quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

You honestly believe that the President is responsible for everything that happens?

There are also state and federal courts and legislatures Mia. And like it or not, Barack Obama as a Socialist lawyer fought for and succeeded in forcing lenders to make high-risk loans to the very poor in the guise of 'civil rights'.

Yeah, it is Obama's fault, it falls right on his head.

[8|] 

Snopes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

The President gave speeches, he proposed legislation, but the Democrats fought him tooth and nail - it's all on the record.

What more was he supposed to do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: snappykappy

it is called executive or presidential privalege for the jerk not to let the public know

so now we all know or have known all along who was pivot man in the circle jerk

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Wonder how they magaged that since it was a Republican Congress for most of the last eight years.

In fact, for much of the time it was a Republican Congress with a filibuster-proof majority.

Seems they could have passed anything they wanted, huh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

The President gave speeches, he proposed legislation, but the Democrats fought him tooth and nail - it's all on the record.

What more was he supposed to do?

Wonder how they magaged that since it was a Republican Congress for most of the last eight years.

In fact, for much of the time it was a Republican Congress with a filibuster-proof majority.

Seems they could have passed anything they wanted, huh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

Mia, Your the sky is falling concept and chicken little screaming does not encourage me to vote for Obama simply becuase your campaigning for him lol seems as if he advocates the public panicking, jumping out windows, running around crying abuot how the sky is falling, instead of looking at things with calm logic and a cool head saying how he is planning to fix it probably because he has no clue.  Soooooo get everyone in a panic so they don't question him TOO closely lol but use panick as a way to get votes because well Bush=McCain and well Obama isn't Bush, Obama isn't to blame because well he hasn't been President -- nevermind that McCain hasn't either and imply Obama hasn't been part of the majority in government.

All i see in your posts is campaigning for Obama and instead of stating what he would do, you are screaming the sky is falling, and that's ALL this country needs a candidate who encourages people to run aroud like chicken little and ridiculously misrepresenting how the governement works by saying Obama isn't to "blame" because he hasn't been president.  Well, you really have a view that is completely one sided because umm well, as far as i know McCain HASN"T BEEN EITHER lol.  And instead of using logic you are trying to use dislike tactics by saying Bush=McCain.  But you want Obama seen as an individual but not McCain?  Sorry that to me is fear on your part, because you don't believe Obama can win on merit.

You may be able to win the ignorant with your sky is falling routine and indicating Obama hasn't been president so he isn't to blame for the countries current issues -- funny he campaigned for the Senate position didn't he?  Just out of curiosity, what he say about the economy then?  What has he done to correct what he saw as wrong?  I mean you are saying George Bush has been the one completely at fault, and he has been saying the economy is fine -- exactly when did Obama start the sky is falling routine you are advocating in his campaigns?  Because i don't remember his the sky is falling campaign slogan as you are indicating, i know people in Chicago who i have asked and they also don't remember his stating the sky is falling concept about the economy when he was running. 

So seriously, please indicate where Obama was indicating the sky is falling concept about the economy or focused on the economy prior to the recent issues that have came up?  I am not saying little spiels here and there, i am saying when did the sky is falling concept come in with Obama?  Something tells me probably the same times the rest of the country started taking major notice.

angel

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I'll tell you one of the problems I've been observing since this shit has been hitting the fan: it's this total lack of accountability and the cowardly desire to shift responsibility on to someone else. That attitude has been particularly prevalent in the sharks of finance and the politickos that have been in the business of protecting the interests of the financial markets and the corporations that were effectively paying their salaries: guess who?

These people made that mess for the most part, but they don't have the balls to face up to their mistakes and now they're running like ants. And to top it all off, they point the finger and blame their political opponents? They're having a fucking laugh, aren't they? And you defend them. Bravo [:D] .

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

I agree with MzMia that we very well could find ourselves facing a Depression. Yes we have policies in place that did not exist in the 30's but we also have additional problems the US did not face at that time.

1. Debt is a huge problem. Right now the total debt (and we're not talking corporate or government, we are talking personal debt) is greater than the total income in our country. With ages falling and unemployment, that divide will only grow. In the 30's credit also freely flowed, but primarily among the wealthy. The average middle class American was not in debt as they are now.

2. Our dependence on oil was not as great as it is now. Our prosperity and our economy developed largely because of the automobile and oil and we are highly dependent on it. We are still feeling the effects of the peak in oil prices earlier this summer, prices have only moderately gone down at the pump and the price to heat/cool homes is still very high.

3. The world economy is much more enmeshed than it was in the 30's. The recent boom in our economy was largely driven by emerging markets. China and other Asian countries have fallen off the map in recent months in terms of their economic contribution. Their economies are slowing drastically. Orders are being canceled. We also relied on their cheap imports to keep our daily expenses down, with the cost to produce increasing in Asian countries, those costs will begin to increase.

4. We have far more people in cities and suburbs than we did in the 30's. While there was less work in those areas, there was also the ability to be more self-sufficient.

5. Far more jobs are derived from "non-essential" goods and services than in the 30's. The restaurant industry, retail industry, entertainment, etc.... are all huge employers. With belts tightening people reduce things that are non-essential and many of these kinds of businesses will fail. Because we have automated so much manual and tedious labor, we have also reduced the need for those kinds of jobs.

6. The fail safes put in place have not kept pace with the value of money today. Just last week the FDIC insurance cap was finally increased to $250,000.  Unemployment and Social Security have not kept up either. How many of you can get by on $175 per week! As for SS, how many of us expect it to be around by the time we retire?

7. Far more people have exposure to the stock market than in the 30's. Internet has made it available to anyone with a computer and many 401k's and IRA's are invested in the market in one way or another. The gov has been pushing 401ks' and IRA's for years to relieve the burden on the SS system. Now all those people who have their life saving tied up in these instruments are watching the values plummet and there's nothing they can do about it. What happens when millions of baby boomers suddenly can't retire as planned? That's more people in the job market competing for existing jobs.

8. We are far less independent agriculturally than we were in the 30's. Farming was the life blood of our nation at that time, now we import much of our food.

I think we are actually far more vulnerable now than we were then. We comfort ourselves by believing that because we once experienced a Great Depression that it can't happen again. Now days our leaders know from history what can happen and how to avoid it. But do they? How long did it take our leaders to act before something was done? Then when they did, it devolved into petty bickering and party politics. Are our leaders really any more aware and equipped than they were in the 30's? I once thought so, but recent weeks have caused me to reconsider.

In terms of where we are now in unemployment rates etc.... The beginning of the Great Depression was signaled by the stock market crash of 1929, however the truly bad times of the Depression were not felt, nor did economists consider the depression as beginning until 1932, aprx. three years later. In 1929 when the market crashes, unemployment was much lower than it is now. It was only until 1932 that the high rates of 25% were seen. If we are experiencing a deep recession or even a depression, we are only in the beginning stages. We have to compare our unemployment numbers and other factors to the beginning of other recessions and depressions NOT the middle. Unless you just want to make yourself feel better, which is understandable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

It is possible that I missed something but I didn't notice a single partisan or biased comment in her post. What a welcome change from the previous several pages.

Uncle Nasty

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


It's not enough for you that the Democrats were against more regulation for the financial industry (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) for years and years, and that the Republicans were for it...  [8|]

Okay, fine: I shouldn't have to point this out to you because it's so obvious BUT, had the Republicans pulled out all the stops in order to pass such legislation they would have been accused of racism.

Opposing loans for Blacks and Hispanics... single moms... "Those mean, hateful REPUBLICANS..."  [sm=shame.gif]

There is a lot more more to Congressional politics than simple up or down votes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Wonder how they magaged that since it was a Republican Congress for most of the last eight years.

In fact, for much of the time it was a Republican Congress with a filibuster-proof majority.

Seems they could have passed anything they wanted, huh?

quote:

Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac


Seventeen.

That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out $1 trillion worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007. That's a whole lot of toxic waste. For more detail, consult the items referred to in my previous blogpost on this subject (most of the comments seem to have been disputes about the plot line of the movie It's a Wonderful Life, which I should think could be settled by consulting a reference work).


<snip>


Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation.



http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle

quote:

ORIGINAL: bestbabync
the blame game should end!  what we need to look at now is which plan will keep us from starving to death!!! 

I agree with you, Baby.  When the soup lines start forming and half of us are living in Hooverville, what difference does it make who's "fault" it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

It is possible that I missed something but I didn't notice a single partisan or biased comment in her post. What a welcome change from the previous several pages.

Uncle Nasty

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Here it is in Baracks own words

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

You honestly believe that the President is responsible for everything that happens?

There are also state and federal courts and legislatures Mia. And like it or not, Barack Obama as a Socialist lawyer fought for and succeeded in forcing lenders to make high-risk loans to the very poor in the guise of 'civil rights'.

Yeah, it is Obama's fault, it falls right on his head.

[8|] 

Snopes

You must have linked the wrong video because there wasn't a single word in there out of Obamas mouth which stated he forced lenders to make high-risk loans to very poor people in the guise of civil rights. Your link has audio of Obama saying sub-prime mortagages started out as a good idea to help people buy homes who couldn't previously afford to. Do you have any evidence that Obama 'forced lenders to make high risk loans to the very poor in the guise of civil rights' because that's the statement you made and that was debunked by Snopes as evidenced by the link which I provided.