What Grade Would You Give Obama for First 100 Days?

[Extrafire]

Gotta be an F.

He's totally unqualified for the job and he's acting like a naive fool.

The meltdown was primarily the result of regulatory interference with the mortgage industry by Carter and later Clinton. It was exacerbated by activist groups like ACORN (and that includes Obama who was an ACORN lawyer involved in that activity). When Republicans (including Bush) tried repeatedly to rein in the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they were thwarted by Democrats who are now in positions of influence in the Obama administration. He has now repeated all of the mistakes of Rooseveldt in his handling of the meltdown, with the result that it will be deeper and longer than it should have been.

With regards to foreign policy, he's been insulting Americas allies and kissing up to her enemies, who recognize him as an amateur and a fool. Americas power and influence is nosediving and her enemies are rising. It's going to be a scary time, thanks to Obama.

In spite of all the media adulation, in spite of the rock star hype, at the end of his first 50 days in power Obamas approval rating was less than Bush's. It would seem there are quite a few people who can see what's really happening.

 

[JLM]

Gotta be an F.

He's totally unqualified for the job and he's acting like a naive fool.

The meltdown was primarily the result of regulatory interference with the mortgage industry by Carter and later Clinton. It was exacerbated by activist groups like ACORN (and that includes Obama who was an ACORN lawyer involved in that activity). When Republicans (including Bush) tried repeatedly to rein in the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they were thwarted by Democrats who are now in positions of influence in the Obama administration. He has now repeated all of the mistakes of Rooseveldt in his handling of the meltdown, with the result that it will be deeper and longer than it should have been.

With regards to foreign policy, he's been insulting Americas allies and kissing up to her enemies, who recognize him as an amateur and a fool. Americas power and influence is nosediving and her enemies are rising. It's going to be a scary time, thanks to Obama.

In spite of all the media adulation, in spite of the rock star hype, at the end of his first 50 days in power Obamas approval rating was less than Bush's. It would seem there are quite a few people who can see what's really happening.

Obviously since you've assigned him so low a grade, you would have put a far different plan in place to combat the meltdown. Could you please itemize exactly what you would have done differently?

 

[gopher]

Extrefire's rants sounds like a ''fact' sheet from the Drudge Report.

Not one of truth in it and all of its points have been thoroughly refuted.

 

[JLM]

So far, he tripled the Bush deficit.

So far, he kissed more royal hands than any of his predecessors.

So far, he denigrated his country while abroad more than the champion of home-bashing, the peanut-brain Jimmy Carter.

So far, he apologized more often and to more despots for the perceived ills of his country, than the hitherto apologist-in-chief, hillbilly Bill Clinton.

GOTTO GO!

More to come!

There's no doubt about it, George did a lot of things right, but he did a lot of things wrong too, including showing a confrontational manner at times. Another famous Republican once said you can attract a whole lot more bees with honey than with vinegar. Anyway arguing Obama vs. Bush is pointless, neither side can ever prove it, but what's more important the people spoke in favour of the Democrats, so they are a fact of life for at least four more years. We have to live in the present not the past and I sincerely hope that Obama can be more successful than George Bush & if he can't Bush will get his due in due course, but this isn't the time for it.

 

[L Gilbert]

"He has made a start towards fixing the economic meltdown caused by Bush and the Republicans"- That's B.S. The meltdown was caused by many things, two of the most important being sub prime mortgages and C.E.O.s (who got obscene performance bonuses for non performance)

Not to mention the Bush admin's push for deregulation.

Huge Bush Deregulation Push Before Jan. 20 - Politics news | Newser

That was one of the biggest reasons for it, if not the biggest. Oil company price fixing before summer last year was one of the triggers. The real estate balloon was another.

The Big O gets a B-

 

[Extrafire]

Obviously since you've assigned him so low a grade, you would have put a far different plan in place to combat the meltdown. Could you please itemize exactly what you would have done differently?

The first thing to recognize is there's little if anything that can be done to combat it. There's a lot of accumulated poison in the US economy and it has to work its way out and nothing you can do will avoid the unpleasantness. For example, banks and other financial institutions are going to fail. Giving them taxpayer money will only prolong the process, delay the inevitable while saddling the taxpayer for decades to come. Same goes for the automakers. They're going to go down, one way or another. A new auto industry will emerge from the remnants of the old. If left on their own it would be a much different (more viable) industry than the government controled version that we're likely to see from the Obama administration.

We have to go through it. It won't be pleasant. But sometimes (and this is real hard for governments to swallow) the best thing to do is nothing.

 

[Extrafire]

Extrefire's rants sounds like a ''fact' sheet from the Drudge Report.

Not one of truth in it and all of its points have been thoroughly refuted.

You mean those court records with Obama as an ACORN lawyer are fakes? Those videos of Democrats defending Fannie and Freddie are staged? Carters bill and Clintons amendment aren't really in the government records?

Maybe I should post some of them here and you could point out where they've been faked.

 

[Extrafire]

Not to mention the Bush admin's push for deregulation.

Huge Bush Deregulation Push Before Jan. 20 - Politics news | Newser

That was one of the biggest reasons for it, if not the biggest. Oil company price fixing before summer last year was one of the triggers. The real estate balloon was another.

The Big O gets a B-

The big spike in oil prices was a matter of supply and demand, coupled with some speculative futures investing. The economy handled it fairly well. In constant dollars it wasn't higher than previous peaks. And every time all the experts agree on a prediction, the opposite happens. They were agreed that we were going to reach $200 per barrel oil, and right after that it started to go down. Happens all the time in the markets. No the oil spike was too short a duration. For it to cause the meltdown prices would still have to be high.

The real estate balloon was a symptom, not a cause. The Carter/Clinton interference in the real estate lending industry had a lot of unqualified people getting mortgages, creating an artificial demand for housing that resulted in the balloon.

 

[L Gilbert]

The big spike in oil prices was a matter of supply and demand, coupled with some speculative futures investing. The economy handled it fairly well. In constant dollars it wasn't higher than previous peaks. And every time all the experts agree on a prediction, the opposite happens. They were agreed that we were going to reach $200 per barrel oil, and right after that it started to go down. Happens all the time in the markets. No the oil spike was too short a duration. For it to cause the meltdown prices would still have to be high.

um, duh Of course it was a result of supply and demand. The large oil companies created a "shortage" by cutting back on refining right at the beginning of tourist season last year. They laid off refinery workers, geared down, etc. Whether the spikes were no higher or lower than previous ones is irrelevant as is how we faired through it. Where did I say that this was a cause of this economic mess?

The real estate balloon was a symptom, not a cause. The Carter/Clinton interference in the real estate lending industry had a lot of unqualified people getting mortgages, creating an artificial demand for housing that resulted in the balloon.

And where did I say anything about this being a cause either?

 

[JLM]

Not to mention the Bush admin's push for deregulation.

Huge Bush Deregulation Push Before Jan. 20 - Politics news | Newser

That was one of the biggest reasons for it, if not the biggest. Oil company price fixing before summer last year was one of the triggers. The real estate balloon was another.

The Big O gets a B-

That's about where I had him pegged- I think he's doing well, considering relatively little experience in politics. He's a man with common sense which in my mind will trump political experience every time. Actually the more political experience the worse you get not better.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I beg to differ. How many unproductive C.E.O.s are there across the U.S. a thousand, five thousand? Multiply whatever number you pick by a million and you wind up with serious money that is gone from the system. And you are trying to tell me that that doesn't contribute to meltdown? Of course it does.

Five thousand unproductive CEOs, really? Do you have any evidence, any statistics for that, or is that a number you just made up?

As in every profession, no doubt there are a few bad apples among the CEOs. But I assume most of them are honest, hardworking people, who are trying to do their best in hard economic times. I would be the last person to paint a whole profession with a broad brush because of a few highly visible bad apples.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Gotta be an F.

Extrafire, about what I would have expected of you (I assume the other ‘F’ belongs to Yukon Jack).

The meltdown was primarily the result of regulatory interference with the mortgage industry by Carter and later Clinton. It was exacerbated by activist groups like ACORN (and that includes Obama who was an ACORN lawyer involved in that activity). When Republicans (including Bush) tried repeatedly to rein in the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they were thwarted by Democrats who are now in positions of influence in the Obama administration. He has now repeated all of the mistakes of Rooseveldt in his handling of the meltdown, with the result that it will be deeper and longer than it should have been.

So let me get this straight. The economic meltdown is entirely the fault of the Democrats. What is more, Democrats were crafty enough to engineer the meltdown when Republicans held all the power, so that Republicans will be blamed for it.

If Democrats are that clever, that brilliant, that Machiavellian, they then fully deserved their election victories in 2006 and 2008. If Republicans are that dumb, that Democrats can engineer the worst economic meltdown in history (and what is more, when they can do that when Republicans held all the power) and successfully blame it on Republicans, then they fully deserved the thrashing they got.

When Republicans (including Bush) tried repeatedly to rein in the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they were thwarted by Democrats

I see. When Republicans were in control of the Presidency, when they had a majority in the Senate and in the House, when Republicans controlled the Supreme Court 5 to 4 (they still do), the evil Democrats, with no power, no influence over any branch of government, still managed to defeat the Republican attempts to regulate the industry. How clever of Democrats, how dumb of Republicans.

In spite of all the media adulation, in spite of the rock star hype, at the end of his first 50 days in power Obama’s approval rating was less than Bush's.

When Bush left office, his approval rating was in low 30s (comparable to Carter’s). When Clinton left office his approval ratings was in high 60s. It remains to be seen what kind of approval rating Obama has when he leaves office, in four or in eight years’ time.

Incidentally, obviously you don’t’ think much of Obama. Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is, and predict now that Obama will be defeated in 2012? I will hold you to it.

 

[JLM]

Five thousand unproductive CEOs, really? Do you have any evidence, any statistics for that, or is that a number you just made up?

As in every profession, no doubt there are a few bad apples among the CEOs. But I assume most of them are honest, hardworking people, who are trying to do their best in hard economic times. I would be the last person to paint a whole profession with a broad brush because of a few highly visible bad apples.

You're putting words in my mouth again- the five thousand was PART of a question not a statement. No I don't really have any idea how many unproductive C.E.O.s there are. How many C.E.O.s are there in the U.S.? Out of a population approaching four hundred million I would expect there may be several hundred thousand, so I don't think my estimate of ONE-FIVE THOUSAND is outside the realm. But anyway you are changing the subject.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Obviously since you've assigned him so low a grade, you would have put a far different plan in place to combat the meltdown. Could you please itemize exactly what you would have done differently?

Sure he (Extrafire) did, JLM. Didn’t you read his post? Bush was doing everything right, so I assume his recipe for economic recovery was to continue Bush’s policies (which Joan of Arc would have done very effectively if McCain had been elected).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

We have to go through it. It won't be pleasant. But sometimes (and this is real hard for governments to swallow) the best thing to do is nothing.

Extrafire, in the beginning of the crises I used to think that way. Anyway, Bush, whom evidently you admire so much, was not doing nothing, he did push through the stimulus package worth several hundred billion dollars.

As crises deepened and more and more economists started saying that government must spend money to get out of the crises, I began to have second thoughts about it. Now I am ambivalent regarding what Bush did and what Obama is doing to get the world out of the crises.

Many economists, who would never have supported deficit spending before this, are now in favour of governments running deficits to get out of the economic crises. Since people elected Obama, I am all for letting his try him solution. Also, it isn’t only him, governments of all stripes all over the world (including China) are spending money to stimulate the economy

So I have had a change of heart on the issue.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You mean those court records with Obama as an ACORN lawyer are fakes? Those videos of Democrats defending Fannie and Freddie are staged? Carters bill and Clintons amendment aren't really in the government records?

Maybe I should post some of them here and you could point out where they've been faked.

Bush and the Republicans controlled White House, Senate, House and the Supreme Court for six years. They could have passed any law they wanted, they could have repealed the law of gravity.

They did nothing to regulate the financial industry. On the other hand, they deregulated on a massive scale. The attempt to blame Democrats when Republicans held al the strings of power is lame at best and American people saw through it.

 

[captain morgan]

Some of the Blame was on Clintons shoulders with deregulation of the banks.

El Barto, I don’t think there was a whole lot of deregulation under Clinton’s watch. Also, there was no subprime lending under Clinton, the whole mess started after 2000, when Bush came to power.

The economic prosperity under Clinton was real prosperity, with healthy budget surpluses. What happened under Bush was illusory, smoke and mirrors prosperity. First it was built on the dot com bubble. When that bubble burst, the prosperity was built upon borrowed money (Bush racked up huge deficits) and upon the sub prime swindle.

The banking deregulation began under Carter, Clinton carried the torch and further changed the banking rules to help get more people into their own homes.

Subprime meltdown was the direct effect of bankers, but there is no way they could have played their games if the democrats hadn't given them the tools to do so.

Time to remove your partisan glasses and see reality.

 

[CDNBear]

The banking deregulation began under Carter, Clinton carried the torch and further changed the banking rules to help get more people into their own homes.

Subprime meltdown was the direct effect of bankers, but there is no way they could have played their games if the democrats hadn't given them the tools to do so.

Time to remove your partisan glasses and see reality.

It's easy for those that want their hero's to be hero's, to ignore Clinton's repeal of the Glass Seagal act. Which restricted speculation.

I mean come on, it was passed as a stop gap to prevent the crash seen in 29, from happening again.

But hey, that won't stop the likes of the pompous self righteous from trying to pin the meltdown of their enemies, lol.

 

[captain morgan]

um, duh Of course it was a result of supply and demand. The large oil companies created a "shortage" by cutting back on refining right at the beginning of tourist season last year. They laid off refinery workers, geared down, etc. Whether the spikes were no higher or lower than previous ones is irrelevant as is how we faired through it. Where did I say that this was a cause of this economic mess?

And where did I say anything about this being a cause either?

Extrafire is right. The spike was caused by speculation in the futures market by a number of big financial players. This has nothing to do with some global collusion of oil producers. Take my word for it, altering the refining output at a facility isn't as easy as flipping a switch...

In terms of the degree of the spike not having relevance. What then is the motivation to create this critical shortage?.. Really, these conspiracy theories reade like a Bond script over world domination.

 

[captain morgan]

It's easy for those that want their hero's to be hero's, to ignore Clinton's repeal of the Glass Seagal act. Which restricted speculation.

I mean come on, it was passed as a stop gap to prevent the crash seen in 29, from happening again.

But hey, that won't stop the likes of the pompous self righteous from trying to pin the meltdown of their enemies, lol.

Regardless of Clinton's legislation you mentioned, the banking restrictions relative to lending for homes was altered to the point that it allowed the banks more exposure/risk for real estate lending...

There is a regulatory reason that this happened in the USA and not Canada and it has everything to do with the lending rules set by the feds.