Setting the record strait

So I'm getting tired of having to look up previous posts or researching for the sources. So here they are, this is by no means everything but it's a start.


Here's the "indefensible record"

Policies take a year to two to take effect so judge Obama by the change in trend from 2010 to 2011

US GDP:

Nominal GDP went up about 10% from under 14 Trillion to over 15 Trillion

"Real" GDP (inflation adjusted) went from 12.8 to 13.5 Trillion

Keep in mind we were nearly headed into a depression 4 years ago


Unemployment:

over 10% to 7.8% - US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Unemployment in the U.S. - Google Public Data Explorer


Employment:

See the drop in 2008 and 2009 and see the recovery from 2010.

10% increase in employment - US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


Debt:

Reduction in Deficit spending every year from when Obama took office.

Look at inflation adjusted deficit spending

Obama inherited a 1.5 trillion deficit in 2009, down to 1.3 Trillion in 2011.

We actually pay LESS in interest, not just in % but nominal, than we did four years ago

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States


Stocks:

Dow Jones: 6.5k to 13.5k Dow Jones Industrial Average (2000 - Present Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com
Nasdaq: 1.3k- to 3.1k+ NASDAQ (1978 - Present weekly) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com
S&P: 700- to 1.4k+ NASDAQ (1978 - Present weekly) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com

Every stock more than doubled


Health Care:

Ok here's the key things that Obamacare really does:
1. It requires insurance companies to spend 85% of their revenue on actual health care costs.
2. It shifts the focus from ER and specialists to primary care (family doctors), focusing on prevention to increase efficiency and cut cost.
3. It expands coverage from 21 to 26 for dependants, so college students are covered through their parents.
4. By 2018 "Cadillac" insurance, extremely expensive (27.5k+ family, 10.2k+ individual) insurance that have no co-pay, gets a 40% tax. - Sorry Romney free foot massage at John Hopkins went up 40%.

Don't take my word for it just ask all your doctors what they think of Obamacare.


Foreign relations have improved

We are no longer at odds with France and Germany
China has adjusted it's currency from 8:1 to 6:1
Hostilities with Russia has subsided
Osama Bin Laden is dead.


Romney on the other hand does have an indefensible record, especially his private sector experience at Bain which he likes to brag about.

Skipping all the smaller companies he crashed. Here's 3 big ones

Staples: Romney was not CEO Bain was
Domino's: Cut cost if ingredients to increase short term revenue while ruining company reputation
Sealy: Company was moved from Cleveland Ohio, where the company was located and profited for more than 80 years, to North Carolina to cut cost (and the quality of the mattresses)
Toys R' Us: tell me if you find one

See the pattern? Cut costs, cash in on profit, drive companies to the ground? Want him doing that to this country too? Not on my watch. Bain capital is not about growing a business it's about how best to stuff the pockets of executives and it's stockholders.

shiang said:

So I'm getting tired of having to look up previous posts or researching for the sources. So here they are, this is by no means everything but it's a start.


Here's the "indefensible record"

Policies take a year to two to take effect so judge Obama by the change in trend from 2010 to 2011

US GDP:

Nominal GDP went up about 10% from under 14 Trillion to over 15 Trillion

"Real" GDP (inflation adjusted) went from 12.8 to 13.5 Trillion

Keep in mind we were nearly headed into a depression 4 years ago


Unemployment:

over 10% to 7.8% - US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Unemployment in the U.S. - Google Public Data Explorer


Employment:

See the drop in 2008 and 2009 and see the recovery from 2010.

10% increase in employment - US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


Debt:

Reduction in Deficit spending every year from when Obama took office.

Look at inflation adjusted deficit spending

Obama inherited a 1.5 trillion deficit in 2009, down to 1.3 Trillion in 2011.

We actually pay LESS in interest, not just in % but nominal, than we did four years ago

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States


Stocks:

Dow Jones: 6.5k to 13.5k Dow Jones Industrial Average (2000 - Present Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com
Nasdaq: 1.3k- to 3.1k+ NASDAQ (1978 - Present weekly) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com
S&P: 700- to 1.4k+ NASDAQ (1978 - Present weekly) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com

Every stock more than doubled


Health Care:

Ok here's the key things that Obamacare really does:
1. It requires insurance companies to spend 85% of their revenue on actual health care costs.
2. It shifts the focus from ER and specialists to primary care (family doctors), focusing on prevention to increase efficiency and cut cost.
3. It expands coverage from 21 to 26 for dependants, so college students are covered through their parents.
4. By 2018 "Cadillac" insurance, extremely expensive (27.5k+ family, 10.2k+ individual) insurance that have no co-pay, gets a 40% tax. - Sorry Romney free foot massage at John Hopkins went up 40%.

Don't take my word for it just ask all your doctors what they think of Obamacare.


Foreign relations have improved

We are no longer at odds with France and Germany
China has adjusted it's currency from 8:1 to 6:1
Hostilities with Russia has subsided
Osama Bin Laden is dead.


Romney on the other hand does have an indefensible record, especially his private sector experience at Bain which he likes to brag about.

Skipping all the smaller companies he crashed. Here's 3 big ones

Staples: Romney was not CEO Bain was
Domino's: Cut cost if ingredients to increase short term revenue while ruining company reputation
Sealy: Company was moved from Cleveland Ohio, where the company was located and profited for more than 80 years, to North Carolina to cut cost (and the quality of the mattresses)
Toys R' Us: tell me if you find one

See the pattern? Cut costs, cash in on profit, drive companies to the ground? Want him doing that to this country too? Not on my watch. Bain capital is not about growing a business it's about how best to stuff the pockets of executives and it's stockholders.

Click to expand...

I think your dead on. Thank you for posting the statistics. I get tired of people just making up numbers off the top of their heads and expecting everyone to believe they are facts.

Having foreign relations with dead man bin laden is quite disgusting... I hope the USA isn't turning into bella swan.

You hit on the problem with a lot of anti-Obama arguments. They are based off of stripping time and effect from the system, and merely looking at the present situation and a single person. It is out of context entirely with what got us where we are. The fact is that the things that brought about the crash and the problems we see today were often caused by events far before Obama, or sometimes even bush Jr., and involved the work of many people, primarily congress.

This leads to the main problem of this presidential election, and why it doesn't actually matter. First, no single person has brought down the US economy. You could not take a single president out and replace them with someone better and prevent this. the reason is the causes for this problem were created by congress, and further by the heads of the financial institutions of america and the world. In the end the election of either obama or Romney will not correct the problems. the best we can hope for is they mitigate the greed. I think Obama recognizes the need to keep the general populace well fed and happy more than Romney does. Romney is so greedy he doesn't see that if you take too much the revolution will come and kill you. I think Obama recognizes you can put off the revolution if you keep the people fat and happy.

At any rate, the system that has been created came long before Obama or Romney were even thoughts in their parents head. They both play into it. We will notice that though the economy collapsed for the poor the rich are pretty much still the rich and maybe a couple of them lost and became poor, they really are still the same rich people. The big problems came about because there was a number of people making money off of nothing, like the really wealthy do. The problem with that is that everyone cannot make money on nothing, so that had to collapse, or you had to equalize everyone.

You see, the rich sucked money out of the system based on investment schemes and loans. Due to the spread of information some people had learned to invest well, and were making money too. When the rich make insider investments they keep their money pretty safe, but when everyone can make the same bet it spreads out the profits and the rich actually lose money. We would call it not making as much, but the rich call it losing. So knowing eventually someone has to pay the piper, and instead of splitting up the losses, they simply sold all the losses to the middle investors and basically sold their losses off.

This was all due to regulations that came about long before obama was elected, and deals that were worked out to suck the the tech bubble dry. The tech bubble made a lot of new rich people, and they needed a way to consolidate that wealth into old money. Old money had to pay kids to make the technology, but like a casino they offered them the dreams of more wealth and the kids jumped on it only to have their winnings sucked dry by the house. All those rules were in place long before obama came around, and even if he wanted to obama could not get rid of them.

The real people to blame are in congress and are leading the financial institutions that keep up our system. If you want to take them down you have to take the whole system down and suffer the consequences of that. Anyone who thinks you can blame one or the other in this mess as the problem is wrong. They are all the problem. My solution and opinion is that we live a pretty cushy life and collapsing the system is a war filled with all sorts of hell none of us have ever known in our own front yard. So I basically go for whoever is going to toss the middle and lower classes the biggest bone. Mitt is too greedy and wants other people to starve for his excess. I don't mind the rich living a life of excess that they never let us have, but give us a comfortable life. Throw us a bone.

tererun said:

You hit on the problem with a lot of anti-Obama arguments. They are based off of stripping time and effect from the system, and merely looking at the present situation and a single person. It is out of context entirely with what got us where we are. The fact is that the things that brought about the crash and the problems we see today were often caused by events far before Obama, or sometimes even bush Jr., and involved the work of many people, primarily congress.

This leads to the main problem of this presidential election, and why it doesn't actually matter. First, no single person has brought down the US economy. You could not take a single president out and replace them with someone better and prevent this. the reason is the causes for this problem were created by congress, and further by the heads of the financial institutions of america and the world. In the end the election of either obama or Romney will not correct the problems. the best we can hope for is they mitigate the greed. I think Obama recognizes the need to keep the general populace well fed and happy more than Romney does. Romney is so greedy he doesn't see that if you take too much the revolution will come and kill you. I think Obama recognizes you can put off the revolution if you keep the people fat and happy.

At any rate, the system that has been created came long before Obama or Romney were even thoughts in their parents head. They both play into it. We will notice that though the economy collapsed for the poor the rich are pretty much still the rich and maybe a couple of them lost and became poor, they really are still the same rich people. The big problems came about because there was a number of people making money off of nothing, like the really wealthy do. The problem with that is that everyone cannot make money on nothing, so that had to collapse, or you had to equalize everyone.

You see, the rich sucked money out of the system based on investment schemes and loans. Due to the spread of information some people had learned to invest well, and were making money too. When the rich make insider investments they keep their money pretty safe, but when everyone can make the same bet it spreads out the profits and the rich actually lose money. We would call it not making as much, but the rich call it losing. So knowing eventually someone has to pay the piper, and instead of splitting up the losses, they simply sold all the losses to the middle investors and basically sold their losses off.

This was all due to regulations that came about long before obama was elected, and deals that were worked out to suck the the tech bubble dry. The tech bubble made a lot of new rich people, and they needed a way to consolidate that wealth into old money. Old money had to pay kids to make the technology, but like a casino they offered them the dreams of more wealth and the kids jumped on it only to have their winnings sucked dry by the house. All those rules were in place long before obama came around, and even if he wanted to obama could not get rid of them.

The real people to blame are in congress and are leading the financial institutions that keep up our system. If you want to take them down you have to take the whole system down and suffer the consequences of that. Anyone who thinks you can blame one or the other in this mess as the problem is wrong. They are all the problem. My solution and opinion is that we live a pretty cushy life and collapsing the system is a war filled with all sorts of hell none of us have ever known in our own front yard. So I basically go for whoever is going to toss the middle and lower classes the biggest bone. Mitt is too greedy and wants other people to starve for his excess. I don't mind the rich living a life of excess that they never let us have, but give us a comfortable life. Throw us a bone.

Click to expand...

I must compliment you on some rational points made in what causes economic problems. However, your conclusions are completely flawed and show a total lack of understanding.

Yes - a president, by himself, cannot do anything significant. They need the cooperation of congress to actually implement their programs or obstruct the 'other guys' solutions to problems.

Obama has terrible programs and had a congress willing to ram them thru. The Pelosi/Reid coalition is as much to blame for Obama's excesses as is Obama himself. Pelosi's "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" stands as the most incredulous statement I have ever heard a politician say. They rammed Obamacare thru congress with zero GOP support. They had to change the rules to get it done in the Senate. The whole act was clearly unconstitutional, but the most political decision in twenty years by the USSC allowed it to stand.

The current economic problems stem from the housing crisis that is solely a creation of a series of DEMOCRAT initiatives. It started with Carter's Community Reinvestment act which encouraged allowing lower income people to purchase a home (a very laudable goal - as are most DEM initiatives when they are put in place) This particular act was not achieving the desired effects, so under Clinton the rules on qualifying for a home loan were changed by relaxing some regulations so that home-loans could be obtained by those who could not normally qualify.

When Bush43 came to office he recognized the looming crisis and tried to get congress to fix the problem. He was obstructed by Cris Dodd and Barney Frank. SEVENTEEN TIMEs he tried to get them to at least LISTEN to what he considered a looming disaster. They summarily REJECTED every one without discussion. Cris Dodd and Barney Frank proclaimed "nothing is wrong with Fanny and Freddy."

What you are blaming the "greedy" folks in the banking industry for is not willingly absorbing the financial losses that DEMOCRAT presidents and DEMOCRAT congresses had impelled them to become liable for. I suppose that in your world, they could have said "oh well, this will bankrupt us, but we should just ignore it." What they did was what their fiduciary obligations COMPELLED them to do - legally off load their toxic assets to another legal entity set up by congress for just that situation - Fannie and Freddy.

THis housing crisis is a creation of DEMOCRAT ideas, implementation, obstruction, malfeasance, and political greed.

And, btw - The economy is not zero-sum game. It is not true that if someone makes a lot of money that someone else loses that amount of money. The very people who are making a lot of money are the ones who cause the economy to grow for everyone else so that there is more money to go around. It is only when the economy fails to grow because of some external force (or normal 'corrections') that the system gets out of whack.

And those external forces are generally the meddling of GOVERNMENT - and almost always this meddling is done by DEMOCRAT government, hoping to buy a few votes for their elections at the cost of economic decline for everyone else.

Rokkitsci said:

I must compliment you on some rational points made in what causes economic problems. However, your conclusions are completely flawed and show a total lack of understanding.

Yes - a president, by himself, cannot do anything significant. They need the cooperation of congress to actually implement their programs or obstruct the 'other guys' solutions to problems.

Obama has terrible programs and had a congress willing to ram them thru. The Pelosi/Reid coalition is as much to blame for Obama's excesses as is Obama himself. Pelosi's "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" stands as the most incredulous statement I have ever heard a politician say. They rammed Obamacare thru congress with zero GOP support. They had to change the rules to get it done in the Senate. The whole act was clearly unconstitutional, but the most political decision in twenty years by the USSC allowed it to stand.

The current economic problems stem from the housing crisis that is solely a creation of a series of DEMOCRAT initiatives. It started with Carter's Community Reinvestment act which encouraged allowing lower income people to purchase a home (a very laudable goal - as are most DEM initiatives when they are put in place) This particular act was not achieving the desired effects, so under Clinton the rules on qualifying for a home loan were changed by relaxing some regulations so that home-loans could be obtained by those who could not normally qualify.

When Bush43 came to office he recognized the looming crisis and tried to get congress to fix the problem. He was obstructed by Cris Dodd and Barney Frank. SEVENTEEN TIMEs he tried to get them to at least LISTEN to what he considered a looming disaster. They summarily REJECTED every one without discussion. Cris Dodd and Barney Frank proclaimed "nothing is wrong with Fanny and Freddy."

What you are blaming the "greedy" folks in the banking industry for is not willingly absorbing the financial losses that DEMOCRAT presidents and DEMOCRAT congresses had impelled them to become liable for. I suppose that in your world, they could have said "oh well, this will bankrupt us, but we should just ignore it." What they did was what their fiduciary obligations COMPELLED them to do - legally off load their toxic assets to another legal entity set up by congress for just that situation - Fannie and Freddy.

THis housing crisis is a creation of DEMOCRAT ideas, implementation, obstruction, malfeasance, and political greed.

And, btw - The economy is not zero-sum game. It is not true that if someone makes a lot of money that someone else loses that amount of money. The very people who are making a lot of money are the ones who cause the economy to grow for everyone else so that there is more money to go around. It is only when the economy fails to grow because of some external force (or normal 'corrections') that the system gets out of whack.

And those external forces are generally the meddling of GOVERNMENT - and almost always this meddling is done by DEMOCRAT government, hoping to buy a few votes for their elections at the cost of economic decline for everyone else.

Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the point where I say I know that the dems are responsible for this, but you then try to put it all on them also. The fact is that this has not come around because of the dems or reps. It is the way people work. If you think that the republicans are not a part of this then you really are just as blind as the dems you are bothered by. You are trying to place blame on a particular side without recognizing that both sides are at fault. I am saying that it will continue no matter which side gets elected. This is for the very simple reason that the people in power are also the people who control the media and the entire process. Basically you will never be presented with a candidate that is outside that system. therefor the fight is really as to whether that system completely steps on the poor for fun, or they cut them some slack and let them exist at their level. The republicans are the ones that care nothing for the poor, and they have to play a game of spinning it the right way so the poor actually think they are voting in their best interests. Really all the elections are asking is can the rich stomp on everyone else again, or do they have to let them have a little bit.

If you are blaming the dems for that and you think the republicans are the defenders of the american way that you dream of, you are the people who fall for the pitch to give the poor another stomp. The problem is that you, despite your own perception, are part of the poor class that will get stomped.

What I am tired of is having a thread that presents fact after fact or you give references to outside sources which support your conclusion and the person on the other side constantly asks for more or "wheres your proof". I see this as trolly nothing more.

shiang said:

So I'm getting tired of having to look up previous posts or researching for the sources. So here they are, this is by no means everything but it's a start.


Here's the "indefensible record"


Stocks:

Dow Jones: 6.5k to 13.5k Dow Jones Industrial Average (2000 - Present Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com
Nasdaq: 1.3k- to 3.1k+ NASDAQ (1978 - Present weekly) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com
S&P: 700- to 1.4k+ NASDAQ (1978 - Present weekly) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com

Every stock more than doubled

Click to expand...

EVERY???

List of Failed Obama Green Energy & Solar Companies in the Billions

Fisher said:

EVERY???

List of Failed Obama Green Energy & Solar Companies in the Billions

Click to expand...

every stock index, obviously not every single investment will be good when you invest 700 Billion. Look at Romney over 3/4 of the companies he's worked with as CEO are worse off today then when he acquired them.

Rokkitsci said:

I must compliment you on some rational points made in what causes economic problems. However, your conclusions are completely flawed and show a total lack of understanding.

Yes - a president, by himself, cannot do anything significant. They need the cooperation of congress to actually implement their programs or obstruct the 'other guys' solutions to problems.

Obama has terrible programs and had a congress willing to ram them thru. The Pelosi/Reid coalition is as much to blame for Obama's excesses as is Obama himself. Pelosi's "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" stands as the most incredulous statement I have ever heard a politician say. They rammed Obamacare thru congress with zero GOP support. They had to change the rules to get it done in the Senate. The whole act was clearly unconstitutional, but the most political decision in twenty years by the USSC allowed it to stand.

The current economic problems stem from the housing crisis that is solely a creation of a series of DEMOCRAT initiatives. It started with Carter's Community Reinvestment act which encouraged allowing lower income people to purchase a home (a very laudable goal - as are most DEM initiatives when they are put in place) This particular act was not achieving the desired effects, so under Clinton the rules on qualifying for a home loan were changed by relaxing some regulations so that home-loans could be obtained by those who could not normally qualify.

When Bush43 came to office he recognized the looming crisis and tried to get congress to fix the problem. He was obstructed by Cris Dodd and Barney Frank. SEVENTEEN TIMEs he tried to get them to at least LISTEN to what he considered a looming disaster. They summarily REJECTED every one without discussion. Cris Dodd and Barney Frank proclaimed "nothing is wrong with Fanny and Freddy."

What you are blaming the "greedy" folks in the banking industry for is not willingly absorbing the financial losses that DEMOCRAT presidents and DEMOCRAT congresses had impelled them to become liable for. I suppose that in your world, they could have said "oh well, this will bankrupt us, but we should just ignore it." What they did was what their fiduciary obligations COMPELLED them to do - legally off load their toxic assets to another legal entity set up by congress for just that situation - Fannie and Freddy.

THis housing crisis is a creation of DEMOCRAT ideas, implementation, obstruction, malfeasance, and political greed.

And, btw - The economy is not zero-sum game. It is not true that if someone makes a lot of money that someone else loses that amount of money. The very people who are making a lot of money are the ones who cause the economy to grow for everyone else so that there is more money to go around. It is only when the economy fails to grow because of some external force (or normal 'corrections') that the system gets out of whack.

And those external forces are generally the meddling of GOVERNMENT - and almost always this meddling is done by DEMOCRAT government, hoping to buy a few votes for their elections at the cost of economic decline for everyone else.

Click to expand...

I can usually read lowercase fine.

shiang said:

every stock index, obviously not every single investment will be good when you invest 700 Billion. Look at Romney over 3/4 of the companies he's worked with as CEO are worse off today then when he acquired them.

Click to expand...

Not every stock on either indices is an exclusively US owned and operated enterprise, which is why I think they make a horrible basis for an economic argument for anything other than say retirement/401K type discussions.

tererun said:

You seem to have missed the point where I say I know that the dems are responsible for this, but you then try to put it all on them also. The fact is that this has not come around because of the dems or reps. It is the way people work. If you think that the republicans are not a part of this then you really are just as blind as the dems you are bothered by. You are trying to place blame on a particular side without recognizing that both sides are at fault. I am saying that it will continue no matter which side gets elected. This is for the very simple reason that the people in power are also the people who control the media and the entire process. Basically you will never be presented with a candidate that is outside that system. therefor the fight is really as to whether that system completely steps on the poor for fun, or they cut them some slack and let them exist at their level. The republicans are the ones that care nothing for the poor, and they have to play a game of spinning it the right way so the poor actually think they are voting in their best interests. Really all the elections are asking is can the rich stomp on everyone else again, or do they have to let them have a little bit.

If you are blaming the dems for that and you think the republicans are the defenders of the american way that you dream of, you are the people who fall for the pitch to give the poor another stomp. The problem is that you, despite your own perception, are part of the poor class that will get stomped.

Click to expand...

I am blaming the DEMs for the housing crisis. The sub-prime loans are strictly their baby. And GWBush = whom everyone likes to blame everything on - is simply not culpable at all in this. He tried to get Dodd and Frank to see the looming crisis and they refused to even consider it. They even went on record praising the operation.

It is not surprising that neither of them wanted to run for re-election - they know they bear the most liability for the housing crash.

And I don't say that Bush was perfect - far from it - he was way too willing to allow spending bills to go past him with no veto. However, I do say that he was better than either of his opponents at any point in his presidency. Gore would have been a complete disaster and Kerry was not fit for the job either. He was the original empty suit - that is until Obama took that title from him.

Everything wrong with America - culture, economics, foreign policy - is a direct result of DEM ideas (perhaps originally with good intentions) that have proven to go badly wrong. The GOP is not perfect, but they are not a radical as the DEMs have become since LBJ. Prior to LBJ, DEMs were just another political party where honest conversations could be conducted. After LBJ, the DEM party is just a conniving bunch of greedy radicals who care nothing about anything but grabbing raw political power for the sake of having the power.

That is until Obama came along. I absolutely believe the WANTS to 'bring America down to size' and completely destroy the traditional American culture = to be something more like Europe.

oh - btw - I still compliment you on your original post and for this one.

Rokkitsci said:

I am blaming the DEMs for the housing crisis. The sub-prime loans are strictly their baby. And GWBush = whom everyone likes to blame everything on - is simply not culpable at all in this. He tried to get Dodd and Frank to see the looming crisis and they refused to even consider it. They even went on record praising the operation.

It is not surprising that neither of them wanted to run for re-election - they know they bear the most liability for the housing crash.

And I don't say that Bush was perfect - far from it - he was way too willing to allow spending bills to go past him with no veto. However, I do say that he was better than either of his opponents at any point in his presidency. Gore would have been a complete disaster and Kerry was not fit for the job either. He was the original empty suit - that is until Obama took that title from him.

Everything wrong with America - culture, economics, foreign policy - is a direct result of DEM ideas (perhaps originally with good intentions) that have proven to go badly wrong. The GOP is not perfect, but they are not a radical as the DEMs have become since LBJ. Prior to LBJ, DEMs were just another political party where honest conversations could be conducted. After LBJ, the DEM party is just a conniving bunch of greedy radicals who care nothing about anything but grabbing raw political power for the sake of having the power.

That is until Obama came along. I absolutely believe the WANTS to 'bring America down to size' and completely destroy the traditional American culture = to be something more like Europe.

oh - btw - I still compliment you on your original post and for this one.

Click to expand...

Yeah, just keep on blaming one side. It is what you are supposed to do. This way you never see that you are the one being kept down by both parties. This is why it will never be any different.

tererun said:

Yeah, just keep on blaming one side. It is what you are supposed to do. This way you never see that you are the one being kept down by both parties. This is why it will never be any different.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could tell us exactly what part of the housing crisis was the result of anything the GOP did. I have told you why I think this thing is completely the fault of the DEMs. Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe you can tell me what part of this the GOP is liable for.

thanks.

Rokkitsci said:

Perhaps you could tell us exactly what part of the housing crisis was the result of anything the GOP did. I have told you why I think this thing is completely the fault of the DEMs. Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe you can tell me what part of this the GOP is liable for.

thanks.

Click to expand...

*cough* deregulating banks *cough*

I don't see how it could be dem's fault housing collapsed after 8 years of Republican rule and 4 years of Republicans controlling both houses and all 3 branches. Housing crisis is almost 100% GOP fault.

shiang said:

*cough* deregulating banks *cough*

I don't see how it could be dem's fault housing collapsed after 8 years of Republican rule and 4 years of Republicans controlling both houses and all 3 branches. Housing crisis is almost 100% GOP fault.

Click to expand...

Even if that were true, still wouldn't explain anything about what Obama intends to do in the next 4 years if re-elected.

Rokkitsci said:

Perhaps you could tell us exactly what part of the housing crisis was the result of anything the GOP did. I have told you why I think this thing is completely the fault of the DEMs. Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe you can tell me what part of this the GOP is liable for.

thanks.

Click to expand...

You should try to do your own independent research instead of relying entirely on talking heads from the far right who are, after all, mostly college dropouts with no background in economics.

But I'll give you the nutshell version of what happened in the financial/housing meltdown:

1. The crisis had its roots in Reagan-era bank deregulation. It was at that time that the big banks, with the help of Republicans and some Democrats, began chipping away at Depression-era regulations (primarily Glass Steagall) designed to prevent systemic risk;

2. This trend continued over the years until, in the late 90s, Phil Gramm spearheaded the effort to kill off the last vestiges of Glass Steagall, which prevented investment banks from trading on their own accounts, which previously distinguised them from much riskier investment banks. Gramm, together with Leach and Blilely (all Republicans) authored the legislation which removed that limitation and also blew away the fire wall between banks and insurance companies. The legislation had supporters in Clinton's White House and it passed with bipartisan support;

3. At about the same time, Gramm created another piece of legislation that was central to the meltdown: namely, the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. In effect this Act made it impossible for the federal government to regulate derivatives, and beyond that, it preempted STATES from regulating derivatives as well. Once again this legislation had support from the Clinton White House (with the notable exception of Brooksley Born -- then Chairman of the CFTC) -- but it had little chance of gaining Democratic support in the Senate. Consequently, a group of Republicans (including Lach of Gramm Leach Blilely) slipped it into a huge omnibus spending bill and it passed without debate. It soon became apparent that this law had serious problems, as it was central to the 2001 collapse of Enron. Not at all coincidentally, Gramm's wife (also a prominent Republican) was a former chairman of the CFTC. As one of her last acts she deregulated energies futures trading ... and five weeks later left government to take a position on the board of Enron! Lovely.

4. Credit Ratings Agencies were essentially unregulated and had tremendous conflicts of interest, insofar as they were paid by the financial firms whose products they were rating.

5. Greenspan and the Fed maintained a loose money supply throughout the bubble;

6. Bush and congressional Republicans passed enormous tax cuts in 2001 and 2003;

7. Bush's comptroller of the currency aggressively prevented states from enforcing predatory lending laws that were stricter the weak federal laws;

8. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were leveraged to the hilt.

So all of these things worked together like parts in a bomb. Banks, freed by Gramm Leach Bliley, invested large sums of their own money in derivatives in the form of mortgage backed securities, or collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). These derivatives represented huge bundles of mortgages that were then split up in tranches and sold off to investors. Thanks in part to the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, these derivatives were incredibly opaque and completely unregulated. They were so complex that in most cases even the top brass at the banks didn't understand what was in them or how they worked. Nonetheless people bought them, because the credit ratings agencies were only too happy to stamp them with their top-shelf AAA rating, in exchange for the fees that the banks paid them. They literally couldn't sell them fast enough, and so there was a huge demand for more mortgages to be split up and sold. In consequence, the banks started lowering their lending standards, to the point where someone could obtain a mortgage without even showing proof of income. The banks didn't care if the loans went bad because, after all, they had sold them off to private investors. And what's more, their derivatives were backed by credit default swaps issued by the likes of AIG! Unfortunately the CDS was very much like a CDO in the sense that it was an unregulated, opaque derivative contract. By the end of 2007 there were $62.2 TRILLION of these contracts outstanding. Read that again slowly. That's an amount almost four times greater than the total U.S. debt. In essence the default swaps were an insurance policy written over and over again and premised on the notion that everything would work out okay as long as real estate prices didn't fall more than 5%. *cough*

So now you have banks making money hand over fist selling these derivatives, and practcally begging people to take out mortgages with little or no proof of income. To add fuel to the fire, Bush came in signed a couple of huge tax cuts which put a lot of money in people's pockets, and the Fed kept the money supply loose, so interest rates were pretty low. Now you've got a whole lot of people who have the means to take up the banks on their offer. And since they don't even require proof of income, what the hell ... why not buy four or five houses on your $50k salary? Everyone knows that real estate prices only go up ... right?

Only thing is, the banks weren't QUITE giving that money away. Most of those no paperwork loans involved adjustable rate mortgages that started off dirt cheap, but then ballooned to very high interest rates. Not a problem if you're just buying and flipping before the balloon breaks, but a big problem when the music stops. Freddie and Fannie had a similar problem. Contrary to popular belief, they were not big into the subprime market. It was only towards the end of the boom that they really got into it, and they did so because all of the private subprime lenders were sucking up all their customers. But the problem they did have was one of leverage. Their leverage ratio was something like 70:1, which is ridiculously high. So again, when the music stopped, they were left holding a very big bag.

So there you have it. The main movers in the drama were Republicans who were pushing deregulation and tax cuts, but Democrats signed off on it too. Many of these mistakes predated Bush and his Republican Congress, but it was only after they came to power that the writing really showed up on the wall. That's when the derivatives market exploded, subprime took off, and real estate prices went to the moon. And not a blessed soul raised a finger to stop it. Why? Because they're all in the pockets of the banks, the insurance companies, and real estate firms.

shiang said:

4. By 2018 "Cadillac" insurance, extremely expensive (27.5k+ family, 10.2k+ individual) insurance that have no co-pay, gets a 40% tax. - Sorry Romney free foot massage at John Hopkins went up 40%.

Click to expand...

...and what is 40% of nothing?

Fisher said:

EVERY???

List of Failed Obama Green Energy & Solar Companies in the Billions

Click to expand...

That's not a link it's a religion. Romney lied sbout how many green energy companies have failed. I bet he got his info from dividedstate.com.

shiang said:

So I'm getting tired of having to look up previous posts or researching for the sources. So here they are, this is by no means everything but it's a start.


Here's the "indefensible record"

Policies take a year to two to take effect so judge Obama by the change in trend from 2010 to 2011

US GDP:

Nominal GDP went up about 10% from under 14 Trillion to over 15 Trillion

"Real" GDP (inflation adjusted) went from 12.8 to 13.5 Trillion

Keep in mind we were nearly headed into a depression 4 years ago


Unemployment:

over 10% to 7.8% - US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Unemployment in the U.S. - Google Public Data Explorer


Employment:

See the drop in 2008 and 2009 and see the recovery from 2010.

10% increase in employment - US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


Debt:

Reduction in Deficit spending every year from when Obama took office.

Look at inflation adjusted deficit spending

Obama inherited a 1.5 trillion deficit in 2009, down to 1.3 Trillion in 2011.

We actually pay LESS in interest, not just in % but nominal, than we did four years ago

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States


Stocks:

Dow Jones: 6.5k to 13.5k Dow Jones Industrial Average (2000 - Present Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com
Nasdaq: 1.3k- to 3.1k+ NASDAQ (1978 - Present weekly) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com
S&P: 700- to 1.4k+ NASDAQ (1978 - Present weekly) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com

Every stock more than doubled


Health Care:

Ok here's the key things that Obamacare really does:
1. It requires insurance companies to spend 85% of their revenue on actual health care costs.
2. It shifts the focus from ER and specialists to primary care (family doctors), focusing on prevention to increase efficiency and cut cost.
3. It expands coverage from 21 to 26 for dependants, so college students are covered through their parents.
4. By 2018 "Cadillac" insurance, extremely expensive (27.5k+ family, 10.2k+ individual) insurance that have no co-pay, gets a 40% tax. - Sorry Romney free foot massage at John Hopkins went up 40%.

Don't take my word for it just ask all your doctors what they think of Obamacare.


Foreign relations have improved

We are no longer at odds with France and Germany
China has adjusted it's currency from 8:1 to 6:1
Hostilities with Russia has subsided
Osama Bin Laden is dead.


Romney on the other hand does have an indefensible record, especially his private sector experience at Bain which he likes to brag about.

Skipping all the smaller companies he crashed. Here's 3 big ones

Staples: Romney was not CEO Bain was
Domino's: Cut cost if ingredients to increase short term revenue while ruining company reputation
Sealy: Company was moved from Cleveland Ohio, where the company was located and profited for more than 80 years, to North Carolina to cut cost (and the quality of the mattresses)
Toys R' Us: tell me if you find one

See the pattern? Cut costs, cash in on profit, drive companies to the ground? Want him doing that to this country too? Not on my watch. Bain capital is not about growing a business it's about how best to stuff the pockets of executives and it's stockholders.

Click to expand...

Nothing more needs to be said, Laughable attempt at defending the indefensible by the OP.

Continuing on the theme of setting the record straight....

A big part of the reason that the recovery has been so slow is weakness in consumer spending. Part of that weakness is attributable to persistently high unemployment, but a lot of it is also due to the fact that American consumers got themselves into way too much debt over the last decade. That debt load has to come down before the economy can get healthy again, and fortunately that is what has been happening. Consumer spending has been down, in part, because Americans are paying down existing debt instead of buying more new stuff.

U.S. debt has shrunk to a six-year low relative to the size of the economy as homeowners, cities and companies cut borrowing, undermining rating companies’ downgrading of the nation’s credit rating.

Total indebtedness including that of federal and state governments and consumers has fallen to 3.29 times gross domestic product, the least since 2006, from a peak of 3.59 four years ago, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Private- sector borrowing is down by $4 trillion to $40.2 trillion.

...

Deleveraging in the private sector may allow households to boost spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy, and increase their capacity to pay taxes. Household wealth in the U.S. rose to $62.7 trillion as of June 30 from $51.2 trillion in early 2009, the Federal Reserve said Sept. 20.

...

Declining Debt

Consumer debt declined to $11.4 trillion at the end of the second quarter, from a peak of $12.7 trillion in 2008. The market for commercial paper, a form of short-term corporate IOUs, has shrunk to $975 billion from a record $2.22 trillion in July 2007, central bank data show.

Net U.S. taxable debt issuance, which includes corporate, mortgage and Treasury securities, is forecast to fall to $821 billion in 2012, the least since 2000 and less than half the record $2.28 trillion in 2007, according to Ira Jersey, an interest-rate strategist at Credit Suisse Group AG in New York. The firm is one of 21 primary dealers that trade directly with the Fed and is obligated to bid at Treasury auctions.

‘Notable Improvement’

“All you have to do is look at the total debt to GDP to see that there’s notable improvement since the crisis of 2008,” Jeffrey Caughron, an associate partner at Baker Group LP in Oklahoma City, said Oct. 3 in a telephone interview. The firm advises community banks on investments exceeding $42 billion.

U.S. Downgrade Seen as Upgrade as U.S. Debt Dissolved - Bloomberg

Click to expand...