Could Obama lose?

[JerrySeinfeld]

wow, you're finally acknowledging the graphic... disingenuously acknowledging it, that is. MLW member, 'dre', is again reminding both of us of the bipartisan (exponential) trending nature of that U.S. National debt. To some degree, I believe I've acknowledged it - but also provided a more granular look, particularly focused on Clinton-to-Bush-to-Obama. You refuse to accept Bush policies/decisions had... and continue to have... a most significant impact on the spending levels within Obama's first term. You play off the standard Rethug talking point suggesting an avoidance of Obama accountability. As I said to you previously: "the Obama accountability you favour is one that completely negates any/all Bush admin impact, notwithstanding the recession/stimulus influence".

by the by Jer... again, which way is the U.S. National Debt trending under Obama's first term?

In a word, up.

In two words, WAY UP.

Adding to debt at a clip twice that of GW Bush.

Oh wait, I get it now (actually I always got your horribly weak point, but it was fun watching you fail again and again at trying)! Did you take calculus? Maybe you should have expressed it in those terms then.

Your point isn't so much that Obama hasn't added debt at twice the clip of GW Bush did (how could you make that claim? the math is too basic for even you to try to parse), rather your point is that the slope of the line (the rate of change of the rate of change, as they say in calculus) flattened for about 8 months, and then steepened upward again in the first six months of this year. Wow - riveting stuff.

THAT'S your bombshell? THAT'S your big revelation? THAT'S your sales pitch?

"Ladies and gentlemen, we just tacked on the same amount of debt as George W Bush did in 8 years, but we did it in 3.5...BUT WORRY NOT, BECAUSE FOR THE LAST 8 MONTHS, THE INSANE RATE OF SPENDING AS SLOWED A BIT AND THEN PICKED BACK UP AGAIN!!!"

But let's look at your little chart closer even still. The last number on it - 4.8% is only a six month period. Annualizing that gives us an 8.4% clip.

So of excluding 2008 crisis, Each of Obama's four years if debt addition rates of growth (15.1%, 13.9%, 7.8% and 8.4%) are only eclipsed by three other years since 1993.

Again, riveting stuff. Now you've convinced me. Where do I pull the lever? I'm ready to absentee vote for BHO right now. Frothingly excited

Truthfully, your argument is looking weaker by the second, bordering on pathetic. Better juice up some more of those sarcastic remarks of yours there, Wally . After all, it's what you lefties do best. When in doubt, throw around some sarcastic one line name calling.

A la - Jon Stewart. Hey if you're a one trick pony, better know how to do the trick, right?

Edited September 5, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld

[waldo]

wow, you're finally acknowledging the graphic... disingenuously acknowledging it, that is. MLW member, 'dre', is again reminding both of us of the bipartisan (exponential) trending nature of that U.S. National debt. To some degree, I believe I've acknowledged it - but also provided a more granular look, particularly focused on Clinton-to-Bush-to-Obama. You refuse to accept Bush policies/decisions had... and continue to have... a most significant impact on the spending levels within Obama's first term. You play off the standard Rethug talking point suggesting an avoidance of Obama accountability. As I said to you previously: "the Obama accountability you favour is one that completely negates any/all Bush admin impact, notwithstanding the recession/stimulus influence".

by the by Jer... again, which way is the U.S. National Debt trending under Obama's first term?

In a word, up. In two words, WAY UP.

gee Jerry, it's even colour-coded for ya - are you colour-blind, Jerry?

"Ladies and gentlemen, we just tacked on the same amount of debt as George W Bush did in 8 years, but we did it in 3.5...BUT WORRY NOT, BECAUSE FOR THE LAST 8 MONTHS, THE INSANE RATE OF SPENDING AS SLOWED A BIT AND THEN PICKED BACK UP AGAIN!!!"

Jerry, you need to make up your mind... I thought you were bailing on 2009 - wassup?

Let's exclude 2008 and 2009 altogether, since there is some debate as to how to assign that huge cash injection during a huge crisis.

Truthfully, your argument is looking weaker by the second, bordering on pathetic. Better juice up some more of those sarcastic remarks of yours there, Wally . After all, it's what you lefties do best. When in doubt, throw around some sarcastic one line name calling.

A la - Jon Stewart. Hey if you're a one trick pony, better know how to do the trick, right?

no - actually Jerry, the argument speaks for itself, particularly the more your bellicose self fails to acknowledge any impact of the Bush policies/decisions on the Obama first term... the more you refuse to actually take up the repeated challenge to you - to look directly at the spending amounts/types. Hey Jer, didja know:

"that of the $5 trillion debt increase you're disingenuously applying completely and totally to Obama, according to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, more than 93% of that amount (over $4.6 trillion), was already projected to occur

in August of 2009, based on the economic conditions created by and policies enacted by U.S. President George Bush

. Did you get that Jerry... a CBO projection well before Obama's first budget even became law."

hey Jerry, I can't help but recognize you're one of those guys with a most skewed, narrow-minded and self-serving view on debt accumulation - you're really fixated on that spending thingee, aren't you? Any particular reason you ignore the revenue side (counter) contribution? Oh, right - in your world, taxation revenue is a bad thing... see Republican TeePartee driven House, right Jerry?

[JerrySeinfeld]

gee Jerry, it's even colour-coded for ya - are you colour-blind, Jerry?

Jerry, you need to make up your mind... I thought you were bailing on 2009 - wassup?

no - actually Jerry, the argument speaks for itself, particularly the more your bellicose self fails to acknowledge any impact of the Bush policies/decisions on the Obama first term... the more you refuse to actually take up the repeated challenge to you - to look directly at the spending amounts/types. Hey Jer, didja know:

"that of the $5 trillion debt increase you're disingenuously applying completely and totally to Obama, according to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, more than 93% of that amount (over $4.6 trillion), was already projected to occur

in August of 2009, based on the economic conditions created by and policies enacted by U.S. President George Bush

. Did you get that Jerry... a CBO projection well before Obama's first budget even became law."

hey Jerry, I can't help but recognize you're one of those guys with a most skewed, narrow-minded and self-serving view on debt accumulation - you're really fixated on that spending thingee, aren't you? Any particular reason you ignore the revenue side (counter) contribution? Oh, right - in your world, taxation revenue is a bad thing... see Republican TeePartee driven House, right Jerry?

Spending up 25% can't help you out anymore.

GW Bush 2007 2.7 Trillion

Obama 2010 3.6 Trillion

[Moonlight Graham]

It seems unfathomable, but he could.

Let's be honest, the next president of the USA will not enact one iota of abortion law.

So, that out of the way, give me three good reasons to vote for this clown again?

Obama has faults, no doubt. The economy didn't crumble under him, but it didn't thrive either. Debt continues to be a major problem. He let the Wall Street d-bags who helped cause this mess off the hook pretty easy. He could have tried harder to close Gitmo, though he did give a legit effort...at least at first. He's also a shill and a sellout to big money and all the lobbyists who REALLY control Washington (though that goes for every single President in modern history) and has done little to roll back the US plutocracy.

That said, if you compare him to other US Presidents (ie: since WWII), Obama is a good president. Not great, and not horrible. He's done a decent job given the mess inherited:

- Took virtually all troops out of Iraq, is on the path to winding down Afghanistan quietly without any kind of disaster, presided over killing of OBL, thus far has avoided war with Iran, continued Bush streak of no homeland terror attacks since 9/11, finally got at least some kind of "universal" healthcare law done, doesn't rape the 99% in favour of the 1%, supports gay marriage & not constitutional amendments to federally ban it, isn't an insane bible-thumper, repealed don't ask don't tell

Foreign policy-wise, Obama has been a success IMO. In terms of domestic social policy, had done fairly well IMO (unless you disagree with gay marriage). Economically he's been mediocre, a slow recovery + continued debt problems.

Mitt Romney could improve the economic recovery of the US because of his credentials, but his integrity is very weak as he's letting his radical party reshape his policies so he can gain their political support. Mitt also scares the hell out of me in terms of foreign policy & social conservatism. A shame, a moderate Romney who would govern like he did as governor while ignoring the nutjobs in his party & kept a sensible foreign policy could be a decent president.

[cybercoma]

Spending up 25% can't help you out anymore.

GW Bush 2007 2.7 Trillion

Obama 2010 3.6 Trillion

You make a great argument for raising taxes. Good job.

[BC_chick]

Watching John Kerry tonight I started remembering this time 8 years ago. I remember so many people thought there is no way Bush could get reelected given his dismal records with the WMD's and the aftermath of the Iraq invasion.

I thought John Kerry was an intelligent and compassionate man, and unlike draft-dodger Bush, he knew what combat was about. He seemed like a good candidate for making informed decisions about defense, which at that time, was the biggest issue for the race.

The Republicans based their campaign on not changing horses midstream while smearing Kerry about being rich and about not connecting with everyday people (ya, you see where I'm going with this). In the end, much to the chagrin of so many, Bush was reelected even though he had failed miserably in the eyes of, well, almost everyone but Republicans.

Now here's the interesting part: Kerry supporters knew it too, they felt the defeat before it happened. They were 'shocked' anyone would reelect Bush, but they weren't 'surprised' when it happened.

Fast forward 8 years and I'm seeing the same thing happening this election except it's the Republicans and their supporters that are pretty much acknowledging defeat even though they are completely bewildered by it.

But neither Kerry nor Romeny are very appealing. Not to independents and not even to their base who just wants to see anyone but the last guy. And like Bush, Obama appeals to his base and is sending out a plea to independents to allow him to finish the job.

Listening to so many right-wing pundits, I'm hearing a lot of resignation in their tone. Democrats, OTOH, are charged, they talk with confidence that it's their election to lose.

If I were a betting woman my money would be on Obama too.

[waldo]

Watching John Kerry tonight I started remembering this time 8 years ago. I remember so many people thought there is no way Bush could get reelected given his dismal records with the WMD's and the aftermath of the Iraq invasion.

I thought John Kerry was an intelligent and compassionate man, and unlike draft-dodger Bush, he knew what combat was about. He seemed like a good candidate for making informed decisions about defense, which at that time, was the biggest issue for the race.

Kerry's speech repeatedly hit Romney... hard! As somewhat 'wooden' as Kerry's presentation is (always has been), it was nice to hear him showing a bit of self-deprecation in using the line that Republicans framed him with during that 2004 election:

You know it isn’t -- it isn’t fair. It isn’t fair to say that Mitt Romney doesn’t have a position on Afghanistan. He has every position. He -- he was against -- he was against setting a date for withdrawal. Then he said it was right. And then he left the impression that maybe it was wrong to leave this soon. He said it was tragic to leave Iraq. And then he said it was fine. He said we should have intervened in Libya sooner. Then he ran down a hallway to run away from the reporters who were asking questions. Then he said, the intervention was too aggressive. And then he said the world was a better place because the intervention succeeded.

Talk about being for it, before you were against it

after Kerry's speech, I trust you also saw the DNC video follow-up tribute to U.S. veterans that culminated in the stage filled with veterans, several that appeared within the video... and next to them, at the outer edge, stood Kerry... with me thinking immediately back to the 'swift-boating' he endured at the hands of those Rethuglicans. Kerry drove home the point about Romney's current "foreign policy advisers"... many of the same Neo-Con assholes that surrounded Bush/Cheney... a point more nuanced later by Obama himself during his closing speech.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Kerry's speech repeatedly hit Romney... hard! As somewhat 'wooden' as Kerry's presentation is (always has been), it was nice to hear him showing a bit of self-deprecation in using the line that Republicans framed him with during that 2004 election:

after Kerry's speech, I trust you also saw the DNC video follow-up tribute to U.S. veterans that culminated in the stage filled with veterans, several that appeared within the video... and next to them, at the outer edge, stood Kerry... with me thinking immediately back to the 'swift-boating' he endured at the hands of those Rethuglicans. Kerry drove home the point about Romney's current "foreign policy advisers"... many of the same Neo-Con assholes that surrounded Bush/Cheney... a point more nuanced later by Obama himself during his closing speech.

When Syria falls it will be yet another great legacy of GW Bush's vision. You saw the trees, Bush saw the forest. He understood that, in traditional speaking terms about the mid east, the "stability" of the past 50 years needed to be smashed once and for all.

Bush's legacy will not be fully realized for years to come, but his vision is slowly playing out.

"The true history of my administration will be written 50 years from now, and you and I will not be around to see it." - GW Bush

"For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations" - GW Bush

"The desire for freedom resides in every human heart. And that desire cannot be contained forever by prison walls, or martial laws, or secret police. Over time, and across the Earth, freedom will find a way" - GW Bush

[punked]

When Syria falls it will be yet another great legacy of GW Bush's vision. You saw the trees, Bush saw the forest. He understood that, in traditional speaking terms about the mid east, the "stability" of the past 50 years needed to be smashed once and for all.

Bush's legacy will not be fully realized for years to come, but his vision is slowly playing out.

"The true history of my administration will be written 50 years from now, and you and I will not be around to see it." - GW Bush

"For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations" - GW Bush

"The desire for freedom resides in every human heart. And that desire cannot be contained forever by prison walls, or martial laws, or secret police. Over time, and across the Earth, freedom will find a way" - GW Bush

It was republicans saying Obama supporting democracies in the middle east instead of puppet dictators was bad foreign policy. Looks like Jerry again agrees with Obama with out admitting it. It makes sense because most of Obama's policies are what people agree with while republicans ones make no sense. It is just odd to see right wingers openly admit their side is wrong then trash Obama for doing what they agree with. Talk about Flip floppers no wonder John Kerry poked fun at Romney for all of his foreign policy ideas. Not even Jerry agrees with them.

[Shady]

The answer to this thread is, yes, of course Obama could lose. Especially after the most recent disasterous jobs report. He's still favoured to win, but he definitely could lose.

[waldo]

The answer to this thread is, yes, of course Obama could lose. Especially after the most recent disasterous jobs report. He's still favoured to win, but he definitely could lose.

c'mon Shady... take a bite - stand up for your favoured Republican party of "NO". Obama's, 'American Jobs Act', remains blocked by Republicans in the U.S. Senate... with independent estimates advising 100,000,000 jobs could be created with that single Obama, 'American Jobs Act' proposal. C'mon Shady... take a bite - stand up for your favoured Republican party of 'NO'.

... particularly since you beaked off over a pending U.S. Labor jobs report, hey?

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell commenting after the 47 Republican Senators voted, en masse, to block and deny the required 60 vote level to take up legislation for

Obama's "American Jobs Act"

:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky promised with a sly smile from the floor that Republicans will “continue to look for opportunities to give the president the vote he asked for.”

[ironstone]

For starters, Medicare, ACA, Social Security, expiration of tax cuts for wealthiest 2%, global warming

You neglected to mention an additional 5 trillion dollars of debt even though Obama promised to cut the deficit in half at the end of his first term.As for all the other entitlements,how will he pay for them with more and more Americans depending on these entitlements?

I don't think the US or the world can afford another 4 years of this madness.

[waldo]

You neglected to mention an additional 5 trillion dollars of debt even though Obama promised to cut the deficit in half at the end of his first term.As for all the other entitlements,how will he pay for them with more and more Americans depending on these entitlements?

I don't think the US or the world can afford another 4 years of this madness.

ah yes... you, another guy who wants to tag Obama with the entire additional debt monies - we've already beat on this earlier in this thread. You're certainly welcome to pick up for the failing MLW member, 'JerrySeinfeld' - try to make that argument, hey? Maybe you have some new material talking points! Yes, much has been made of that Obama promise, one given early in 2009 - one that aligned with the 'conventional thinking/analysis' of independent analysts... one that didn't recognize the depth of the problem/mess inherited from the Bush administration.

[punked]

You neglected to mention an additional 5 trillion dollars of debt even though Obama promised to cut the deficit in half at the end of his first term.As for all the other entitlements,how will he pay for them with more and more Americans depending on these entitlements?

I don't think the US or the world can afford another 4 years of this madness.

You have no idea how truly rich America is that much is obvious. The average networth of an American according to the WSJ is 182,000 dollars. They can afford anything they want to pay for as a society. The question is what Americans want not can they afford it.

[bleeding heart]

When Syria falls it will be yet another great legacy of GW Bush's vision. You saw the trees, Bush saw the forest. He understood that, in traditional speaking terms about the mid east, the "stability" of the past 50 years needed to be smashed once and for all.

Bush's legacy will not be fully realized for years to come, but his vision is slowly playing out.

Ah, yes, the "Great Man" theory of history, cherished by Commissars and sycophants everywhere.

But it's reasonable to ask if it's true; and the facts don't bear it out.

Let's take a look:

"For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations" - GW Bush

This is empty platitudes, the sort of thing uttered so often and so casually by leaders that it's nothing more than boilerplate.

Because, and I'll take it as a given that you are--astonishingly!--unaware of this...but the Western nations, certainly including the US, have not (and are not, currently) too fond of reformers; they don't like secular nationalists, they don't like uprisings, they don't appreciate democratic revolution, unless the Boss States have some measure of control (which underrmines the vaunted "democratic principles" by definition).

For example, currently there is a bipartisan push to end the "Terrorist" designation of the terrorist group opposed to the Iranian regime; that is, supporting one band of tyrannical religious crazies over another, in the usual tradition. This is not only "tolerating" or "excusing" oppression, as Bush ahistorically determines eager Western support and material aid for mass killers...it is outright support for oppression.

Or look at Afghanistan; all along, as this and that political leader moaned about our attempts to bring "freedom" to the Afghan people, we have continually sidelined (even opposed) the actual democratic, secular forces--the ones most philosophically aligned with our stated goals--because it has suited us to support and aid the regressive warlord types, ideological kin to their enemy Taliban. Meanwhile, our allies oppress and attack the secular democratic forces...not an issue, since our leaders don't like them anyway.

There are innumerable other examples, as Bush (if not yourself) is perfectly well aware.

Edited September 9, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Shady]

You have no idea how truly rich America is that much is obvious. The average networth of an American according to the WSJ is 182,000 dollars. They can afford anything they want to pay for as a society. The question is what Americans want not can they afford it.

A $15 trillion dollar debt, and $100 trillion in unfounded liabilities and you say bring on some more! You're completely delusional.

[punked]

A $15 trillion dollar debt, and $100 trillion in unfounded liabilities and you say bring on some more! You're completely delusional.

We can make up numbers Shady. However pretending America isn't the richest nation in the world who if they really wanted to could pay their debt off tomorrow 10 times over makes you look stupid. The best thing for America right now is for the government to rev up its engine and get its GDP firing on all cylinders because right now they are generating about a Trillion dollars less a year then they should be if it weren't for the liquidity trap they are in. Any good CEO would be saying the same thing.

[WWWTT]

The answer to this thread is, yes, of course Obama could lose. Especially after the most recent disasterous jobs report. He's still favoured to win, but he definitely could lose.

If Obama ever wants to win this thing he better start blowing some balloons and fast!

Or this thing is going to be over for him.

WWWTT

[punked]

PPP tweet.

We started 5 state polls- some public, some private- and a national poll last night. What they're looking like: 2008

[JerrySeinfeld]

c'mon Shady... take a bite - stand up for your favoured Republican party of "NO". Obama's, 'American Jobs Act', remains blocked by Republicans in the U.S. Senate... with independent estimates advising 100,000,000 jobs could be created with that single Obama, 'American Jobs Act' proposal. C'mon Shady... take a bite - stand up for your favoured Republican party of 'NO'.

wow. 100 million jobs eh? impressive. is that sort of like the 57 states Obama visited?

This clown had 2 years of a supermajority and wasted all his capital on a huge tax and spend entitlement at a point in time when the nation is drowning due to tax and spend entitlements. typical liberal orthodoxy and unforgivable. Sure, some on the left could argue health care was an important milestone, but nobody on either side of the spectrum could make the case it was a priority given the state of the economy.

If dude really cared that deeply about jobs he wouldn't have waited until it was too late (ie. he lost his supermajority) to get something done.

As it stands we're stuck this this:

Edited September 9, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld

[punked]

wow. 100 million jobs eh? impressive. is that sort of like the 57 states Obama visited?

This clown had 2 years of a supermajority and wasted all his capital on a huge tax and spend entitlement at a point in time when the nation is drowning due to tax and spend entitlements. typical liberal orthodoxy and unforgivable. Sure, some on the left could argue health care was an important milestone, but nobody on either side of the spectrum could make the case it was a priority given the state of the economy.

Remind me when Franken was sat as a Senator? How about when Bird got sick? Kennedy? Yep I am here to you out call because the facts don't line up with your pretend history. Sorry you don't pass the smell test.

Republicans did have 6 years where they had free run of the government though and all that lead to was the biggest finical crisis in the last 80 years.

Edited September 9, 2012 by punked

[JerrySeinfeld]

Remind me when Franken was sat as a Senator? How about when Bird got sick? Kennedy? Yep I am here to you out call because the facts don't line up with your pretend history. Sorry you don't pass the smell test.

Republicans did have 6 years where they had free run of the government though and all that lead to was the biggest finical crisis in the last 80 years.

"I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” – Former President Bill Clinton (D-AR), September 25, 2008

[punked]

"I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” – Former President Bill Clinton (D-AR), September 25, 2008

More lies coming from a liar. I mean McCain tried to use this one remember? Remember how he got hammered for trying to use this quote and you brazenly use it to defend what are your lies.

Clinton clearly states from the interview which you are quoting he thinks the main problem was "Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) while President Bush WAS IN OFFICE to repeal a regulation on certain stock-market trades. Maybe you can either watch the interview or you can read up on it because your quote is out of context AND A LIE. You are quote mining because you got nothing.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/10/01/times-carney-falsely-suggested-clinton-pinned-t/145366

[JerrySeinfeld]

More lies coming from a liar. I mean McCain tried to use this one remember? Remember how he got hammered for trying to use this quote and you brazenly use it to defend what are your lies.

Clinton clearly states from the interview which you are quoting he thinks the main problem was "Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) while President Bush WAS IN OFFICE to repeal a regulation on certain stock-market trades. Maybe you can either watch the interview or you can read up on it because your quote is out of context AND A LIE. You are quote mining because you got nothing.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/10/01/times-carney-falsely-suggested-clinton-pinned-t/145366

The size and scope of this bubble was complex. Pointing the finger at one group betrays either (a) your bias or ( your stupidity. You pick.

Is your goal to find the truth or to win an argument?

I don't think anyone with any degree of intelligence would say there was just one culpable party. This bubble was arguably started in 1977 with the Community Reinvestment Act. Many missteps have been taken over a period of 30 years to lead the US to the place they got in 2008. To name a few:

Relaxed lending standards.

Irresponsible borrowers

Speculation fuelled by the mistaken belief that real estate doesn't ever go down

CDO creation by investment banks

Bad credit analysis by Moody's and S&P

Willful blindness by politicians who had a vested interest in seeing more homeowners (and yes this includes Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Many republicans too, including George W Bush)

But of course, again to admit this simple truth negates the entire DNC narrative. If it was truly a complex multi-decade build up to a huge credit mess, then "we can't go back to the policies that got us into this mess" rings hollow. So ya better stick to those lies, eh bud?

The point is clear, to say the credit crisis was caused by GW Bush policies alone is either based in ignorance or a lie.

SO which is it? Are you stupid? Or just a liar?

[punked]

The size and scope of this bubble was complex. Pointing the finger at one group betrays either (a) your bias or ( your stupidity. You pick.

Is your goal to find the truth or to win an argument?

I don't think anyone with any degree of intelligence would say there was just one culpable party. This bubble was arguably started in 1977 with the Community Reinvestment Act. Many missteps have been taken over a period of 30 years to lead the US to the place they got in 2008. To name a few:

Relaxed lending standards.

Irresponsible borrowers

Speculation fuelled by the mistaken belief that real estate doesn't ever go down

CDO creation by investment banks

Bad credit analysis by Moody's and S&P

Willful blindness by politicians who had a vested interest in seeing more homeowners (and yes this includes Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Many republicans too, including George W Bush)

But of course, again to admit this simple truth negates the entire DNC narrative. If it was truly a complex multi-decade build up to a huge credit mess, then "we can't go back to the policies that got us into this mess" rings hollow. So ya better stick to those lies, eh bud?

The point is clear, to say the credit crisis was caused by GW Bush policies alone is either based in ignorance or a lie.

SO which is it? Are you stupid? Or just a liar?

I am saying coming here and saying "Obama had a super majority for two years" when Fraken took 8 months to be sat, and while Kennedy and Bird were dying and had to be wheeled into the Senate for the one or two votes they made to break the filibuster is rewriting history. This goes with out mention the need of the vote of a man who spoke out to nominate the guys who ran against Obama.

Mean while to ignore the fact REPUBLICANS controlled the WHOLE government for 6 years and those 6 years they got almost everything they wanted. Those 6 years also lead up to finical melt down.

So you fault Obama who didn't actually have a super majority at any time for not fixing a problem that was 30 years in the making in 3 or 4 votes he could pass whatever he wanted before Republicans got in to BLOCK EVERYTHING. Meanwhile you ignore Bush who actually did get to do everything he wanted and it lead to the problem in the first place.

It is crazy.