What Grade Would You Give Obama for First 100 Days?

[SirJosephPorter]

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 doesn’t matter much what happened under Clinton’s watch. The important thing was that there was no subprime lending under Clinton’s watch.

Subprime lending mainly started after the dot com meltdown (once dot com mania subsided, the business sector needed another Ponzi scheme). It really exploded in 2003 to 2006.

Bush and his cronies controlled all the levers of power from 2000 to 2006. If Bush was any good at all, he would have seen it coming and passed some legislation to prevent it. But as I said before, Bush was averse to any kind of regulation on businesses.

Since the meltdown occurred under Bush’s watch, he gets the blame for not preventing it (which he could easily had done, he controlled all the levers of power from 2000 to 2006).

Incidentally, Captain, you were a member of my fan club over at canada.com, I am giving you a second chance here. Let us see how good you are in not letting me get under your skin.

 

[CDNBear]

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.

Absolutely.

Being the son of a retired VP of one of Canada's largest banks. I am acutely aware of the financial institutions legal obligations.

As it stands all Canadian banks have a federally set rating and that rating is what determines its capability and capacity of lending. This lends greatly to our survival during this economic crunch and how we will fair far better then in the US.

 

[CDNBear]

It doesn’t matter much what happened under Clinton’s watch. The important thing was that there was no subprime lending under Clinton’s watch.

For the love of gawd, do you not understand the ramifications of speculation trading?

I guess not...:lol:

Subprime lending mainly started after the dot com meltdown (once dot com mania subsided, the business sector needed another Ponzi scheme). It really exploded in 2003 to 2006.

Bush and his cronies controlled all the levers of power from 2000 to 2006. If Bush was any good at all, he would have seen it coming and passed some legislation to prevent it. But as I said before, Bush was averse to any kind of regulation on businesses.

Since the meltdown occurred under Bush’s watch, he gets the blame for not preventing it (which he could easily had done, he controlled all the levers of power from 2000 to 2006).

This is a substantial contributing fact, but certainly not alone.

Incidentally, Captain, you were a member of my fan club over at canada.com, I am giving you a second chance here. Let us see how good you are in not letting me get under your skin.

You couldn't get under my skin if you were microscopic, you pompous ass, lol...what you do do is highlight your own ignorance and feelings of self importance.

You truly are a joke. Your continuous posts prove that.

 

[captain morgan]

It doesn’t matter much what happened under Clinton’s watch. The important thing was that there was no subprime lending under Clinton’s watch.

Sure it does. The seed was planted that allowed the opportunity.

Bush and his cronies controlled all the levers of power from 2000 to 2006. If Bush was any good at all, he would have seen it coming and passed some legislation to prevent it.

... You are saying that the Republicans should have reverse the democratic policies for the good of the United States?

Since the meltdown occurred under Bush’s watch, he gets the blame for not preventing it

Do the individual presidents take full responsibility for any issue that happens during their tenure?.. I sObama responsible for Bears Stern, GM, Chrysler, AIG Afghanistan and the Swine Flu?

... Me a fan of you since canada.com?.. My opinion of you hasn't changed... That said, I see that you are making many friends here. I suspect that you are running out of play-mates and need another respondent to joust with. That said, i will do so at my leisure.

 

[captain morgan]

Absolutely.


As it stands all Canadian banks have a federally set rating and that rating is what determines its capability and capacity of lending. This lends greatly to our survival during this economic crunch and how we will fair far better then in the US.

Agreed.... The only point I am making is that the changes in the banking regs unlocked the door to this. The banks opened it and ran through.

 

[CDNBear]

Agreed.... The only point I am making is that the changes in the banking regs unlocked the door to this. The banks opened it and ran through.

Sadly true.

Funny though, this isn't rocket science and it certainly isn't a state secret. The Canadian Banking system isn't even remotely in trouble. Though there are numerous defaults, the effects will not be as far reaching and severe as in the US.

Hence my position that Obama gets an F.

If he were truly in it to win it, he would have reversed Clinton's repeal, reversed the deregulation under Bush and set the financial body back on a more secure path.

He hasn't and I don't think he will. Which leaves me with the opinion, that he is like every other President, a puppet of the bodies and institutions that put him into power.

But hey, don't tell his supporters that, you'll get called a typical right wing caricature. :roll:

 

[captain morgan]

Funny how that works, eh? Don't agree with the supporting segment and your labeled a radical and foaming-at-the-mouth right winger..... Remind you a bit of Sen. McCarthy?

The comment about fixing the problem is astute. Regardless who was/is in power, to me it defies logic that the fed body doesn't guarantee all of the mortgages and use the existing banking system to administer. Instead, a whack of cash is being diffused through the system in hopes that it gets to the bottom rungs.

I'm sure that my analysis is too over-simplified, but the logic employed to 'fix' this mess appears like they're trying to kill a fly with a hammer.

 

[CDNBear]

Funny how that works, eh? Don't agree with the supporting segment and your labeled a radical and foaming-at-the-mouth right winger..... Remind you a bit of Sen. McCarthy?

If I were a lesser man I would send you the bill for a new keyboard, lol. You made me spit coffee with that McCarthy bit. Seeing as sjp has labeled an excellent writer a McCarthy wannbe and refuses to read his works. But since you mentioned it, you make a valid point.

The comment about fixing the problem is astute. Regardless who was/is in power, to me it defies logic that the fed body doesn't guarantee all of the mortgages and use the existing banking system to administer. Instead, a whack of cash is being diffused through the system in hopes that it gets to the bottom rungs.

That wad of cash was to bolster Obama's pet projects, his social agenda and his financial supporters. Nothing more, nothing less. If it actually fixes the economy, is of little consequence, and more of a unthought of bonus, then an actual forethought.

I'm sure that my analysis is too over-simplified, but the logic employed to 'fix' this mess appears like they're trying to kill a fly with a hammer.

Over simplified? I think not. Sometimes the best or most correct course of action is the most simplest and seemingly unrealist thing to do.

But unfortunately, in this case, it would require biting that hand that feeds. That is just unheard of in American politic. The last one to do that was JFK, look how that turned out, lol.;-)

 

[L Gilbert]

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 part you are right. It's just coincidence then, that when oil company profit sags a little there's a "shortage". And if it was all due to speculation, why would the companies not blame speculation instead of claiming "shortage". Oil companies create "shortages".
You think oil companies just put out a constant supply of fuels and other products? lmao Sorry, but they adjust the levels of supply as they see fit.

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.

I guess you didn't get the context within which that I used the term "irrelevant". Not my problem. coldstream had already pointed out that there had been higher and lower spikes before and we made it through those. So why would you think that the degree of spike would be different now in terms of relevance? What was relevant was the timing, IMO. Tourism was extremely slow last summer and prices of things took a pretty big leap because of the spike. Prices of stuff always do go up after fuel goes up.

 

[CDNBear]

In part you are right. It's just coincidence then, that when oil company profit sags a little there's a "shortage". And if it was all due to speculation, why would the companies not blame speculation instead of claiming "shortage". Oil companies create "shortages".
You think oil companies just put out a constant supply of fuels and other products? lmao Sorry, but they adjust the levels of supply as they see fit.

This is absolute fact, though I attribute it to OPEC. When oil prices slump, they restrict barrels and cause the price to raise.

I guess you didn't get the context within which that I used the term "irrelevant". Not my problem. coldstream had already pointed out that there had been higher and lower spikes before and we made it through those. So why would you think that the degree of spike would be different now in terms of relevance? What was relevant was the timing, IMO. Tourism was extremely slow last summer and prices of things took a pretty big leap because of the spike. Prices of stuff always do go up after fuel goes up.

This is true too, as transport relies on fuel to move things around, it's only fair that costs will be past along.

 

[YukonJack]

captain morgan said, rebutting the very fallible and rebuttable (?):

"... Me a fan of you since canada.com?.. My opinion of you hasn't changed... That said, I see that you are making many friends here. I suspect that you are running out of play-mates and need another respondent to joust with. That said, i will do so at my leisure."

captain morgan, take the time and read through the trhread "Ezra Levant Makes Sense" and you will see all the friends SirJosephPorter gathered.

In his deluded world, everyone who is not in complete agreement with him is his poodle.

I would say that everyone who does not agree with him owns him. Not as a poodle, but as a bitch.

And of course, let us not forget, that everyone who disagrees with him is a gutter mouth.

 

[Cannuck]

I give him a C. Nothing earth shattering done on the positive or negative side. I suppose, considering he is a product of Illinois, not doing something negative is a positive in and of itself so, I'll upgrade that to a C+.

 

[captain morgan]

In part you are right. It's just coincidence then, that when oil company profit sags a little there's a "shortage". And if it was all due to speculation, why would the companies not blame speculation instead of claiming "shortage". Oil companies create "shortages".
You think oil companies just put out a constant supply of fuels and other products? lmao Sorry, but they adjust the levels of supply as they see fit.

The oil companies extract and make available the crude. The refineries transform the crude into the various usable forms. There is a well documented claim that there is not enough refining capacity in N.America that can satisfy the demand... The 'coincidence' you refer too is in fact a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is greater consumption of gasoline during the summer months. If the basic refining capacity is already low, the increased demand via consumers is what creates the shortage.

Really man, think about it. Does it really make sense that the oil companies (whose profits are sagging) will respond by cutting production and further reduce their revenues? The price increases are offset by the lower # of bbls produced. The oil company makes less profit in the end after you factor-in the operational costs to make these mythical alterations (ie flipping a switch). Hell, the 'conspiracy' to cut global production (I noticed you left out that part) is not teneble.

I guess you didn't get the context within which that I used the term "irrelevant". Not my problem. coldstream had already pointed out that there had been higher and lower spikes before and we made it through those. So why would you think that the degree of spike would be different now in terms of relevance? What was relevant was the timing, IMO. Tourism was extremely slow last summer and prices of things took a pretty big leap because of the spike. Prices of stuff always do go up after fuel goes up.

For the 'timing' issue, please see above. However, to further strengthen my argument, when wuold be the 'good' time wherein there is no conjecture re: price fixing and global conspiracies? Winter, when it's cold? Summer during tourist season? Fall when all the school busses need gas? Suffice to say, there is no potential reason outside of industry fraud/collusion that will accomodate higher prices, right?

In terms of the relevance of the higher/lower spikes. I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[captain morgan]

This is absolute fact, though I attribute it to OPEC. When oil prices slump, they restrict barrels and cause the price to raise.

CDNBear,

The difference is that OPEC announces their intentions well in advance. I believe that they do it in order to realize an immediate impact on the markets and benefit accordingly.

 

[CDNBear]

CDNBear,

The difference is that OPEC announces their intentions well in advance. I believe that they do it in order to realize an immediate impact on the markets and benefit accordingly.

But it's that impact that is of the up most importance and has the most profound and negative affect.

 

[captain morgan]

fair enough. My point was/is that regardless of the motivations (ie resource companies), the practice of OPEC has been quite clear and they do not employ any kind of window dressing to achieve their ends... They are greedy and make no secret of it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You are saying that the Republicans should have reverse the democratic policies for the good of the United States?

Captain, I am saying that if Bush thought that subpime was a serious problem he would have done something about it. The fact that he did nothing tells me that he was an incompetent ignoramus, who had no idea what was going on. As to what he should have done, we could argue about that. But the fact is, he did nothing. He gets lion’s share of the blame for the subprime fiasco.

And evidently American people agreed. It is only the most partisan, most right wing, Republican base which still idolizes Bush, thinks he was the greatest president ever, thinks that he is absolutely blameless in the subprime fiasco (and evidently some think the same way here).

Do the individual presidents take full responsibility for any issue that happens during their tenure?

No they don’t. In fact, I understand Bush had a sign on his desk, ‘The buck stops anywhere but here’. But people at large give the president the full responsibility of what happens under his watch.

Thus you may not think that Clinton was responsible for economic prosperity (no doubt you attribute the economic prosperity under Clinton to Reagan and Bush), but people did. You may not think that Bush had any responsibility in the subprime mess, I assume you blame Clinton, Carter and Obama for the subprime mess (or do you go as far back as Johnson and Roosevelt?), but people think that Bush and the Republicans are responsible for the subprime fiasco.

That said, I see that you are making many friends here. I suspect that you are running out of play-mates and need another respondent to joust with. That said, I will do so at my leisure.

Hey, I do all right, I have never lacked people to debate. But I thought I would give you another chance, give you the privilege of debating me. But if you are not interested, say so, and you can join my fan club.

 

[CDNBear]

fair enough. My point was/is that regardless of the motivations (ie resource companies), the practice of OPEC has been quite clear and they do not employ any kind of window dressing to achieve their ends... They are greedy and make no secret of it.

That is so true.

You are saying that the Republicans should have reverse the democratic policies for the good of the United States?

Captain, I am saying that if Bush thought that subpime was a serious problem he would have done something about it. The fact that he did nothing tells me that he was an incompetent ignoramus, who had no idea what was going on. As to what he should have done, we could argue about that. But the fact is, he did nothing. He gets lion’s share of the blame for the subprime fiasco.

Then what is Obama's excuse?

And evidently American people agreed. It is only the most partisan, most right wing, Republican base which still idolizes Bush, thinks he was the greatest president ever, thinks that he is absolutely blameless in the subprime fiasco (and evidently some think the same way here).

I'll have to agree.

Do the individual presidents take full responsibility for any issue that happens during their tenure?

No they don’t. In fact, I understand Bush had a sign on his desk, ‘The buck stops anywhere but here’. But people at large give the president the full responsibility of what happens under his watch.

Thus you may not think that Clinton was responsible for economic prosperity (no doubt you attribute the economic prosperity under Clinton to Reagan and Bush), but people did. You may not think that Bush had any responsibility in the subprime mess, I assume you blame Clinton, Carter and Obama for the subprime mess (or do you go as far back as Johnson and Roosevelt?), but people think that Bush and the Republicans are responsible for the subprime fiasco.

All Presidencies as far back as Reagan share the blame. Anyone that absolves any one of them, is a fool.

That said, I see that you are making many friends here. I suspect that you are running out of play-mates and need another respondent to joust with. That said, I will do so at my leisure.

Hey, I do all right, I have never lacked people to debate. But I thought I would give you another chance, give you the privilege of debating me. But if you are not interested, say so, and you can join my fan club.

:roll:

 

[Dixie Cup]

just a C so far maybe even a C-

 

[Dixie Cup]

Some of the Blame was on Clintons shoulders with deregulation of the banks. Ok that maybe but it was never corrected.
You can blame the previous administration for their faults but if the current one does nothing to change it then it is also their responsability and blame

Exactly!! The "de-regulation" go back as far as 1998 when the Democrats were lobbied by the ACLU and others to allow "more" people (i.e. lower income) to own their own homes. The Dem's caved and now this is the result. The Rep. should have reversed the policy but did nothing!!