Archive

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1256743 wrote:That's fair but it still wasn't big enough given the massive economic contraction (which you've alluded to). In today's dollars, WWII was about $3 trillion stimulus. Additionally, this isn't you're father's deficit spending which was done with productive activity...in a lot of ways we're paying the unemployed to sit around and leaving revenue off the table to pay down private debt.

    Additionally, the state's enacting the largest spending cuts since the de-mobilization after the Korean War have offset the work of the stimulus and large deficits at the federal level. God bless federalism!

    I mean we've got a little something to show for it though. We could be the UK who have a full blown recession from following the advice of our resident conservatives here but hey...it's not like the CBO says our own austerity next year is going to cause a recession...oh wait.
    TARP-$700 billion
    Stimulus-$800 billion
    GM/Chrys Bailout-$80 billion

    That's almost $1.6 trillion and zero was accomplished, are you really saying that if it was doubled all the world would be happy and well?

    On top of that, we EASILY spent another $3+ trillion in deficit spending (extension of unemployment benefits, investments in companies like Solyndra, etc) that account for realistically $5+ trillion in spending since 2008 to appease the Keynesian's answer to fix the economy.

    How has that worked for us? It hasn't one bit.

    Einstein's definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again expecting different results. This country is insane to stick with the current spending policies.

    I have no believe that either candidate will fix spending, but one of them has a about a 1% better chance of doing so.
  • QuakerOats
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/03/with-landmark-lawsuit-barack-obama-pushed-banks-to-give-subprime-loans-to-chicagos-african-americans/


    imagine that
  • jhay78
    If I hear him say "Republicans" and "policies that got us here in the first place" in the same sentence one more time, I might just go off the deep end. The largest part of what "got us here in the first place" was the housing collapse; turns out BHO was a major contributor.
  • BoatShoes
    jhay78;1261352 wrote:If I hear him say "Republicans" and "policies that got us here in the first place" in the same sentence one more time, I might just go off the deep end. The largest part of what "got us here in the first place" was the housing collapse; turns out BHO was a major contributor.
    facepalm
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1261357 wrote:facepalm
    Facepalm at his statement that the housing callapse was the largest part or that BHO was a major contributor?

    I don't think the first statement is debatable, the housing collapse was THE major cause of the recession.
  • jhay78
    BoatShoes;1261357 wrote:facepalm
    Seriously, I keep hearing him say Romney wants to take us back to "the same policies that got us here in the first place". Does Romney want to force banks to give sub-prime mortgages to people (mostly minorities) who are not in a position to pay them back?
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1261390 wrote:Facepalm at his statement that the housing callapse was the largest part or that BHO was a major contributor?

    I don't think the first statement is debatable, the housing collapse was THE major cause of the recession.
    Second.
  • BoatShoes
    jhay78;1261883 wrote:Seriously, I keep hearing him say Romney wants to take us back to "the same policies that got us here in the first place". Does Romney want to force banks to give sub-prime mortgages to people (mostly minorities) who are not in a position to pay them back?
    Do you know what Redlining is? No Bank in America was ever forced, compelled or otherwise thrust upon against their will to lend money to poor minorities. Neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama wants to compel banks to lend to people who can't afford it. The lawsuit that Barack Obama worked as counsel on was not a major contributor to the housing crisis and neither was the movement against redlining as the crisis was largely an ex-urban event.
  • fish82
    BoatShoes;1261913 wrote:Do you know what Redlining is? No Bank in America was ever forced, compelled or otherwise thrust upon against their will to lend money to poor minorities. Neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama wants to compel banks to lend to people who can't afford it. The lawsuit that Barack Obama worked as counsel on was not a major contributor to the housing crisis and neither was the movement against redlining as the crisis was largely an ex-urban event.
    You can make the case that he wasn't a "major contributor." What you can't do, is defend his hypocrisy in demonizing the same practices he sued for.
  • jhay78
    
    BoatShoes;1261913 wrote:Do you know what Redlining is? No Bank in America was ever forced, compelled or otherwise thrust upon against their will to lend money to poor minorities. Neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama wants to compel banks to lend to people who can't afford it. The lawsuit that Barack Obama worked as counsel on was not a major contributor to the housing crisis and neither was the movement against redlining as the crisis was largely an ex-urban event.
    Ehh, maybe "major contributor" was a little over the top. But banks were indeed nudged (not by Obama) to give more mortgages inside the redlines:
    [LEFT]The anti-redlining campaign scored repeated courtroom victories, and also drove Congress to pass the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977.

    Congress repeatedly expanded the law, and in combination with a 1994 “Joint Statement” by Clinton’s regulators, effectively gave progressives in government the power to paralyze — and atrophy — any bank’s business if it did not increase mortgages inside the redlines.

    Citibank felt that power in April 1998, when it sought federal approval for a merger with Travelers Group. It only got approval from the Clinton administration progressives after it promised in May to provide $115 billion for anti-redlining loans.

    [LEFT]Executives at numerous other merging banks were also submitting to the progressives’ top-down terms. Their anti-redlining promises added up to $600 billion between 1993 and 1998, according to a 2000 Treasury Department report.

    Before striking its deal with the federal government progressives, Citibank got rid of the Chicago lawsuit by paying off the Chicago lawyers.
    [/LEFT]

    [/LEFT]
    In a normal universe these things would be more a topic of discussion than Mitt Romney's tax returns, but whatever.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/05/coal-plant-closures-will-lead-to-increased-energy-rates-critics-say/

    obama's War on Coal rages on ..... plants shut down, consumers will pay the price in most goods, and thousands more will lose their jobs.

    Change we can believe in ....
  • Cleveland Buck
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1262171 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/05/coal-plant-closures-will-lead-to-increased-energy-rates-critics-say/

    obama's War on Coal rages on ..... plants shut down, consumers will pay the price in most goods, and thousands more will lose their jobs.

    Change we can believe in ....
    If it means I breath cleaner air, fine by me. Plants seem to be old. If that is the case, invest in new plants and then reorganize the coal company's structure to better protect the coal industry as a whole as it moves to newer plants.
    I'm more willing to pay a few bucks more for cleaner air. Just me I guess.
    Cleveland Buck;1262181 wrote:
    Man, that is a creepy National Review cover. Waaaaay too over the top.
  • Cleveland Buck
    ptown_trojans_1;1262215 wrote: Man, that is a creepy National Review cover. Waaaaay too over the top.
    The Trotskyites in charge over there just went to back to one of their old favorites.
  • Footwedge
    jhay78;1261883 wrote: Seriously, I keep hearing him say Romney wants to take us back to "the same policies that got us here in the first place". Does Romney want to force banks to give sub-prime mortgages to people (mostly minorities) who are not in a position to pay them back?
    Only you and Rush Limbaugh believe this nonsense. SMH at ignorance on this subject.
  • jhay78
    Footwedge;1262261 wrote:Only you and Rush Limbaugh believe this nonsense. SMH at ignorance on this subject.
    Obama's Justice Dept, from a year ago:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904199404576538283776006582.html
    The 1990s may have brought us supercharged politicized lending, but Eric Holder's Department of Justice is taking the game to an entirely new level, and then some. The weapon is a "fair lending" unit created in early 2010, led by special counsel Eric Halperin and overseen by Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez.

    A sampling of Mr. Perez's thinking, from April 2010 congressional testimony: "The foreclosure crisis has touched virtually every community in this country, but it disproportionately touches communities of color, in particular African-Americans and Latinos." And: "[C]ross burnings are the most overt form of discrimination and bigotry. Lending discrimination is some of the most subtle. It's what I call discrimination with a smile."

    Even for the Obama administration's antidiscrimination cops, this is a shocker: A political appointee who's supposed to neutrally enforce the law loosely equates bankers with Klu Klux Klan thugs. But let's move from what may be Mr. Perez's personal bias, and focus on the broader brush strokes of the Justice Department—which seem designed to paint bankers into a corner.

    Lenders who discriminate on the basis of race and those who make decisions on the basis of credit scores are two entirely different animals. The former our society doesn't permit, for moral reasons; the latter we encourage because it's fundamental to capitalism. A lender will go bust if he can't distinguish between a risky loan and a good loan. Poor people aren't well-served by getting loans they can't afford.

    Historically, fair-lending cases have fallen into roughly two categories: "price discrimination" cases, in which lenders are accused of charging minorities higher prices than other clients, and "red-lining" suits, in which they are accused of intentionally failing to serve minority communities. Sounds straightforward for those who seek to obey the law.


    But not when Justice revives "disparate impact" theory: the idea that even if lenders don't actively discriminate, they can still be sued if the cumulative effect of their actions implies discrimination. The latter is usually "proved" through statistical analysis (and the old standard—discriminatory intent—is thrown out the window). The Bush administration largely declined to pursue these cases.

    And for good reason. Consider two AIG subsidiaries that Justice alleged "failed to supervise or monitor brokers in setting broker fees" between 2003 and 2006, but that Justice didn't pursue aggressively until the Obama administration. The government claimed that, in aggregate, African-Americans were charged more than other ethnic groups. AIG settled in March 2010 while it was under federal ownership, and Mr. Perez gained a big legal stick in price-discrimination cases. Suddenly lenders may be held liable for other people's business practices, even if those business practices aren't individually discriminatory.
    Pretty simple- banks can be sued for implied racial discrimination, even if prospective borrowers carry bigger risks.
  • QuakerOats
    P-town --- we all appreciate clean air. But we are now dealing with pretty clean coal, and beyond that, there is little utility in reducing particulate measurements down to such minute amounts that it doesn't make a difference anyhow. I have seen EPA whackos want to measure items to such a fine degree (as in parts per trillion) that there is not even such a mechanism to test at such levels; it is frankly absurd.

    We can do a whole lot better than walk away from a minimum 500 year supply of coal, and in turn cause electric rates to double, triple etc.... not to mention the cost of everything else which is made with electricity.

    This war on coal is really about the twisted ideology of the radicals in EPA and the environmental movement who simply abhor fossil fuels and have a strong dislike of American capitalism, especially capitalism fueled by fossil fuels. Most of these folks come from liberal elite backgrounds, have never stepped foot in eastern Ohio or West Virginia (actually would never think of doing so), and have no real idea of how to deliver energy efficiently. They would much rather simply shut down plants in the name of their religion - environmentalism.
  • jhay78
    State Dept again dodges the question of the capital of Israel:

    http://www.therightscoop.com/today-obama-admin-once-again-refuses-to-recognize-jerusalem-as-the-capital-of-israel/

    At this point they may as well break out a recorded robotic response to this type of question, because these news conferences are pretty embarrassing:
    Despite changing the Democratic Party platform, the Obama administration during a State Department briefing again today refused to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (via Weekly Standard)
    [INDENT]QUESTION: On Israel?

    MR. VENTRELL: Yeah.

    QUESTION: Which city does the U.S. Government recognize as the capital in the – Israel?

    MR. VENTRELL: Well, as you know, longstanding Administration policy, both in this Administration and in previous administrations across both parties, is that the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. So that’s longstanding Administration policy and continues to be so.

    QUESTION: I mean, no city is recognized as a capital by the U.S. Government?

    MR. VENTRELL: Again, I just stated our position, and it’s one we’ve said here many times before.

    QUESTION: That means Jerusalem is not a part of Israel?

    MR. VENTRELL: What it means is that the status of Jerusalem must be resolved in final status negotiations.

    QUESTION: But you do have an Embassy in a city which is not Jerusalem.

    MR. VENTRELL: Our Embassy is in Tel Aviv, and we have a Consulate General in Jerusalem.

    QUESTION: Right. But I mean, if you have an Embassy, usually it’s in the capital; so therefore, it would appear that you believe that Tel Aviv is the capital.

    MR. VENTRELL: What we believe is that the status of Jerusalem should be determined in final status negotiations between the two parties. And currently, our Embassy is in Tel Aviv.

    QUESTION: Are there any other countries in the world where the U.S. doesn’t know what the capital is or won’t say what the capital of a country is?

    QUESTION: What does the U.S. think the capital of Israel is? What do you –

    MR. VENTRELL: As I’ve just said, we believe that the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status –

    QUESTION: I’m not asking you that question. I’m asking you what you think the capital is.

    MR. VENTRELL: And my response is that Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations.

    QUESTION: She didn’t ask about Jerusalem, though.

    MR. VENTRELL: Look, this is something we’ve been through at this podium. Toria has been through it before. We’ve repeated it many times. You know that the position is. It hasn’t changed for decades.

    QUESTION: Wait, I know that. And I don’t want to play the verbal game, I’m just very curious if you actually have a position about a capital of that country. And if you don’t, if – I just would like to hear you say you don’t.

    MR. VENTRELL: Well, right now, Nicole –

    QUESTION: Yes.

    MR. VENTRELL: – the situation is that we have an Embassy in Tel Aviv that represents our interests with the Government of Israel but that the issue of Jerusalem is one that has to be resolved between the two parties. That’s all I can say on this.

    Anything else? Thank you
    [/INDENT]
  • pmoney25
    What does it matter what the United States believes to be the Capital of Israel?
  • tk421
    Are the Democrats looking to lose this election? Calling for a new "assault" weapons ban in their official party platform.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-party-platform-reinstate-assault-weapons-ban/article/2506820#.UElQ9SIvRH4
  • gut
    tk421;1263380 wrote:Are the Democrats looking to lose this election? Calling for a new "assault" weapons ban in their official party platform.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-party-platform-reinstate-assault-weapons-ban/article/2506820#.UElQ9SIvRH4
    As if anyone, even Dems, actually pays attention to the platform.

    But, yeah, add gun laws to my Axis of Irrelevance (abortion, gay marriage and gun laws). I think those issues are popular with politicians because they can give an unaccountable opinion. For or against the arguments are always the same and nothing ever changes.
  • tk421
    I can guarantee that the NRA and the gun owners take notice if the Democrats officially announce their intentions to implement another gun ban. Nothing will fire up the Republican base quicker. They may not be enthusiastic about Romney, but they'll vote for him to keep the Dems from doing another AWB.
  • gut
    tk421;1263391 wrote:I can guarantee that the NRA and the gun owners take notice if the Democrats officially announce their intentions to implement another gun ban. Nothing will fire up the Republican base quicker. They may not be enthusiastic about Romney, but they'll vote for him to keep the Dems from doing another AWB.
    OK, yeah, I can't disagree.

    That also begs the question...We've heard rumors that Obama is not popular or well-liked in Dem circles. It's not possible that the platform was a deliberate sabotage attempt, is it? The three issues we're discussing - is there any logical justification to include them? Was not including them really going to cost them any votes?
  • Cleveland Buck
    pmoney25;1263378 wrote:What does it matter what the United States believes to be the Capital of Israel?
    It is incredible how the propaganda has been absorbed by the population. Israel can name whatever the fuck they want to be their capital. I couldn't care less. I'm worried about what is going on in this country.
  • believer
    ptown_trojans_1;1262215 wrote:If it means I breath cleaner air, fine by me. Plants seem to be old. If that is the case, invest in new plants and then reorganize the coal company's structure to better protect the coal industry as a whole as it moves to newer plants.
    I'm more willing to pay a few bucks more for cleaner air. Just me I guess.
    Coal-fired power plants in this country have already been super-regulated by state and federal EPA agencies to upgrade existing systems to include scrubbers to minimize emissions regardless of plant age.

    This is not about "dirty old coal plants". It's about shutting down fossil fuel power production under the largely bogus notion of man-made global warming - er - I mean climate change.

    I used to get into debates with my brother's father-in-law who retired from the now defunct Peabody Coal Company. Peabody was huge into supplying plentiful inexpensive Ohio coal to central and southeastern Ohio power plants. He was a union boy who loathed anything to do with Republicans. I tried to get him to see that the Dems he blindly supported for years contributed to pushing through the very restrictive mining regulations that eventually put his company and thousands of good paying jobs out of business.

    Now these same type of environmental extremists are trying to put the remaining coal-fired power plants out of business. In an era when we depend too much on foreign sources of fuel, and when we refuse to invest in develop our nuclear power capabilities, it's simply nonsensical of us to turn our backs on centuries worth of cheap, plentiful domestic coal reserves as a vital part of our nation's growing demand for energy.

    We should continue to develop environmentally friendly ways to extract and burn that coal, but it's nothing short of irresponsible to shut it down in the name of alleged man-made global warming.