Obama 7 - now what?

[rufus]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Truly, an historic train wreck.

Maybe he should let terrorists bomb a couple American buildings, and watch his poll numbers rise?

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

[Simulated Jerk Off Motion]I see what you did there.[/Simulated Jerk Off Motion]

There's no such thing as good bank deregulations right now. Let them do what they please, and you will watch them walk away with the hard earned money of every American while the last two years repeats itself. Anyone in support of it (which is, more often than not, on the Republican side of the aisle), is just exposing themselves as being a lackey for the bank lobby.

And, scott, if you want to show that Dems are trying to de-regulate the banking industry, here's my advice to you: It'd be a lot smarter of you if you pointed me towards an article about a banking bill that DOESN'T have a quote from one of the big guns of the American Bankers Association complaining about it. Typically, the creation of a large agency to oversee the banking industry isn't seen as a form of deregulation, no matter how many allowances that they make. Sort of kills the point of trying to claim equivalency to people like Spencer Bachus, who actually is advocating complete deregulation.

No, you missed the point. The O-man's grand scheme to "regulate" financial services is being watered down, and down and down. And it's not over yet. They'll get their agency, but it will be as useful as **** on a boar, along with some idiotic rules for guys like me to circumvent, again. Moreover, what part of the WSJ article is inaccurate? The fact someone from the ABA doens't like the bill in its current form somehow offends you, or did the Daily Kos or Rolling Stone print something different? What I think is really wonderful is that Dodd and Frank (both of whom receive financials' PAC money) can't even agree on the role of the Fed, while Bernanke and the other regulators actively lobby against the "reforms" proposed.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

A little lighter fare:

<object width="480" height="430"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/onn_embed/embedded_player.swf?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FDENNYS_OBAMA_article.jpg&videoid=95532&title=Obama%20Drastically%20Scales%20Back%20Goals%20For%20America%20After%20Visiting%20Denny's" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/onn_embed/embedded_player.swf"type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="430"flashvars="image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FDENNYS_OBAMA_article.jpg&videoid=95532&title=Obama%20Drastically%20Scales%20Back%20Goals%20For%20America%20After%20Visiting%20Denny's"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_drastically_scales_back?utm_source=videoembed">Obama Drastically Scales Back Goals For America After Visiting Denny's</a>

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

No, you missed the point. The O-man's grand scheme to "regulate" financial services is being watered down, and down and down.(1) And it's not over yet. They'll get their agency, but it will be as useful as **** on a boar, along with some idiotic rules for guys like me to circumvent, again. (2)Moreover, what part of the WSJ article is inaccurate? The fact someone from the ABA doens't like the bill in its current form somehow offends you(3), or did the Daily Kos or Rolling Stone print something different? What I think is really wonderful is that Dodd and Frank (both of whom receive financials' PAC money(4)) can't even agree on the role of the Fed, while Bernanke and the other regulators actively lobby against the "reforms" proposed.

(1) So what if it is getting weaker? It still beats the pants off of doing nothing, or- even worse- giving the banks more wiggle room. And so what if you think you can find a loophole? Does that mean we do nothing? Seems to be a pretty stupid way to go about things. To use a metaphor: Clever theives can find a way past the lock on a safe- that doesn't mean that banks will start leaving their safes unlocked.

(2) I didn't say it was inaccurate. Pay more attention before you hit "reply".

(3) It doesn't offend me (what an odd way to try to get my goat), I pointed that out to show a major flaw in your argument. The ABA isn't going to whine over bills that give them more freedom to do as they please. Anyone who does probably won't work for the ABA much longer. You're trying to claim that this bill gives too much allowances to the banks, and yet the ABA isn't thrilled with it. That logic doesn't really follow, now does it?

(4) Want to make a list of congressmen who get money from the financials? It's longer than [insert dirty pun here].

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

A little lighter fare:

<object width="480" height="430"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/onn_embed/embedded_player.swf?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FDENNYS_OBAMA_article.jpg&videoid=95532&title=Obama%20Drastically%20Scales%20Back%20Goals%20For%20America%20After%20Visiting%20Denny's" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/onn_embed/embedded_player.swf"type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="430"flashvars="image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FDENNYS_OBAMA_article.jpg&videoid=95532&title=Obama%20Drastically%20Scales%20Back%20Goals%20For%20America%20After%20Visiting%20Denny's"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_drastically_scales_back?utm_source=videoembed">Obama Drastically Scales Back Goals For America After Visiting Denny's</a>

Ha! Nice.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

For once, Chicago style (and we ain't talkin' 'bout hot dogs) may not be working. Even the "grave lady" seems to get it.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html?_r=1

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

For once, Chicago style (and we ain't talkin' 'bout hot dogs) may not be working. Even the "grave lady" seems to get it.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html?_r=1

Yeah, it seems to me that if Van Jones and ACORN really were pure as the wind-driven snow and were being "unfairly attacked" by the FOX news extremists, the stories would have gone away instead of leading to negative consequences for them. Trying payback on these points seems cry-babyish.
Call me old fashioned (or a knuckledragger), but I think there's still a place for investigation and skepticism of government in the news room.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Maybe he should let terrorists bomb a couple American buildings, and watch his poll numbers rise?

Actually the GOP needs that more than him:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new CNN/Opinion Research poll finds the Republican Party's favorable rating is at lowest level in at least a decade. Just 36% of those questioned say they have a favorable opinion of the GOP, with 54% viewing the party negatively.

In contrast, 53% have a positive opinion of the Democratic Party, with 41% holding an unfavorable view.

Said pollster Keating Holland: "The Republican party may still be battling the legacy left to them by George W. Bush. They have also spent a lot of time in 2009 working against Democratic proposals. That hasn't left them a lot of time so far this year to present a positive, post-Bush message."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup, a party at its all time low in popularity is going to take over Congress next year. In other news in Knuckledragger Fantasyland, Barack Obama will come clean about his Kenyan/Saudi/Indonesian birth and be forced to resign, a little known (and long forgotten) codicil in the US Constitution recently discovered gives the previous VP the right of succession making Dick Cheney POTUS, and Sarah Palin does a spread in Playboy, one page after Rush Limbaugh.

Does that cover all of you guys' longings?

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

LOL. So you folks are saying that because Obama dropped from 75% to 55% approval since January he'll be at 35% approval in 10 months, right?

Anybody want to put money on that? (Crickets.)

This will happen if the minority voting blocks that backed him don't see improvement in their lives soon. Maintaining a 10% unemployment rate is going to hurt the lower/middle classes, and the ongoing devaluation of the dollar is going to decimate these voters at the current pace. I'd almost be willing to take that bet, but I'm not completely convinced that Obama's supporters will blame the current administration--so long as Obama keeps going on the record as blaming Republicans for the current situation. But sooner or later, he will have to take responsibility for his policies.....which don't seem to be working terribly well thus far.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

You missed the point. It's GOOD if dems do it, but b-a-a-a-d if repubs do (that's the sheeplike sound I imagine Exile and Kepler making). These are dem deregulations, hence good. All you need to know is the sponsoring party.

I'm all for financial sector regulation no matter who does it. It's probably less a right/left thing than a heartland/coastal thing (or it should be anyway), since both parties are on the take from Wall Street. The difference, and it's only one of accent, is that the Dems are sneaky about it while the GOP boasts about it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

But sooner or later, he will have to take responsibility for his policies.....which don't seem to be working terribly well thus far.

You guys are going to have to choose: in one breath it's "everything he's doing is baaad" and in the next it's "he's done nothing."

There's nothing inconsistent about forever blaming the prior administration for causing the crisis, that's just a statement of fact -- even if Obama is in office for 8 years it will still have been the Bush Braintrust that ran the country into a ditch. Obviously, the longer he's there, the more he can be blamed for a lack of a recovery (or congratulated for a recovery -- not that the ODS types will ever do that).

There's 8 years of damage to recover from. The scales are still waaaaaaaaaay towards the conservatives' culpability for the current situation, which does in fact appear to be improving. The Nightmare Scenario for the right, because of the way they've set themselves up, is that the country pulls out of it all the way. They've proven they can't govern, not sure what's left if they also prove they can't even present useful criticism.

There's always their Echo Chamber to retire to.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

You guys are going to have to choose: in one breath it's "everything he's doing is baaad" and in the next it's "he's done nothing."

Right, just how the left consistently bashed Bush as being an evil genius manipulating the world for the benefit of the oil barrons. No wait, he's just a bumbling idiot. No wait, he's involved in a conspiracy regarding 9/11. No wait, he's an idiot again.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Right, just how the left consistently bashed Bush as being an evil genius manipulating the world for the benefit of the oil barrons. No wait, he's just a bumbling idiot. No wait, he's involved in a conspiracy regarding 9/11. No wait, he's an idiot again.

I don't know where you get that from. No one around here ever said Bush was a genius.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Right, just how the left consistently bashed Bush as being an evil genius manipulating the world for the benefit of the oil barrons. No wait, he's just a bumbling idiot. No wait, he's involved in a conspiracy regarding 9/11. No wait, he's an idiot again.

That comeback doesn't work for so many reasons.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

That comeback doesn't work for so many reasons.

Basically, when it comes to politics, no one's consistent in anything, on any side, from anywhere.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Basically, when it comes to politics, no one's consistent in anything, on any side, from anywhere.

Just wait till you contradict that...

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I'm all for financial sector regulation no matter who does it. It's probably less a right/left thing than a heartland/coastal thing (or it should be anyway), since both parties are on the take from Wall Street. The difference, and it's only one of accent, is that the Dems are sneaky about it while the GOP boasts about it.

I actually don't disagree with the need for regulation, but the current framework of patchy federal and state agencies that are usually well-behind the business is a disgrace. There were/are plenty of rules of the books dealing with banks' risk-taking, but they were/are seldom enforced because most regulators don't understand their business lines. AIG's a great example. On the surface, it was/is a thrift-holding company overseen by the OTS, and its various subs regulated and examined by state agencies. Nobody really looked at the financial products divison, and if they did they had no idea what it did. The OTS admitted as such in hearings.

I think part of the problem is that the US regulatory scheme is usually "rules-based", when many Europeans use a "principles-based" approach that is more fluid and flexible. Not to say it's perfect, but guys like me get paid to find the nooks and cracks in the rules and drive trucks through them. Part of my issue with the proposed consumer financial products agency is that it does nothing to address these flaws in the current system, and allows the states to take a larger role in the system. Frankly, the states were completely asleep when it came to dealing with mortgage brokers and others under their purview, and I see nothing to indicate they'll be any better now.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

[Simulated Jerk Off Motion]I see what you did there.[/Simulated Jerk Off Motion]

There's no such thing as good bank deregulations right now.

Although I could be more of an expert of the ins and outs of bank deregulation...I don't think its quite so simple. I think the problem is that deregulation inacted 5 years ago was disasterous. But I don't know that wholesale regulation in today's difficult banking environment is also the right step. Its not about the party in power...its about the timing vis a vis the economy.

Call me old fashioned (or a knuckledragger), but I think there's still a place for investigation and skepticism of government in the news room.

Frankly I think most agree. The problem is that during the previous administration there was not enough criticism of the govt based on where we ended up. And on the other hand, those most critical of today's govt have lost their credibility (Fox, right wing radio) because they criticize everything on the left and are therefore irrelevant for policy.

 

[Bill]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

There's nothing inconsistent about forever blaming the prior administration for causing the crisis, that's just a statement of fact -- even if Obama is in office for 8 years it will still have been the Bush Braintrust that ran the country into a ditch. Obviously, the longer he's there, the more he can be blamed for a lack of a recovery (or congratulated for a recovery -- not that the ODS types will ever do that).

There's 8 years of damage to recover from. The scales are still waaaaaaaaaay towards the conservatives' culpability for the current situation, which does in fact appear to be improving. The Nightmare Scenario for the right, because of the way they've set themselves up, is that the country pulls out of it all the way. They've proven they can't govern, not sure what's left if they also prove they can't even present useful criticism.

Not true at all. The economy tanked during Bush's 2nd term, but the U.S. economy has been an accident waiting to happen for at least 15 years. It just happened to have gone over the edge during Bush's watch, for which the left should be grateful because it could just as easily have happened a couple of years later under Obama's watch (if he would still have been elected). Sure the Republicans spent too much under Bush, and that may have helped push the economy into a recession a little earlier than it might have otherwise.

The fault lies with almost everyone. Both parties for their inability to manage the country in a fiscally responsible way. Wall Street Banks. The Fed with it's easy credit and money philosophy. Fannie and Freddie. The public at large for being stupid enough to enter into mortgages they couldn't afford, and for using their homes as their personal ATMs. Mortgage companies and banks for lending to people they knew couldn't pay them back. Congress for encouraging this behavior. Over-leveraging. Securitization/passing risk onto other parties. etc. etc.

The whole Wall Street big banking setup became a big crap shoot. The way the government has run the economy (both parties) over the last 15 years or so, it's almost like it has become just a big ponzi scheme.

No, the economy was going to tank at some point regardless of which administration was in power. You can blame it on Bush and the Reps all you want, but you're smart enough to know the country has been heading in this direction for a lot longer than Bush was in office.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Although I could be more of an expert of the ins and outs of bank deregulation...I don't think its quite so simple. I think the problem is that deregulation inacted 5 years ago was disasterous. But I don't know that wholesale regulation in today's difficult banking environment is also the right step. Its not about the party in power...its about the timing vis a vis the economy.



Frankly I think most agree. The problem is that during the previous administration there was not enough criticism of the govt based on where we ended up. And on the other hand, those most critical of today's govt have lost their credibility (Fox, right wing radio) because they criticize everything on the left and are therefore irrelevant for policy.

What flavor Kool aid you drinking today? The media were tame during the Bush administration but they're not tame now? And Fox has "lost its credibility" because "they criticize everything on the left?" It's a good thing the hard left media (General Betrayus) offered a more balanced approach.

In your dreams Fox is irrelevant. If that were the case, why are Barack Nixon and his thugs working so feverishly to diminish Fox's impact. Van Jones? ACORN? Unreliable projections on the cost of Obamacare?

Earlier today I posted an article from the NYT and they seem to be getting it. We should all praise the WH pool news directors for telling Obama and his brown shirts to stuff it. It is utterly amazing to me the exception to the usual First Amendment boilerplate rhetoric you guys are willing to carve out for Fox. Mumiya Abu Jamal's First Amendment rights need to be carefully protected, but Fox, not so much.

Buckley once said it (correctly): liberals will defend to the death your right to disagree with them. They're always just so surprised anybody would.