Obama Is Destroying The Economy

Alta4ever · March 11, 2009

It was the democrats who started the begining of the credit crisis that has led to this recession.

GostHacked · March 11, 2009

It was the democrats who started the begining of the credit crisis that has led to this recession.

Yep, under a Republican Presidency. What is your point??? Reps and Dems are both at fault here. ALL of them &*(^%^)#$()^ are to blame for the crisis. ALL OF THEM.

Alta4ever · March 11, 2009

Yep, under a Republican Presidency. What is your point??? Reps and Dems are both at fault here. ALL of them &*(^%^)#$()^ are to blame for the crisis. ALL OF THEM.

No it was typical liberal thinking, the republicans on three seperate occasions wanted to rein in Freddi Mac and Fanny mae, that was the straw, horrible lending policies to people who did not deserve the credit.

GostHacked · March 11, 2009

No it was typical liberal thinking, the republicans on three seperate occasions wanted to rein in Freddi Mac and Fanny mae, that was the straw, horrible lending policies to people who did not deserve the credit.

I recall back in 2003 the Reps controlled the House and Senate. Please tell me why they were not brought in at that time??

Alta4ever · March 11, 2009

I recall back in 2003 the Reps controlled the House and Senate. Please tell me why they were not brought in at that time??

The dems still had the ability to filibuster in the senate.

GostHacked · March 11, 2009

The dems still had the ability to filibuster in the senate.

So why are not the Reps doing a filibuster now??? ....

jdobbin · March 11, 2009

The dems still had the ability to filibuster in the senate.

However, the Republicans didn't even attempt to put the legislation forward so they don't know what would have happened.

punked · March 11, 2009

So why are not the Reps doing a filibuster now??? ....

Because it was not meant to be used on every bill. The republicans now have threatened the filibuster on a record number of bills and one only has to look at the polls to see how that is turning out.

punked · March 11, 2009

I recall back in 2003 the Reps controlled the House and Senate. Please tell me why they were not brought in at that time??

It never got out of committee cause no one Republicans or Dems wanted to do anything about Fanny or Freddy. It had nothing to do with a filibuster and anyone who tells you it did doesn't know anything about the situation.

Edited March 11, 2009 by punked

Alta4ever · March 11, 2009

It never got out of committee cause no one Republicans or Dems wanted to do anything about Fanny or Freddy. It had nothing to do with a filibuster and anyone who tells you it did doesn't know anything about the situation.

What like you?

punked · March 11, 2009

What like you?

I can understand when both Republicans and Democrats kill an idea they both get the blame for it. The republicans controlled the committee and could have put the bill forward then if the Democrats threatened a filibuster and the Republicans could have just not scheduled a vote and blamed the Dems. OR tired to get 5-8 Dems to switch probably a lot more becuase at the time at least half the Republicans were against the idea. However because both Republicans and Democrats wanted the idea gone it never got out of the committee see how that works. You don't get to blame the Dems for that.

August1991 · March 11, 2009

Sure, things look bad with yet more former Goldman Sachs twits getting closer to Obama (there were plenty close to Bush and Clinton - how convenient people forget those disasters).
Things could be even worse, however.

Remember, had the "experienced" McCain won the presidency then the "experienced" Phil Gramm could be the Treasury Secretary.

You remember, the guy who talked about Americans being a nation of "whiners" for being in a "mental recession?"

Yeah, the guy who helped investment banks and regular banks and insurance companies become "too big to fail" with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

What is this with your guy Barry Ritholtz and Goldman Sachs?

Is GS the new scapegoat for this crisis? Most of the large counterparties to AIG were European banks.

[if you read Roubini and Ritholtz, you know more or less what msj will post the next day. And these guys have been bears for ages so they're like Chicken Little who finally feels vindicated. "See! I said the sky was going to fall and no one believed me!"]

As to blaming Phil Gramm, we'll call it a draw: the Republicans can blame CRA/Clinton/Carter for encouraging poor people to become homeowners and the Democrats can blame Gramm for a supposed deregulation of banks. (BTW, Canada never had a Glass-Steagall Act and our banking system is composed of five banks "too big to fail". Canada's bank regulations are largely otiose because the chartered banks surpass the requirements. A passing glance at the monetary histories of Canada and of the US shows that this recent episode is not abnormal at all.)

----

Are Obama/Geithner destroying the economy? Certainly not. [The US economy is bigger than the US president. To paraphrase Reagan, the US economy has a government - not the other way around.] But in the short time that they've been taking decisions, they could have done better.

Geithner has yet to name senior officials in his department. Obama confuses the "profits and earnings" ratio. Based on teh most recent news, their policy amounts to wait-and-see. That was Chretien's modus operandi but then Chretien was PM during a time of economic growth.

It's a lot easier to be wait-and-see when tax revenues are increasing. (The US federal deficit of the past five months is larger than the federal deficit of the previous twelve months. World credit markets are beginning to seize again. Wait-and-see won't work. The US needs another stimulus package, and its banks need more than stress tests.)

Lastly, Obama is talking about health care reform, education reform. He wants to raise taxes on the rich. He wants to change US foreign policy. "Jack of all trades, master of none."

Edited March 11, 2009 by August1991

msj · March 12, 2009

What is this with your guy Barry Ritholtz and Goldman Sachs?
Is GS the new scapegoat for this crisis? Most of the large counterparties to AIG were European banks.

[if you read Roubini and Ritholtz, you know more or less what msj will post the next day. And these guys have been bears for ages so they're like Chicken Little who finally feels vindicated. "See! I said the sky was going to fall and no one believed me!"]

If you would attack the substance rather than the person/people then perhaps we would have grounds for a discussion....

It's not enough to make up stories about Roubini and Ritholtz.... and this is why I call you intellectually dishonest.

If you were to read Ritholtz you would know that GS is not the only one he criticizes as a "scapegoat" (to use your ridiculous word) but, ah, forget it, a leopard can't change his spots.

Edited March 12, 2009 by msj

August1991 · March 12, 2009

If you were to read Ritholtz you would know that GS is not the only one he criticizes as a "scapegoat" (to use your ridiculous word) but, ah, forget it, a leopard can't change his spots.

Ritholtz is into this anti-Goldman Sachs mode. (I reckon that he's jealous.)

A bail out means that creditors get bailed out too, no? Goldman Sachs got a chunk of cash - but less than European banks. Is this fair? Ask US taxpayers. Fairness is not the critical factor in this crisis. Efficiency is the critical question. As Obama said in his NYT interview, what is the cheapest way to put things back on track?

----

As to the rest of your post msj, you restate what Roubini and Ritholtz say (or the comments of Calculated Risk). For the most part, these people are Bears so, not surprisingly in a severe Bear market, this is their 15 Minutes of Fame.

I'm reminded of a friend whose marriage lasted for 20 years with three children. Her mother always criticised the husband and when they eventually separated, the mother said: "I told you so."

msj · March 12, 2009

At least I back up my opinions with substance.

That's why I link to as many articles as I do - to allow people to read them for themselves.

I'm sure many here do read the odd link and learn something.

Unfortunately, then there is you.

Some guy who resorts to character assassination rather than take on the issues raised. :rolleyes:

Edited March 12, 2009 by msj

Shady · March 12, 2009

Obama, Geithner Get Low Grades From Economists

U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

The economists' assessment stands in stark contrast with Mr. Obama's popularity with the public, with a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll giving him a 60% approval rating. A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies.

On average, they gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60. Mr. Geithner received an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71.

WSJ

msj · March 12, 2009

Obama, Geithner Get Low Grades From Economists
U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

Yeah, because, economists have done such a darn swell job themselves of calling this recession. :rolleyes:

Shady · March 12, 2009

Yeah, because, economists have done such a darn swell job themselves of calling this recession.

Some of them did.

msj · March 12, 2009

Some of them did.

Fair enough.

Of course, Obama does have some pretty good talent of his own - Volcker, for example.

Let's give them some more time and see how they do over the medium run before passing knee-jerk reaction.

GostHacked · March 12, 2009

Some of them did.

How many is some?? And did it make a difference?? There has been others who foretold of the crisis. Ron Paul was one, and people laughed at him during the debates when he was talking about the failed monetary policy and system.

And your economists only told us about the recession in Dec 2008 that the recession started in Dec of 2007. YAY, too late.

punked · March 13, 2009

Obama, Geithner Get Low Grades From Economists
U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

The economists' assessment stands in stark contrast with Mr. Obama's popularity with the public, with a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll giving him a 60% approval rating. A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies.

On average, they gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60. Mr. Geithner received an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71.

WSJ

"The thing is, these weren't a group of randomly selected economists -- these are a group of conservatives, the overwhelming majority of whom backed John McCain's economic policies in the presidential campaign. Moreover, they aren't too bright: half of them thought the recession ended seven months ago!

Check out these numbers from the WSJ archives of previous surveys:

* February 2008: 76% of the economists surveyed by the WSJ said they supported either McCain or Romney on economic policy over Obama or Clinton

* May 2008: 75% of these economists said they preferred McCain's fiscal policy to Obama's

* August 2008: 49% said the recession had already ended, and 50% believed the economy would be the same or better by election day.

* September 2008: 66% said they opposed any new stimulus plan

* December 2008: the economists predicted the unemployment rate would peak at 8.4%. It's already at 8.1% and rising.

In short, this was a survey of the same bloody idiots who got us into the mess President Obama is now trying to extract us from.

Thank god they don't approve of the job he's doing! Their disapproval is a badge of freaking honor!"

Media matters Shady

Alta4ever · March 13, 2009

"The thing is, these weren't a group of randomly selected economists -- these are a group of conservatives, the overwhelming majority of whom backed John McCain's economic policies in the presidential campaign. Moreover, they aren't too bright: half of them thought the recession ended seven months ago!
Check out these numbers from the WSJ archives of previous surveys:

* February 2008: 76% of the economists surveyed by the WSJ said they supported either McCain or Romney on economic policy over Obama or Clinton

* May 2008: 75% of these economists said they preferred McCain's fiscal policy to Obama's

* August 2008: 49% said the recession had already ended, and 50% believed the economy would be the same or better by election day.

* September 2008: 66% said they opposed any new stimulus plan

* December 2008: the economists predicted the unemployment rate would peak at 8.4%. It's already at 8.1% and rising.

In short, this was a survey of the same bloody idiots who got us into the mess President Obama is now trying to extract us from.

Thank god they don't approve of the job he's doing! Their disapproval is a badge of freaking honor!"

Media matters Shady

Sure.....what ever helps you sleep at night.

punked · March 13, 2009

Sure.....what ever helps you sleep at night.

Yah those are the guys I trust the guys who said the recession was over almost a year ago. You pick your side with the losers with a bad record and that bad record gets to be touted out in front of you every time you use them as "experts"

Alta4ever · March 13, 2009

Yah those are the guys I trust the guys who said the recession was over almost a year ago. You pick your side with the losers with a bad record and that bad record gets to be touted out in front of you every time you use them as "experts"

You seem to like the perpetual bad record which is socialism and socist policies. Something tried over and over in the last 100 years and all atempts have either failed or turned in to dictitorial states. so like I said whatever helps you sleep while Obama destroies and pushes the world from recession into depression.

punked · March 13, 2009

You seem to like the perpetual bad record which is socialism and socist policies. Something tried over and over in the last 100 years and all atempts have either failed or turned in to dictitorial states. so like I said whatever helps you sleep while Obama destroies and pushes the world from recession into depression.

No I think you are moving the conversation to your talking point. We are talking the bad bad bad record of the WSJ economists. You take those guys and you get a bad record over the last year. So of course I am not going to put much faith in their grades of Obama.

Again I hear from Shady "Let it stick this time"

Edited March 13, 2009 by punked