, and AIG lost allot of money.
Click to expand...

It's called "financial deregulation". There was a time when the bank that issued the mortgage was required to hold onto it. Once that rule was abandoned, a mortgage became "just another asset" and could be bought and sold like any other debt-based security

It's the lack of belief that the investments would be OK which spread like wildfire, and caused the bubble to pop. Remember, credit, Latin for 'to believe' as in the one who loans the money believes the borrower will pay it back, is a powerful thing, and when it's gone, well, it doesn't return easily or quickly.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was the insecurity of the creditors which caused the crisis more than the insecurity of the underlying mortgages (though the latter was on pretty shaky ground too)
 
sangha said:
It's called "financial deregulation". There was a time when the bank that issued the mortgage was required to hold onto it. Once that rule was abandoned, a mortgage became "just another asset" and could be bought and sold like any other debt-based security



Yes, it was the insecurity of the creditors which caused the crisis more than the insecurity of the underlying mortgages (though the latter was on pretty shaky ground too)
Click to expand...

I understand how difficult it is for some including you to understand personal responsibility as well as how the private sector economy works including your own economy but the reality is it isn't the Federal Government's role to provide for equal outcome, only to promote equal opportunity.

I spent a large portion of my life being a Democrat but the reality is I have voted for more Democrats than I believe you have ever voted for Republicans. One of these days you will publicly answer the question I posed but I know you have a distorted view of Republicans, personal responsibility, and well as where to place blame. In your world it is always Republicans at fault never the individual regardless of party because that is what people like you do, place blame never accepting responsibility.

Bill Clinton created the sub prime loans and it was Democrats who promoted home ownership so they could get the votes. That is reality, live with it. Now it continues to be people like you who defend Obama at ever turn never viewing his background, lack of experience, and actual economic results. He has a low approval rating today for a reason, his own incompetence. Learn to accept it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom