What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?

[SirJosephPorter]

Quoting Extrafire
Evidently you're to blind to see the many links that were posted which proved that Clinton was mostly responsible for the mortgage meltdown that resulted in the current mess.


I thought it was all started by Carter as an affirmative action thing?

Trex

Not quite, Trex. It was started by FDR. FDR took the country totally down the toilet, when le left USA was little more than a third world country. Eisenhower rescued USA and brought her up to No. 1.

Along came Kennedy and Johnson. Again country sank into the toilet, unemployment 25%, inflation 20%. Along came Nixon and rescued the economy, the country once again. Then came Carter, USA became a third world country again.

Then came a period of unprecedented prosperity with Regan and Bush, 12 years of paradise in USA. Then 8 years of pure Hell under Clinton, economy nosedived, big time.

Then came the great rescuer, second Bush. A strong religious Fundamentalist with a direct hot line to God. He made USA better than ever before, when he left in 2008, USA was pure paradise, pure bliss.

Then of course, came the Devil incarnate, Lucifer himself, Obama. A Muslim terrorist, a Communist, a Nazi, an illegal alien. In two months he managed to do more damage than Bush ever set right, in eight years. Now of course, with Obama in power, it is the end of the world as we know it.

Obama was responsible for world war 2, Katrina disaster, dot com meltdown, the current meltdown and several other disasters.

That is the history according to Extrafire and the Republican far right.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Limbaugh has really gotten some of you worried, the man has you convinced that he has power in the Republican party. Rush is nothing more than another political radio jock. (actor, performer) what ever you want to call him, but a political leader, not in our lifetime. So he supports the Republican party, lots of people do (not nearly enough though) he is a moderate Republican when compared to the likes of Michael Savage. I would like to see a good Democratic DJ, but for some reason their shows never have the ratings and are dropped.

Sorry ironsides, but Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh does have plenty of power in the Republican Party. A while ago I posted a website which listed all the Republican politicians who said uncomplimentary, unflattering things about Limbaugh and immediately had to apologize to him, I think there were 7 or 8 in all.

And by ‘some of you worried’, exactly who do you mean? If I were a Republican, I would be worried indeed. Limbaugh has the approval rating around 30%, and I wouldn’t want him to be perceived as the leader of my party.

However, if I were a democrat, I would be happy indeed.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Jimmy Carter signed the Community Redevelopment Act into law, and Bill Clinton amplified that legislation that is causing much of the problems now

Captain, that is like saying that the problem that Harper is facing were caused by Trudeau.

The fact is, subprime lending soared when Bush was in power, he is mostly to blame for the fiasco. Republicans had a total lock on power for six years; they were responsible for whatever happened during their watch.

Much as your efforts to paint Mulroney as a saint and claim that his 40 billion $ deficit was caused by Trudeau sound ridiculous (and Canadians didn’t buy it, they booted Mulroney and PC party out), the same way your efforts to paint Bush as an expert, a wizard of fiscal management and blame Clinton for the current economic mess rings hollow and Americans are not buying it. Clinton left office with approval rating of 65%, your man (Bush) left with approval rating of 28%.

Your partisan attempts to blame the liberals for the huge gigantic messes created by conservatives (and Bush, Mulroney etc. did leave huge, gigantic messes for liberals to clean up) may play well to the converted, but not to somebody like me (and to people at large, they just don’t but the concept that a liberal screws up and as a result a conservative makes a huge, gigantic economic mess).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Jimmy Carter signed the Community Redevelopment Act into law, and Bill Clinton amplified that legislation that is causing much of the problems now "

And, of course, the two biggest hypocrits, Barney Frank , the Homo pimp and Chris Dodd (waitress sandwich with Ted Kennedy) applauded it.

So, now we have sub-prime lending and financial melt-down.

Blame Bush!!

Certainly blame Bush, Yukon. Americans did exactly that, and rightly so. Republicans had a total lock on power for six whole years; they controlled the Presidency, Senate and House. If they wanted to do something about the looming subprime crises they would have done it.

However, Bush and his cronies were too busy deregulating the businesses on a massive scale (for ideological reasons) to pay any attention to economy, to them ideology trumped economy. Bush didn’t come across a regulation he liked. There was almost total deregulation during Bush years; businesses could do pretty much what they wanted.

I have said all along, capitalism is a very good system, but it needs strong regulation to run effectively, to act as a counter balance against greed and other human foibles.

Bush and his cronies removed all the restrictions from Wall Street and subprime crises was one of the end products.

Basically Bush did to Republicans what Mulroney did to conservatives, he made them highly unpopular. Bush (and subprime crises caused by him and the Republicans) was responsible for the unprecedented Democratic sweeps of 2006 and 2008.

Indeed, it is unheard of for a political party to have two huge election victories in a row. Normally they have won huge victory and there is a pullback in two years’ time (e.g. as happened in 1994 and 1996, or in 1980 and 1982).

But it is the Bush and the subprime crises (caused largely by the deregulation by Republicans and Bush) which gave the Democrats unprecedented victories.

 

[ironsides]

First of all the Republicans did not create this mess, as you can see they are gone for now and the Democrats are continuing the same practices, only to benefit their ideas of how we should live. Big brother always knows best. This was and is a corporative effort. Most of us in America do not wish to live with a Social Democratic goverment like Europe or for that matter Canada. We like the ability to earn as much as we can and pay minimal taxes, we like having health care most of us can afford, no one really does without health care in the United States. All children up to the age of 18 are covered., after that it is time to go to college work and earn your keep. What health care you get after that will be up to you.



"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."
- Barack Obama

 

[JLM]

"The fact is, subprime lending soared when Bush was in power, he is mostly to blame for the fiasco."- That's BULLSH*T. Presidents don't establish money lending protocol, bankers do that. It would sure be easy just to blame Bush for everything from Hawaii to Alaska to Florida to Maine, but that is not realistic- the man has two eyes and two ears. Those subprime mortgages were granted for two reasons, quick money for developers and greed.

 

[Cannuck]

Because of your far right bias you have closed your little mind to the links which refuted all the Fox network lies which falsely ascribe the mess to Clinton.

Oh really? If you bothered to read my post you quoted you would have seen the statement, "In fact, it was Bush the first that weaken regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"

I don't blame Clinton for the current mess, I blame all the politicians who have been in a position to change things for the better and have failed to do so. This includes Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Harper, Martin, Chretien as well as politicians around the world.

As the record shows continued attacks won't work for you. If anything they work to improve the patriotic Democrat victories in the elections.

..and I would care because???

Unlike you, I'm not an party hack or ideologue. I really don't care who is in power as long as they fix the problems. Bush II didn't do it and it appears Obama isn't interested either.

 

[ironsides]

It is the Federal Reserve which by the way is independent of the Federal Goverment. The Fed is actually the ones who control the economy, not the Treasury or Fed. Goverment as some believe. Then there is the World Bank another bunch of independent bankers who loan money to 3rd world countries then robs their resources. Presidents or political parties do not control economies, they just get the primary blame. Blame the Bankers in the world for our problems first, then the governments for creating legislation that allows them to do it.


Actually it was Carter or Clinton who first weakened Freddie Mac. Bush had nothing to do with that one.

 

[captain morgan]

@SJP

You're comment exemplifies the myopia of the left SJP. Your solitary argument seeks to establish historical based solely on the 'here and now'. Perhaps at some point you will incorporate a macro-view rather than a selective history that serves only to support your immediate position.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"The fact is, subprime lending soared when Bush was in power, he is mostly to blame for the fiasco."- That's BULLSH*T. Presidents don't establish money lending protocol, bankers do that. It would sure be easy just to blame Bush for everything from Hawaii to Alaska to Florida to Maine, but that is not realistic- the man has two eyes and two ears. Those subprime mortgages were granted for two reasons, quick money for developers and greed.

Sorry JLM, but that is how it works out in politics. Bush was the President for eight years. Whatever happened during this watch, Bush gets the credit or the blame for it.

But Bush agrees with you. Harry Truman has a sign on his desk saying ‘The buck stops here’. According to Bush, the buck stops anywhere except at his desk (he reportedly had a sign on his desk saying ‘The buck stops anywhere but here’). Anything good happened (and there really was very little good that happened during Bush watch), Bush gets the credit, anything bad happens, the Democrats are to blame.

That is the Republican philosophy anyway. Unfortunately for Republicans, it does not work that way. People (rightly) tend to blame the Republicans for creating the current economic meltdown.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Actually it was Carter or Clinton who first weakened Freddie Mac. Bush had nothing to do with that one.

I don’t know if that is true, ironsides. However, let us assume it to be true for the purpose of argument. Bush had total, absolute power for six years. Senate and Hose were solidly in the control of the Republican Party, and Republicans pretty much acted as rubber stamp for Bush.

If Carter and Clinton are such villains and if Bush is such an expert, such a genius in financial management, in fiscal management, he could have done something to curb the rising subprime lending. Hell, the guy had absolute control of the Senate, House and presidency, he could have repealed the law of gravity if he so wished (and the Republican controlled Supreme Court would have backed him by a 5 to 4 vote).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

@SJP

You're comment exemplifies the myopia of the left SJP. Your solitary argument seeks to establish historical based solely on the 'here and now'. Perhaps at some point you will incorporate a macro-view rather than a selective history that serves only to support your immediate position.

My position is very simple, Captain. I don’t know the economic reasons for the current economic meltdown, that is for the economists to sort out (and I seriously about that economists exclusively blame the Democrats, Carter, Clinton and FDR, while considering Republicans totally blameless in the matter).

However, even experts won’t agree on the reason, I suspect they also will largely come down on partisan lines. However, to my way of thinking, if somebody is in power, he is responsible for the mess that occurs under his watch (unless he inherits the mess, like Obama did). To blame his predecessors is trying to pass the buck. It may work with the party faithful, but it rarely works with the general public.

Thus at present Obama blames the previous administration, and people give him the benefit of doubt. However, if the economy is still in the tank come next election, people won’t give Obama the benefit of the doubt; his party will suffer a terrible loss in November 2010.

However complicated the economics may be, the politics of it is very simple. Bush was in charge, so Bush is to blame.

 

[EagleSmack]

I like this quote from Obama concerning the Presidency...

"We didn't want the job, but we got it..."

DUUUUH...Didn't you run for President?

 

[JLM]

Sorry JLM, but that is how it works out in politics. Bush was the President for eight years. Whatever happened during this watch, Bush gets the credit or the blame for it.

But Bush agrees with you. Harry Truman has a sign on his desk saying ‘The buck stops here’. According to Bush, the buck stops anywhere except at his desk (he reportedly had a sign on his desk saying ‘The buck stops anywhere but here’). Anything good happened (and there really was very little good that happened during Bush watch), Bush gets the credit, anything bad happens, the Democrats are to blame.

That is the Republican philosophy anyway. Unfortunately for Republicans, it does not work that way. People (rightly) tend to blame the Republicans for creating the current economic meltdown.

That's just totally ridiculous, thousands of businesses go bankrupt every year in the U.S. If J.C. Penny was to go bankrupt would you blame Bush or Obama for that too?

 

[captain morgan]

My position is very simple, Captain. I don’t know the economic reasons for the current economic meltdown, that is for the economists to sort out (and I seriously about that economists exclusively blame the Democrats, Carter, Clinton and FDR, while considering Republicans totally blameless in the matter).

No one really knows exactly what the reason(s) were that created this mess - it is a combination of numerous factors both recent and past variables. However, it is clear that your focus is exclusively on the vilification of right leaning parties and the absolution of the left... Reasons don't really matter that much to those with partisan goals.

However, even experts won’t agree on the reason, I suspect they also will largely come down on partisan lines. However, to my way of thinking, if somebody is in power, he is responsible for the mess that occurs under his watch (unless he inherits the mess, like Obama did). To blame his predecessors is trying to pass the buck. It may work with the party faithful, but it rarely works with the general public.

Your suspicions are in error. Those economists and analysts that are professional will piece together the events based on factual analysis. The only partisan commentary will come directly from political factions.

In the end, all politicians 'inherit' a situation. There is no conceivable manner in which they can not... Once you begin to understand this, perhaps you'll apply something other than pure subjectivity in your views.

However complicated the economics may be, the politics of it is very simple. Bush was in charge, so Bush is to blame.

Very few people are truly of that mind-set... This is the myopia that I speak of in some of your posts.

 

[unclepercy]

The most idiotic lead post I have ever seen. Pretty much.

First of all, Rush Limbaugh is a loud-mouth jerk. Most American Republicans do NOT want Obama to fail.....they want what is best for the nation. Again, on the ball.

Secondly, Slick Willy was put on the impeachment wagon because he LIED under oath......that is perjury, and he should have fried for it, and I couldn't care less who was sucking what. Yep.

So all Obama has to do is avoid committing felonies, and he won't have to face impeachment procedings. Good job! Are you sure you are not American?

Which makes the rest of SJP's post simply ludicrous. No surprize there.

He has outdone himself, and validated my opinion of him.

What has always amazed me is the amount of interest Canadians have in American politics. Not even Americans have that much interest. And I can't figure out Canadian politics to save my soul. GBO.

Uncle

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That's just totally ridiculous, thousands of businesses go bankrupt every year in the U.S. If J.C. Penny was to go bankrupt would you blame Bush or Obama for that too?

If Penny goes bankrupt, many other big businesses fold up, unemployment shoots up, people will blame Obama for it. That is how it works in politics, whether you like it or not. The man is charge, the buck stops with him (even if he may claim that it doesn’t, like Bush did).

 

[JLM]

My position is very simple, Captain. I don’t know the economic reasons for the current economic meltdown, that is for the economists to sort out (and I seriously about that economists exclusively blame the Democrats, Carter, Clinton and FDR, while considering Republicans totally blameless in the matter).

However, even experts won’t agree on the reason, I suspect they also will largely come down on partisan lines. However, to my way of thinking, if somebody is in power, he is responsible for the mess that occurs under his watch (unless he inherits the mess, like Obama did). To blame his predecessors is trying to pass the buck. It may work with the party faithful, but it rarely works with the general public.

Thus at present Obama blames the previous administration, and people give him the benefit of doubt. However, if the economy is still in the tank come next election, people won’t give Obama the benefit of the doubt; his party will suffer a terrible loss in November 2010.

However complicated the economics may be, the politics of it is very simple. Bush was in charge, so Bush is to blame.

I don't know the exact reasons either but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the top 3 or 4 (in no particular order) Subprime mortgages, corrupt C.E.O.s taking more than they are worth, corrupt Unions getting too greedy and everything becoming over valued (like $1/2 million to put a roof over your head)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Very few people are truly of that mind-set... This is the myopia that I speak of in some of your posts.

Really Captain? Then why did Republicans suffer such distresses election losses, two in a row, an unprecedented feat? Just a coincidence? In the Senate Republican strength went from 55 to 40 in just two years. I don’t think any party has ever suffered such a massive loss.

The fact is, Americans blamed Bush and Republicans big time.

In the end, all politicians 'inherit' a situation. There is no conceivable manner in which they can not

Sure they do, captain. However, an astute politician does not keep whining about how bad the situation he inherited, he rolls up his sleeves and gets down to work (like Chrétien, Clinton etc. did). Very shortly after a politician is elected (at most a year or two), he is held responsible for whatever happened under his watch, good or bad.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't know the exact reasons either but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the top 3 or 4 (in no particular order) Subprime mortgages, corrupt C.E.O.s taking more than they are worth, corrupt Unions getting too greedy and everything becoming over valued (like $1/2 million to put a roof over your head)

You are probably right JLM, there is enough blame to go around. However, people still hold the party in power (in this case, Bush and the Republicans) responsible.