• 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!

Five years in, Obama and Bush poll numbers nearly identical

American said:
That was all debunked years ago. Everyone of those surpluses was projected. It never materialized, and Bush started his presidency in recession.
Click to expand...
:lol: That's hilarious. These figures are a matter of historical record and have nothing to do with projections that were made at the time. You have exactly zero clue what you're talking about here.
 
I find it amazing how everyone over 40 acts like they have absolutely nothing to do with this...

You left young people with a handful of **** and brainwash them to believe it's gold ****...
 
a351 said:
:lol: That's hilarious. These figures are a matter of historical record and have nothing to do with projections that were made at the time. You have exactly zero clue what you're talking about here.
Click to expand...

We always have surpluses during a recession. :roll:
 
American said:
We always have surpluses during a recession. :roll:
Click to expand...
As if we were actually in a recessionary period for the years mentioned. :roll: FY 99 and '00 enjoyed growth of over 4 percent per year and fiscal surpluses to boot. Quit while you're behind.

GDP CLINTON SURPLUS.jpg
 
Dittohead not! said:
Nothing. It has to do with Bush's dismal performance, which is why both of them have similar approval ratings. Obama is the master of his own dismal performance.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you didn't agree with what Bush did, and his poll numbers were justified in your eyes, I understand, and I agree that Obama's numbers are of his own making, even though you come dangerously close to deflecting away from that by trying to make the thread about Iraq, Obama is the president now, and he has worse approval ratings at this point than Bush had at this point...Says a lot don't you think?
 
a351 said:
:lol: That's hilarious. These figures are a matter of historical record and have nothing to do with projections that were made at the time. You have exactly zero clue what you're talking about here.
Click to expand...

In fact the debt grew during Clinton's Presidency which means he borrowed the money in order to meet a budget and have a surplus. That does not take much talent.
 
Mr.Nick said:
You're basing your ideas on movies...
Click to expand...

No... far from it. But movies do show at least in some part the real world at its worst. And Wall Street is one of those movies.

I have a pretty good understanding of free market economics - its nothing like Wall Street the movie - at least not in the sense you're thinking.
Click to expand...

There is one hell of a difference between free market economics and understanding that, and how people on Wall Street or London act and have acted the last 40 years. And that is where the movie Wall Street is quite real... the utter depravity and greed in that movie is a very good representation of what actually happens. The 100s of thousands of dollars wasted on champagne parties, drugs and hookers.. they are far more than an urban myth, they are and were especially in the 1980s and 1990s very real.

You ever see that movie with Dan Aykroyd, Eddie Murphy and Jamie Lee Curtis??? does it work like that too where they sell corn like ****?
Click to expand...

Yea funny movie.. was on tv a few weeks ago. As for being factual.. no, but that is not the point of the movie is it now... it is to show how greedy and elitist (and racist) the main "badies" are, and they represent the elitist banking industry.

It is no different than the movie Arthur showing the dark side (and funny) of the 1% of the 1%.. and how power and money can control and corrupt people.

The very fact that you seem to be in denial over the excesses of Wall Street and the City of London over the last 30+ years is rather shocking. If it was not for this greed and arrogance, then we would not have had the libor scandal, or economic crash.
 
fmw said:
We don't have any choice. The politics business here is run by political parties. They decide who the candidates are, not the public.
Click to expand...

.. and corporations tell both parties who to choose.

Obama and Bush both had the same Puppetmaters.
 
PeteEU said:
No... far from it. But movies do show at least in some part the real world at its worst. And Wall Street is one of those movies.
Click to expand...
Europeans often have problems distinguishing Hollywood movies with documentaries. Perhaps there should be another classification added so they can better understand the difference.
 
PeteEU said:
No... far from it. But movies do show at least in some part the real world at its worst. And Wall Street is one of those movies.



There is one hell of a difference between free market economics and understanding that, and how people on Wall Street or London act and have acted the last 40 years. And that is where the movie Wall Street is quite real... the utter depravity and greed in that movie is a very good representation of what actually happens. The 100s of thousands of dollars wasted on champagne parties, drugs and hookers.. they are far more than an urban myth, they are and were especially in the 1980s and 1990s very real.



Yea funny movie.. was on tv a few weeks ago. As for being factual.. no, but that is not the point of the movie is it now... it is to show how greedy and elitist (and racist) the main "badies" are, and they represent the elitist banking industry.

It is no different than the movie Arthur showing the dark side (and funny) of the 1% of the 1%.. and how power and money can control and corrupt people.

The very fact that you seem to be in denial over the excesses of Wall Street and the City of London over the last 30+ years is rather shocking. If it was not for this greed and arrogance, then we would not have had the libor scandal, or economic crash.
Click to expand...

:lamo OMG that is the funniest thing I have ever read I think....Kudos to you Pete for the obvious tongue in cheek satire you posted here....

But, Just in case you were serious, {I hope not} Without market trading we wouldn't have risk, that is true enough, we also wouldn't have an economy.....What would you propose be the economic system in its place?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Clinton allowed it to happen - I'll say that much..

That whole "force banks to lend" crap was a problem but there has been plenty of time between that and now - like 20 years.

At least we're making progress with the destruction of the clowns that claim "we can get you out of your $177,000 debt for only $9.99 every month" - no wait that's our federal government not the clowns - the FED just prints money to "ease" it down to nothing while making the general public eat it.

Clinton was the most economically reckless president ever.

If it matters Bush did hardly anything to correct any of Clintons stupid ****....
Click to expand...

Mr.Nick said:
See Clinton just used banks as a stimulus program by forcing lending....

That lead to the bailouts.........

Our government forced banks to lend then made them look stupid when they defaulted - not that I don't believe the banks loved the interest rates. But the only problem was the interest rates didn't matter when they couldn't be paid.

That was the ****ing problem...

I don't know what anyone was thinking for about 20 years...

No all the collateral has been taken and everyone is crying "I'm poor" -- yeah well they should have thought about that when they bought the boat 10 years ago with 5% down.

Now who is stuck with this ****? oh guys like me in their 30's or even younger - guys who were 5-years-old when you bought that boat..... They pay for it...
Click to expand...

PeteEU said:
Hey look at this way... at least the right stopped blaming Bill Clinton for everything...
Click to expand...

Nope. They don't blame him for their sciatica, for example.
 
j-mac said:
:lamo OMG that is the funniest thing I have ever read I think....Kudos to you Pete for the obvious tongue in cheek satire you posted here....

But, Just in case you were serious, {I hope not} Without market trading we wouldn't have risk, that is true enough, we also wouldn't have an economy.....What would you propose be the economic system in its place?
Click to expand...

OH I am very serious. The whole crisis we are in now, started on wall street and was created by wall street. Their ability to manipulate the legislation that governs them so that they can do pretty much what they want and let the taxpayer take the fall is mind-boggling. Market trading is not the problem, it is the atmosphere generated by the unchecked greed and ability to make profit out of nothing. The markets need serious regulation to curb things like speculation with other peoples money/stocks. Had the regulation been there and been used, then the crisis would never have gotten as bad as it did. The very fact that Wall Street sold crap with AAA ratings shows how out of touch and greedy they had (and still have) become.

Now instead they, with their loyal right wing backers, blame the left, communism, terrorists and everything in between and refuse to be accountable for their own failings.
 
Both presidents were crap. Both numbers should be crap.

Nothing more to see here.
 
PeteEU said:
OH I am very serious. The whole crisis we are in now, started on wall street and was created by wall street.
Click to expand...

:lol: The movie? Should we attack Michael Douglas? :lamo

Their ability to manipulate the legislation that governs them so that they can do pretty much what they want and let the taxpayer take the fall is mind-boggling. Market trading is not the problem, it is the atmosphere generated by the unchecked greed and ability to make profit out of nothing.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I think you have a great misunderstanding of how the investment market works. Is 'greed' a part of it? yeah sure I guess, but then again is regulation.

The markets need serious regulation to curb things like speculation with other peoples money/stocks. Had the regulation been there and been used, then the crisis would never have gotten as bad as it did.
Click to expand...

You mean like these guys were calling for, while people with, shall we say your outlook were making excuses?



The very fact that Wall Street sold crap with AAA ratings shows how out of touch and greedy they had (and still have) become.
Click to expand...

Not saying that the banks didn't take it too far, but starting out, they were just trying to mitigate the risk involved with being forced to take on people that couldn't afford the mortgages they were mandated to underwrite, with no income verification, or down payments....

Now instead they, with their loyal right wing backers, blame the left, communism, terrorists and everything in between and refuse to be accountable for their own failings.
Click to expand...

CRA. Look it up.
 
Gipper said:
Both presidents were crap. Both numbers should be crap.

Nothing more to see here.
Click to expand...

will the new punchline be: It's Obama's fault.......It's Bush and Obama's fault..........or It is dumb and ****ing stupid's fault
 
Rocketman said:
will the new punchline be: It's Obama's fault.......It's Bush and Obama's fault..........or It is dumb and ****ing stupid's fault
Click to expand...

Nah, I still think that Bush will be a bigger scapegoat. It's because liberals have become used to blaming him for any and everything. For some reason, a young couple buying a house they cannot afford, using bank money they never should've been approved for, at a rate they never should've been given from a government body that shouldn't have interfered...is Bush's fault.

People have a funny way of blaming Bush for all their woes. Obama doesn't get enough blame for all his.
 
Gipper said:
Nah, I still think that Bush will be a bigger scapegoat. It's because liberals have become used to blaming him for any and everything. For some reason, a young couple buying a house they cannot afford, using bank money they never should've been approved for, at a rate they never should've been given from a government body that shouldn't have interfered...is Bush's fault.

People have a funny way of blaming Bush for all their woes. Obama doesn't get enough blame for all his.
Click to expand...

MY son is a banker and the only loans the defaulted at their bank was just what you described above. Those loan defaults rest squarely on the people that signed on the dotted line to borrow the money, not the banks, and certainly not the taxpayers.
 
digsbe said:
He took a mess and is making it worse.
Click to expand...

How on earth can you believe things are worse than during the final year of the Bush presidency?
 
Rocketman said:
MY son is a banker and the only loans the defaulted at their bank was just what you described above. Those loan defaults rest squarely on the people that signed on the dotted line to borrow the money, not the banks, and certainly not the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

And is directly what is at issue in a hearing in 2004 here:

 
j-mac said:
How can you think that they aren't?
Click to expand...

So far this year, 22 banks have failed. In 2009, 144 banks failed (and the total value of deposits on their books were like 10x greater than the ones in 2013).
 
Rocketman said:
MY son is a banker and the only loans the defaulted at their bank was just what you described above. Those loan defaults rest squarely on the people that signed on the dotted line to borrow the money, not the banks, and certainly not the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Bankers are supposed to be the professionals, who view risk in mostly a quantitative fashion. Yet for some reason, they issued loans (not just sub prime mind you) that were almost guaranteed to default, and then sold them off to securitization firms who then packaged them together in such a fashion, it hid the risk parameters. The end result was hundreds of billions of dollars in losses across the global financial system.
 
Kushinator said:
Bankers are supposed to be the professionals, who view risk in mostly a quantitative fashion. Yet for some reason, they issued loans (not just sub prime mind you) that were almost guaranteed to default, and then sold them off to securitization firms who then packaged them together in such a fashion, it hid the risk parameters. The end result was hundreds of billions of dollars in losses across the global financial system.
Click to expand...

they had no choice thanks to CRA. Ultimately no loan is made unless the borrower signs on the dotted line.
 
Kushinator said:
So far this year, 22 banks have failed. In 2009, 144 banks failed (and the total value of deposits on their books were like 10x greater than the ones in 2013).
Click to expand...

Yeah, isn't Obama's schemes of payback, and bail out of too big to fail just grand? IIRC, his biggest donor was Goldman Sach's right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom