What Grade Would You Give Obama for First 100 Days?

[captain morgan]

Sorry, I don't think you have much understanding, but, at least I won't resort to juvenile insults. Fantasy Island? Grow up.

Reliance upon conspiracy theories to pursue your point (what ever that was) and the attitude of superiority opened the door to the commentary. Here's a tip for you... If you're going to adopt a position that presumes knowledge, you might want to have just a little.

Conspiracy theory indeed.. And you tell others to grow up, do you?

 

[lone wolf]

I think that we can chalk this new attitude up to the notion that he/she is a small fish in a much bigger pond relative to liberal glee club that is/was canada.com forums.

Captain, canada.com forum was a liberal forum? Surely you jest. It was a conservative dominated forum, much as this one is. I have put some of the extreme conservatives on the ignore list so I don’t even have to see their posts. However, whatever that is left is still majority conservative.

But that is the kind of environment I find challenging, where I am fighting a bunch of conservatives.

Extreme conservatives my arse.... What a narcissistic twit! You chose to block out voices who aren't likely to be the adoring ones your kind feeds on to stoke an inflated ego

 

[L Gilbert]

Reliance upon conspiracy theories to pursue your point (what ever that was) and the attitude of superiority opened the door to the commentary. Here's a tip for you... If you're going to adopt a position that presumes knowledge, you might want to have just a little.

Conspiracy theory indeed.. And you tell others to grow up, do you?

Look, my point was that oil companies price fix and that I think it was one of the triggers that started this economic mess. If you don't think oil companies price fix, that's up to you. But you seem to have agreed with CdnBear that OPEC price fixes, so I can't see why you balk at my mentioning any by other outfits.

http://www.google.com/search?q=oil+companies+price+fix&btnG.x=28&btnG.y=10

BTW, nowhere did I say there was a conspiracy. That was YOUR word. Learn to read and COMPREHEND. I don't think they have to collude. One starts it and the rest simply follow. Yes, grow up.
Also, BTW, you are off my Christmas card list and in my ignore list.

 

[captain morgan]

How does this ignore list work? I think this may a useful tool for both myself and LG

 

[Extrafire]

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?

Hmm....trigger, cause. OK I'll concede there is a distinction. You're suggesting that these are akin to the straw that broke the camels back. But even so, my comments apply.

As for the price spike in oil, it didn't have much to do with refinery cutbacks in the US. While that would have an effect on domestic prices at the pump, it is a relatively small effect compared to the cost of a barrel of oil, which was the world price of oil responding to international demand, primarily from the red hot economies of China and India. Commodity speculators, seeing this demand, invested accordingly and the price responded by rising farther than the demand required. Such a rise, fueled by speculation is always of short duration as the law of supply and demand corrects the price and speculators lose money.

That's the primary and major cause of the rise of prices at the pumps. Incidentally, the US does not have enough refining capacity to meet its domestic needs. This is due to environmental regulations and opposition by environmental organizations to any new refinery. With the governments and courts giving these groups so much credibility, no company is willing to risk the billions it takes to get a new refinery up and running. So the US exports oil to foreign refineries and imports the products (gas).

While the price spike hurt the economy in some ways, it wasn't enough to have any serious detrimental effect. I can't agree that it was a trigger.

 

[L Gilbert]

And the excuse about "shortages" is just a pile of bilge.
Anyway, deregulation is what I understood to be the biggest cause of the slide and that it was the Bush admin who did a lot of that.

 

[JLM]

No doubt, canada.com was a liberal forum.

That is your opinion, Yukon. I think it was a distinctly conservative forum.

My posts there were no different from my posts here.

Now here you are right, the moderators over there were a lot stricter than here, you could get banned for rude, abusive language (that is why you were banned several times). You may have noticed, as a result there was very little obscenity in that forum. They kept the more unruly element out.

Yep, they even banned a nice guy like myself because I made the mistake of not taking crap from sweet little Harley.

 

[Extrafire]

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.

I told you once before that if you're going to make up a position and attribute it to me, at least make it plausible. You reprint my comment, then change it and argue against the changed form, basically ignoring what I said. So, OK, once again, let me correct you.

Me:

The meltdown was primarily the result of regulatory interference with the mortgage industry

which you interpreted as:

The economic meltdown is entirely the fault of the Democrats.

Are you aware of the difference between the meaning of "primarily" and "entirely"?

And you attributed this to me:

What is more, Democrats were crafty enough to engineer the meltdown

which is nothing at all like I said. The Democrats most certainly did not engineer the meltdown. That would imply they had intent to cause great harm to the economy. Nowhere did I ascribe any such intent to anyone of any party.

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.

And I would agree with you, IF that were the case. But that is such a rediculous supposition that no-one in their right mind would entertain it for an instant. It's easy to postulate rediculous scenarios and argue against them, but I wonder if you'll ever try actually answering my real comments.

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.

Perhaps you should do a bit of research on the American political system. It isn't like ours. In Canada the party leader essentially controls the votes of his/her caucus. In the US congressional reps and senators vote much more independantly, responding to concerns of their constituents. Republicans, mindful of the influence of groups such as ACORN have no hesitation voting against their party if they want to be re-elected. Currently the Obama administration is working to bring in carbon tax and cap-and-trade legislation and is being opposed by Democrats from coal producing or using states. Bush et al simply didn't have enought votes to succeed.

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.

I will make no such prediction. The incumbent is re-elected about 85% of the time in US presidential elections, so at this early date that's where I would put my money. If he should lose, he would have to be an incredibly bad president, like Carter. I do believe he has the makings of another Carter, but that remains to be seen.

 

[Extrafire]

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.

Once again you attribute things to me that I did not say. I do not admire much in Bush. I think he was an incompetant president. And yes, he was wrong to push through that pannicky rescue/bailout (not stimulus) package at the end of his tenure.

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.

Now that's a thoughtful and reasoned statement. Thank you for an honest and thought out view. Please try to do more to those.

I think people (especially politicians) seeing just how much ca-ca was hitting the fan were very frightened about what was coming at the economy and reacted against their better judgement, hoping against hope that it would work. So far all it's done is delay the inevitable. What happens when the government can no longer throw bail-out and "stimulus" money at the problem? That time will soon be upon us. Then the corporations and banks that were failing will resume failing, and millions more will be unemployed. The government, which relies on the economy for its funds, will be unable to borrow or service its massive debt and will face currency collapse, a worse situation than if they'd done nothing.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

How does this ignore list work? I think this may a useful tool for both myself and LG

Captain, find a post by that person, left click on the name of the poster above the avatar. You will get four menu items; one of them is ‘ignore Captain Morgan’ (or whoever). Click on that and you are in business.

I have put ignore on several of my poodles and I don’t see their posts any more, only their names. I am not sure if they see my posts (I assume they do).

But if you are going to ignore somebody, I think it is only fair that you inform them. That is what I did; I posted the names in a post in one of the threads. And believe me, the screen looks a lot less cluttered after that. I don’t have to wade through a lot of deadwood before I find the post I am interested in.

 

[JLM]

Hey, isn't it high time to back away from assigning "fault" for the meltdown (I'm sure there's a hundred factors that contributed to it) and spend our time and energy more wisely in figuring ways to fix it. Anyone who is really that concerned about could stick a dollar in an envelope and mail it to Washington c/o 1700 Pennsylvania Ave.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Hey, isn't it high time to back away from assigning "fault" for the meltdown (I'm sure there's a hundred factors that contributed to it) and spend our time and energy more wisely in figuring ways to fix it. Anyone who is really that concerned about could stick a dollar in an envelope and mail it to Washington c/o 1700 Pennsylvania Ave.

That is what the governments all over the world are trying to do, JLM. But on this forum we can discuss anything we want, so why not who is to blame? After all there is nothing we can do to ease the situation in these forums, is there?

 

[Extrafire]

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.

Didn't they lose the House in the last midterms? They controled the supreme court? How, just by winning the election all the Clinton appointees were automatically off the bench? No they have to wait for the justices to retire and then appoint new ones. I may be wrong, but last I heard they still didn't control it.

I already explained the workings of the American political system to you. See above.

As for the cause of the meltdown, here's a quote from Thomas Sowell. Go to the link for the complete article.

"Lending money to American homebuyers had been one of the least risky and most profitable businesses a bank could engage in for nearly a century."

That was what the market was like before the government intervened. Like many government interventions, it began small and later grew.
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 directed federal regulatory agencies to "encourage" banks and other lending institutions "to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions."

That sounds pretty innocent and, in fact, it had little effect for more than a decade. However, its premise was that bureaucrats and politicians know where loans should go, better than people who are in the business of making loans.

The real potential of that premise became apparent in the 1990s, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) imposed a requirement that mortgage lenders demonstrate with hard data that they were meeting their responsibilities under the Community Reinvestment Act.
What HUD wanted were numbers showing that mortgage loans were being made to low-income and moderate-income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if this required "innovative or flexible" mortgage eligibility standards.

In other words, quotas were imposed-- and if some people didn't meet the standards, then the standards need to be changed.
Both HUD and the Department of Justice began bringing lawsuits against mortgage bakers when a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants were turned down for mortgage loans.

[...]

Banks and other lenders are overseen by regulatory agencies and must go to those agencies for approval of many business decisions that other businesses make without needing anyone else's approval.

Government regulators refused to approve such decisions when a lender was under investigation for not producing satisfactory statistics on loans to low-income people or minorities.
Under growing pressures from both the Clinton administration and later the George W. Bush administration, banks began to lower their lending standards.

Mortgage loans with no down payment, no income verification and other "creative" financial arrangements abounded. Although this was done under pressures begun in the name of the poor and minorities, people who were neither could also get these mortgage loans.
With mortgage loans widely available to people with questionable prospects of being able to keep up the payments, it was an open invitation to financial disaster.
Those who warned of the dangers had their warnings dismissed. Now, apparently, we need more politicians intervening in more industries, if you believe the politicians and the media.

Thomas Sowell : Upside Down Economics - Townhall.com

 

[JLM]

That is what the governments all over the world are trying to do, JLM. But on this forum we can discuss anything we want, so why not who is to blame? After all there is nothing we can do to ease the situation in these forums, is there?

EXCEPT for one thing- there is NOT one poster on here who knows ALL the facts, just the "facts" we see on the news and we're not 100% sure if they are facts. Before you can rightfully assign the full and correct blame you need the WHOLE story. Sure I think Bush had a bit to do with it and subprime had a bit more to do with it and Freddie and Fanny and few hundred C.E.O.s but what's the use? Who knows, maybe even pirates in Somalia contributed a bit. It's ALL speculation.

 

[Extrafire]

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.

Yeah, much spending on the usual idealogical friends. Also the bank bailout is a scheme to essentially nationalize the banking system, another lefty cause. Lots of banks don't need bailouts but got them anyway. Some of them have returned the money, but a larger bank that wanted to return the money was not allowed to. It doesn't matter if the little banks aren't under his control, but a big one? Can't be allowed to be independant of government dictate. Imagine how well that's going to work when lending decisions are made on the basis of political considerations rather than the criteria of ability to repay.

The extent of that spending is mind boggling.

 

[YukonJack]

Re #93.

Extrafire, all reasonable and reasonably informed people know that Dr. Thomas Sowell is one of the most highly respected experts of economics.

However, according to SirJosephPorter, he is unreliable, because he happens to be conservative and, sin of all sins, he is a contributor to Townhall.

So, while I admire your effort to attempt to knock some sense into SirJosephPorter's head by giving him a lesson using Dr. Sowell's article, I am afraid, it is in vain.

Any minute now, his post will appear here arguing that - well maybe not in those words - Dr. Thomas Sowell is a bum, because he is conservative and nothing that appears in Townhall deserves any credence.

Or, even more likely, he will give up and ignore your reference to Dr. Sowell, because he knows fully well that he has no ammunition to put up any logical argument, and simply fade in the sunset.

Nice try, though!

 

[Extrafire]

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).

Oh knock it off!

I realize you can't make a rational argument to support your view, but making up this rediculous BS is pathetic.

 

[JLM]

Oh knock it off!

I realize you can't make a rational argument to support your view, but making up this rediculous BS is pathetic.

There should be a law banning this leftwing/rightwing nonsense. The "left wingers" who voted in Obama this time were the exact same "right wingers" who voted in Bush last time. People vote for who they think are going to do the best job. Sure there is the incorrigible 10% like S.J. who stick to their wings come hell or highwater.

 

[Extrafire]

Hey, isn't it high time to back away from assigning "fault" for the meltdown

Tell that to the Obama adminstration. They're the ones doing the blaming. Can't blame themselves, after all.

 

[Extrafire]

There should be a law banning this leftwing/rightwing nonsense. The "left wingers" who voted in Obama this time were the exact same "right wingers" who voted in Bush last time. People vote for who they think are going to do the best job. Sure there is the incorrigible 10% like S.J. who stick to their wings come hell or highwater.

I have no objection to right/left wing arguments or positions. I know many people on both sides whose opinions I respect. But the reason I respect them is because they support their positions with rational, logical arguments. That's all I want from SJP.