Worst President in U.S. History

[Flash]

The rightwing denial in this thread would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Of course the leftwing denial is worse.

The Democrats passed the CRA when that idiot Carter was President and years later it comes back and bites this country in the ass big time almost collapsing our economy. Who would have ever thunk that using government pressure to give credit (for social justice reasons) to to people that neither had the means or the inclination to pay back the money would tank our economy? Answer: not the Liberals. They never think about the consequences of their failed policies.

The CRA was enhanced during the Clinton administration but when Barney Queerboy, Obama, Peloski and Reid took over Congress after the 2006 election it really was able to do its damage.

After that it was just poor management by the Democrats. Bush was an idiot going along with the Democrats in 2007 and 2008. However, when that shithead Obama took over it got worse and we still haven't recovered.

Meanwhile the Democrats have given us a poor recovery, tremendously more debt, much larger destructive government, lowest workforce participation in 40 years, very high U-6 unemployment, highest poverty rate ever, most number of people on welfare, more taxes, worse health care and declining family income , not to mention a really shitty foreign policy. Thanks a lot Obama.

Now these butt pirates Democrats didn't do it all by themselves. The Republicans didn't stop the Democrats so they are partially responsible. When you elect big government shitheads whether they be Republican or Democrats you always get bad government.

How many times must this be debunked for a conservative to learn?

Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) contribute to foreclosures and the financial crisis? And, is the CRA being reformed?

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.​

How many time will the Libtards go into denial about the CRA?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if the filthy ass government puts pressure on lending institutions to give credit (for social justice reasons) to shitheads that neither have the means or the inclination to pay back the money then there will bad consequences.

Only in Moon Bat Land do you have that denial.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis
As opposed to a desperate liberal legend.

The fact is that neither political party, and no administration, is blameless; the honest answer, as outlined below, is that government policy over many years caused this problem. The regulators, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, were the enforcers of the reduced lending standards that were essential to the growth in home ownership and the housing bubble.


THERE ARE TWO KEY EXAMPLES of this misguided government policy. One is the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The other is the affordable housing “mission” that the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were charged with fulfilling.


Here is another article Moon Bat. I could most more if you want.

Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider

Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending


What's more, an enormous amount of subprime loans were made to lower-income borrowers target by the CRA. Forty-five percent of subprime loan originations went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lowerr-income neighborhoods in 2005 and 2006, where the foreclosures are almost twice as likely. This suggests that the kind of low income borrowers targeted by the CRA are likely to be responsible for the majority of subprime foreclosures.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.

You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.

Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.

 

[Flash]

When you see Liberals deny that the CRA caused the credit failure they are doing the ole "mybabydidntdonutin" bullshit.

They never take responsibility for the damage they do to this country. Never.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.

You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.

Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.

They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.

If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.

 

[Andylusion]

Right, because liberals have been so honest in debt negotiations, they say if you just give us more of your money we'll hold the line on spending. Never happened, never will. Every penny spent by the feds should be reflected in the budget, no off books expenditures and no base line budgeting. Let the citizens see exactly what shape we're in. Both parties are complicit and it needs to stop.

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Remember HOW Clinton got 4 surpluses, 3 AFTER vetoing the GOP $792= billion tax cut?

PLEASE don't go to the canard about Ronnie Reagan, I don't want to have to embarrass you!

So your saying the national debt declined during those 4 fantasy surpluses? Let's do a honesty and reality check here.

Bush said he was giving us a tax rebate upon entering office because there was a surplus. Are you saying he was lying? Should he not have given us that rebate?

Any asshole politician who claims the federal government is running a surplus is a liar, you don't run a surplus until you've paid all outstanding obligations and have money left over.

Meanwhile, that's exactly what Bush did. Did you vote for him anyway?

I agree with the prior poster, and your assessment.

Was there a surplus? Well the most obvious way to find out if there was a surplus, is to look at the total national debt, and if the amount goes up, then clearly there was not.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

The US Treasury, is the final authority on how much debt is outstanding, obviously because they are the ones paying back, and issuing the debt to being with.

From the table on that link, you can clearly see the debt increased year over year. That would be impossible if there was a surplus.

The problem is, the Admininstration used cooked numbers and fuzzy math to make it look like there was a surplus.

That got politicians scrambling over each other on how to spend it, or cut taxes.

I have never supported tax rebates. I do however support tax cuts, and I support cutting government spending.

Bush did cut taxes, which I support. He also said he supported allowing people to invest their social security money in their own investments.

It was primarily these two issues that prompted my vote for Bush.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

late to the party but...

IMO worst President ever .... this Hussein Obama, the community leader.

It can not get worse than that I don't think.

as much as you would think it wouldnt,it will.as long as we have this corrupt two party system of dedmopublicans and reprocrats each president that gets n from here on out will be worse than the previous one as same as it has been since 1980.

 

[KissMy]

When you see Liberals deny that the CRA caused the credit failure they are doing the ole "mybabydidntdonutin" bullshit.

They never take responsibility for the damage they do to this country. Never.

The Low Wage, Max Barrow, Home Ownership Society is what destroyed the economy!

 

[Flash]

When you see Liberals deny that the CRA caused the credit failure they are doing the ole "mybabydidntdonutin" bullshit.

They never take responsibility for the damage they do to this country. Never.

The Low Wage, Max Barrow, Home Ownership Society is what destroyed the economy!

Wages should to be set by the free market not the filthy ass government.

Lending institutions in the US did fine until the filthy ass government decided to put pressure on the lending institutions to give credit (for social justice reasons) to people that neither had the means or inclination to ever pay back the money.

Credit for homes ownership should be given to the people that have the means and responsibility to pay back the money, not given to minorities because they are potential Democrat voters.

The filthy ass government needs to stay out of the business of manipulating the economy for the benefit of the party in power.

 

[Dad2three]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

Smoke and mirrors.....Maybe less people are applying for unemployment benefits. Does that mean more aren't unemployed and getting no income at all? Does that mean more aren't underemployed? Does that mean people have greatly increased their assets? Does that somehow erase the fact that Obama has stolen trillions from the American people? Does that erase the chaos that Obama is facilitating in the Middle East? Does that erase Obama's racist politics? Does that erase Obama's corruption at all levels of government?

Honestly, there are some good things going on in America while Obama happens to be at the helm. But let's not pretend that this country doesn't have the cancer still.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wing EVER have??

Only morons (like yourself) argue a series of cogent points by posting kiddy toons.

You and the rights inability to accept that after 8 years of Dubya/GOP job creator policies the US was falling off a cliff, AND it's 100% on Obama's shoulders the day he stepped into office. *shaking head*


You Klowns have amnesia of Dubya and Ronnie Reagan (most corrupt admin in modern times)

Go ahead and find me anywhere in this thread where I've argued on behalf of the GOP. I'm not a zombie like you, dumbfuck.

No Bubba, YOU just deflect for Dubya and attack Obama for the shit hole he left US in. Dishonest POS!

 

[Dad2three]

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Remember HOW Clinton got 4 surpluses, 3 AFTER vetoing the GOP $792= billion tax cut?

PLEASE don't go to the canard about Ronnie Reagan, I don't want to have to embarrass you!

So your saying the national debt declined during those 4 fantasy surpluses? Let's do a

Simpleton. Off budget doesn't mean it's hidden. Grow up and grow a brain Bubba!

Yearly budgets are different than debt, perhaps don't get your economic advice from a computer programmer??

honesty and reality check here.

Bush said he was giving us a tax rebate upon entering office because there was a surplus. Are you saying he was lying? Should he not have given us that rebate?

Any asshole politician who claims the federal government is running a surplus is a liar, you don't run a surplus until you've paid all outstanding obligations and have money left over.

Got it, an ignorant tool conflating a yearly budget versus debt. Shocking

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'Budget Surplus'

When spending exceeds income, the result is a budget deficit, which must be financed by borrowing money and paying interest on the borrowed funds, much like an individual spending more than he can afford and carrying a balance on a credit card. A balanced budget occurs when spending equals income. The U.S. government has only had a budget surplus in a few years since 1950. The Clinton administration (1993-2001) famously cured a large budget deficit and created a surplus in the late 1990s.

Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia

More freaking word games, they should have said, A balanced budget occurs when on budget spending equals on budget income, the deficit does not reflect the total debt incurred by the federal government in a given year.

The fact is the federal government has carried a national debt most of it's existence and just servicing that debt will rise to near 1 trillion a year, in fact if there is a hiccup in interest rates it could exceed that. So just keep playing your word games, they won't mitigate the on coming disaster.

MORE nonsense. Shocking. A yearly balanced budget, surplus OR deficit is created through ALL spending in a given year, whether through normal yearly budgets OR off-budge, debt is ONLY a byproduct of it, NOTHING to do with whether income coming in versus go out are balanced or in deficit. Weird you don';t know that? Oh right the conservatives get most of their economic advice from guys who barely made it through high school, Rush, Hannity and Beck!

 

[Dad2three]

The rightwing denial in this thread would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Of course the leftwing denial is worse.

The Democrats passed the CRA when that idiot Carter was President and years later it comes back and bites this country in the ass big time almost collapsing our economy. Who would have ever thunk that using government pressure to give credit (for social justice reasons) to people that neither had the means or the inclination to pay back the money would tank our economy? Answer: not the Liberals. They never think about the consequences of their failed policies.

The CRA was enhanced during the Clinton administration but when Barney Queerboy, Obama, Peloski and Reid took over Congress after the 2006 election it really was able to do its damage.

After that it was just poor management by the Democrats. Bush was an idiot going along with the Democrats in 2007 and 2008. However, when that shithead Obama took over it got worse and we still haven't recovered.

Meanwhile the Democrats have given us a poor recovery, tremendously more debt, much larger destructive government, lowest workforce participation in 40 years, very high U-6 unemployment, highest poverty rate ever, most number of people on welfare, more taxes, worse health care and declining family income , not to mention a really shitty foreign policy. Thanks a lot Obama.

Now these butt pirates Democrats didn't do it all by themselves. The Republicans didn't stop the Democrats so they are partially responsible. When you elect big government shitheads whether they be Republican or Democrats you always get bad government.

RIGHT WING NONSENSE. SHOCKING


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "



http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

Bush's documented policies and statements in time frame leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2003)
Giving away 40,000 PER YEAR free down payments (2004)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT THESE BILLS THE DEMS PASSED JAN 2007-JAN 2009 THAT CRASHED THE US ECONOMY?? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

[

Thanks for demonstrating you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. First of all, FDR did not run circles around Reagan managing debt. He ballooned the debt due to the Great Depression and fighting WWII. That you don'don't understand that reveals how out of touch with reality you are. This is why no one compares presidents with nominal figures. The dollar in 1945 was not worth the same as it was it 1988 or in 2000.

Further contributing to your idiocy in comparing Reagan to Clinton, you ignore the reality that the debt under Reagan was because Reagan increased the deficit in most years he was president. Whereas the debt was as high as it was under Clinton because he inherited a very large deficit. Clinton reduced the deficit every year.

If anybody is out of touch with reality it is you.

FDR screwed up this country tremendously with his big government pro labor policies, just like every Democrat and a few Republicans.

The Great Depression was worldwide. However, most countries got out of it pretty quickly but it lingered on for years and years in the US thanks to FDR.

Some economist from UCLA did some research and figured it out.

FDR s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years UCLA economists calculate UCLA

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

Gosh, you have AEI's talking points good for you Bubba





Debunking the "FDR Failed" Myth


Did the New Deal's "massive government intervention prolong the Great Depression?"

Ummm ... no.

On deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt's term -- four years marked by spectacular economic growth.

The first four years of FDR's presidency, after the economy stabilized in his first months in 1933, saw uninterrupted job growth and spectacular growth in GDP, which rose between 8.9 and 12% in each of those years.

Production rocketed by 44 percent in the first three months of the New Deal and, by December 1936, had completely recovered to surpass its 1929 peak. It [GDP] stabilized in 1933, and then soared by 10.8 percent, 8.9 percent and 12.0 percent, respectively, in 1934, 1935 and 1936. Real GDP surpassed its 1929 peak in 1936 and never again fell below it. After-tax personal income, consumer spending, real private investment and jobs all reached or surpassed their 1929 peaks by late 1936.

....As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending, and the economy went back down again."

"Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes UC Davis historian Eric Rauchway.

 

[Dana7360]

Bush signed a continuing resolution in September, 2008 for the first half of FY2009. He owns all spending for that period with the exception of spending bills Obama signed. On top of that, he also passed TARP during that same period. Bush owns that as well.

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.

Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.

Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.

If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.

So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.

The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.

 

[Dana7360]

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:

Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days Fact Left

No they didn't.

Sorry but Al Franken wasn't sworn in until July 2009. By that time Senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. Yes we had the 60 seats but we didn't have the 60 people actually in those seats to vote so the republican endless filibuster was not broken.

 

[Dad2three]

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Again, Obama wasn't even president for almost a third of FY2009. But walk me through this ... a budget is a law ... the House is granted Constitutional authority to initiate all spending bills ... explain how an incoming president can unilaterally "repeal" the existing budget approved and signed into law by the previous president and congress....?

Because the budget, i.e., the annual appropriations, were not yet signed into law. They were not passed by Congress and not signed by the President.

Yes, BECAUSE the US federal Gov't would just stop on a dime right? Fkkking dishonest cons today!


Why is it EVERY other US Prez accepts responsibility for their first budget AFTER they are in office and get their players in place with the next fiscal year budget, but Obama, he had super powers and accepts responsibility for most of Dubya's final and 8th fiscal year budget??? lol

Because he signed the final approps bill for that year AND because his party was in power in Congress and they set it up so he could do that.

MORE right wing nonsense. Shocking


AGAIN, Dubya, like every other US Prez isn't responsible for the 8th and final F/Y budget BECAUSE he chose to evade signing it? lol The F/Y that started 4 months prior to Obama coming into office and that the CBO predicted was $1.2+ trillion in deficit 12 days pre Obama? *shaking head*

Gawdddmn POS conservatives!

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.

You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.

Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.

They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.

If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.

You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.

Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.

Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.

If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.

So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.

The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.

You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?

 

[Dad2three]

The rightwing denial in this thread would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Of course the leftwing denial is worse.

The Democrats passed the CRA when that idiot Carter was President and years later it comes back and bites this country in the ass big time almost collapsing our economy. Who would have ever thunk that using government pressure to give credit (for social justice reasons) to to people that neither had the means or the inclination to pay back the money would tank our economy? Answer: not the Liberals. They never think about the consequences of their failed policies.

The CRA was enhanced during the Clinton administration but when Barney Queerboy, Obama, Peloski and Reid took over Congress after the 2006 election it really was able to do its damage.

After that it was just poor management by the Democrats. Bush was an idiot going along with the Democrats in 2007 and 2008. However, when that shithead Obama took over it got worse and we still haven't recovered.

Meanwhile the Democrats have given us a poor recovery, tremendously more debt, much larger destructive government, lowest workforce participation in 40 years, very high U-6 unemployment, highest poverty rate ever, most number of people on welfare, more taxes, worse health care and declining family income , not to mention a really shitty foreign policy. Thanks a lot Obama.

Now these butt pirates Democrats didn't do it all by themselves. The Republicans didn't stop the Democrats so they are partially responsible. When you elect big government shitheads whether they be Republican or Democrats you always get bad government.

How many times must this be debunked for a conservative to learn?

Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) contribute to foreclosures and the financial crisis? And, is the CRA being reformed?

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.​

How many time will the Libtards go into denial about the CRA?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if the filthy ass government puts pressure on lending institutions to give credit (for social justice reasons) to shitheads that neither have the means or the inclination to pay back the money then there will bad consequences.

Only in Moon Bat Land do you have that denial.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis
As opposed to a desperate liberal legend.

The fact is that neither political party, and no administration, is blameless; the honest answer, as outlined below, is that government policy over many years caused this problem. The regulators, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, were the enforcers of the reduced lending standards that were essential to the growth in home ownership and the housing bubble.


THERE ARE TWO KEY EXAMPLES of this misguided government policy. One is the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The other is the affordable housing “mission” that the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were charged with fulfilling.


Here is another article Moon Bat. I could most more if you want.

Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider

Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending


What's more, an enormous amount of subprime loans were made to lower-income borrowers target by the CRA. Forty-five percent of subprime loan originations went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lowerr-income neighborhoods in 2005 and 2006, where the foreclosures are almost twice as likely. This suggests that the kind of low income borrowers targeted by the CRA are likely to be responsible for the majority of subprime foreclosures.

GET OFF AEI'S ED PINTO/PETER WALLISONS FAKE NUMBERS BUBBA. Grow a brain


Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

But that dog that didn't bark.




The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.





Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom


•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up - The Washington Post


THIS WAS CAUSED BY A 30+ YEAR OLD LAW??? LOL

 

[Wry Catcher]

Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.

You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.

Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.

They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.

If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.

You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.

Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.

You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.

Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.

They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.

If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.

You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.

List the problems caused by President Obama:

 

[AmericanGirl05]

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Again, Obama wasn't even president for almost a third of FY2009. But walk me through this ... a budget is a law ... the House is granted Constitutional authority to initiate all spending bills ... explain how an incoming president can unilaterally "repeal" the existing budget approved and signed into law by the previous president and congress....?

Because the budget, i.e., the annual appropriations, were not yet signed into law. They were not passed by Congress and not signed by the President.

Yes, BECAUSE the US federal Gov't would just stop on a dime right? Fkkking dishonest cons today!


Why is it EVERY other US Prez accepts responsibility for their first budget AFTER they are in office and get their players in place with the next fiscal year budget, but Obama, he had super powers and accepts responsibility for most of Dubya's final and 8th fiscal year budget??? lol

Because he signed the final approps bill for that year AND because his party was in power in Congress and they set it up so he could do that.

MORE right wing nonsense. Shocking


AGAIN, Dubya, like every other US Prez isn't responsible for the 8th and final F/Y budget BECAUSE he chose to evade signing it? lol The F/Y that started 4 months prior to Obama coming into office and that the CBO predicted was $1.2+ trillion in deficit 12 days pre Obama? *shaking head*

Gawdddmn POS conservatives!

Bush did not evade signing it, you fool. Congress did not present him with full year appropriations.

They intentionally waited till Obama took office to pass the full year approps.

You are too stupid and obtuse on this issue to post to.