Obama = worst president in history?

Yep two years after the Republicans lost the Congress to the Democrats during which time they massively increased the deficits and failed to pass any policies to stem the job loses.

And what did the Democrats do to stop the fall? They had been in control of Congress for two years spending like drunken sailors and threatening huge tax increases and regulations to put coal out of business and refused to acknowledge the mortgage crisis and pass legislation that would have stop that bleeding.

And what did they do and what have they done to get the economy going again and people back to work? Nothing. What do they propose? Higher taxes and more people out of work and higher deficits.

So why do you oppose policies that produce full employment for 52 months and soaring revenues and $161B deficits? Why do you support double digit unemployment, trillion dollar deficits and GDP below 2% and falling? That's what you voted for.

 

Who held power when the housing bubble blew up to absurd levels and started imploding?



Hint: It wasn't Clinton, or Carter, or Obama, or the Dems.

 

The damage was already done by 2007. See post above with housing prices.

The Dems could do little because they didn't control Congress, Bush and the Republicans did. By 2007 it was too late to do anything.

They passed intervention and stimulus bills that turned the economy around from losing 700,000 jobs a month to 32 straight months of private sector job growth with 5 million more jobs in less than three years.

So why do you support policies that squandered the rare opportunity of a surplus budget, unnecessarily ran up $5 trillion more debt, and left us with the worst freaking disaster in 80 years?

 

Hmm, one of the major drivers of the bank failure was legislation Clinton signed and one of the major drivers of the mortgage collapse was Clinton blocking derivative regulation yet that is what libs want to go back too.

 

Who refused to reign it in so it didn't have to collapse?

 

It was nothing of the sort and the housing issue could have been resolved had the Democrats not opposed measures to do so, they made they bed and now they sleep in it.

It what was and wasn't done when they took over that is the problem, and they have been in control since then and done NOTHING.

And that is a straight out lie as I have proven over and over, the job losses bottom out before the stimulus was passed let alone went into effect.

Growth to low to keep up with population and 5 million after the losses they created a horrible record.

See above, and respond to it.

Another lie.

The disaster happened after the Democrats took over 6 years ago, how long are you going to keep making phony excuses?

 

I'm sure I'll see Clinton in hell, and you can bet I'll relish the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of that LOL. As for Obama I kind of agree with you. You can't get that far without being a little corrupt, especially in the political system as it is now, but I don't think he's naturally a bad person. In fact I don't think he is a bad person at all. I think the way Congress has treated him - namely with unprecedented disdain and disrespect - forced him to become the way he did, and its a (*)(*)(*)(*) shame, because you're right, its only getting worse and they only accelerated it to the nth degree.

 

Who set the time bomb ticking?

Hint: It wasn't Bush and the Republicans.

I'm not a real fan of blaming previous administrations but, hey, it seems to work for the Obama types.

 

02/2006 +316,000 jobs over 1/2006
03/2006 +283,000 jobs over 2/2006
04/2006 +181,000 jobs over 3/2006
05/2006 + 14,000 jobs over 4/2006
06/2006 + 76,000 jobs over 5/2006
07/2006 +209,000 jobs over 6/2006
08/2006 +183,000 jobs over 7/2006
09/2006 +157,000 jobs over 8/2006
10/2006 - 9,000 jobs under 9/2006
11/2006 +204,000 jobs over 10/2006
12/2006 +171,000 jobs over 11/2006
Democrats seated with majorities in the house and the Senate
01/2007 +236,000 jobs over 12/2006
02/2007 + 93,000 jobs over 01/2007
03/2007 +190,000 jibs over 02/2007
04/2007 + 72,000 jobs over 03/2007
05/2007 +139,000 jobs over 04/2007
06/2007 + 75,000 jobs over 05/2007
07/2007 - 40,000 jobs under 06/2007
08/2007 - 18,000 jobs under 07/2007
09/2007 + 73,000 jobs over 08/2007 End of last year of Republican control of Congress. Net 1,186,000 jobs GAINED.
10/2007 + 79,000 jobs over 09/2007 First month of FY 2008, determined by all democrat Congress.
11/2007 +112,000 jobs over 10/2007
12/2007 + 89,000 jobs over 11/2007
01/2008 + 41,000 jobs over 12/2007
02/2008 - 84,000 jobs under 01/2008
03/2008 - 95,000 jobs under 02/2008
04/2008 -208,000 jobs under 03/2008
05/2008 -190,000 jobs under 04/2008
06/2008 -198,000 jobs under 05/2008
07/2008 -210,000 jobs under 06/2008
08/2008 -274,000 jobs under 07/2008
09/2008 -432,000 jobs under 08/2008. End of first FY under Democrat control of both Houses of Congress. Net loss of jobs in the Democrats year of control,

Minus 1,411,000 jobs.

and it goes rapidly DOWNHILL from there.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet Seasonally adjusted.

 

no its VERY relevent.if he doesnt sign it,those jobs CANT go overseas.grow up.no YOU are in denial!!!!!

 

yeah that would be your posts.you cant fix someone who is afraid and wont look at the facts and evidence.

 

yep thats what your posts always are,rambling nonnsense.nope FACTS that you blatantly ignore.Carter like Kennedy,ALSO tried to get rid of the CIA in his last year in office.The CIA is the reason the world is in the mess that it is.Truman who created it even later on in years said he regretted it,that it was the worst mistake he ever made in his presidency.That he created a monster.

The CIA was created initially to gather intelligence on other countrys and report it directly to the president.thats ALL it was suppose to do.But then it became an out of control dangerous agency starting covert wars that even the president did not know about and is now a POLICY MAKING FIRM for the government.

After the CIA lied to Kennedy about the bay of pigs invasion withholding from him critical information about the planned invasion making him look incompetent from the very beginning,Kennedy made a fatal mistake saying afterwards that he would smash the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the four winds.

Carter like Kennedy,ALSO tried to do the right thing for the american people and also tried to get rid of the CIA.He didnt start his plans until his last year in office so he did not have time to implement his plans.

The CIA knew carter was on his way out within the year and Reagan and their man Bushwacker would be the next president and vice president was going to be the new men in office.Bushwacker as vice president would be in thier back pocket and let them run their covert wars like they wanted to so they were thrilled to death when carter was gone and Reagan got in and allowed them to run their covert wars again.

Reagan being the willing puppet he was,was willing to turn a blind eye to the CIA'S atrocities.you'll ignore all this and say its opinion so dont expect me to read anymnore of your ramblings and nonsense since you obviously cant handle the truth.

 

When you have the last 3 before the Civil War, Warren Harding and Millard Fillmore to choose from, your list of bad doesn't really rise to the level of badness. In about 8 years from now, we'll begin to have the data to rate Obama. Not now - nor even George the II.

 

Obama for me is like an incarnation of the good cop taking over after a bad cop , it is too funny to see some users here calling him "a socialist".
Even in the most backward European country Obama would be a right wing nutjob .

 

Yep. By 2007, after 6 years of Republican control, the housing bubble had already blown up to absurd levels and housing prices were starting to crash.

It was all over but the mess it was going to cause. Facts don't lie.

[/IMG]

The did all they reasonably could given the Obstructionists, passing Tarp and Stimulus that turned an economy that was heading straight for a depression around.

Straight out lie. The job losses didn't bottom out until early 2010.

4 million more than the Bush administration over 8 years.

See my post, and respond to it.

Another lie.

The disaster happened through 2006 as the Republicans sat on their hands while the housing bubble blew up like a house of cards. See above. How long are you going to keep making phony excuses?

 

Thanks for proving what a (*)(*)(*)(*) up Bush was.

 

The folks who told us that "business can regulate itself" and sat on their hands while shoddy, unregulated lending practices blew the housing bubble up to crisis proportions. Hint: It wasn't Clinton or Carter or Obama or the Democrats.



I'm not I'm not a real fan of blaming previous administrations, but hey, it worked for the conservative types.

 

You mean the one the Republican Congress passed and then with Bush in the WH sat on their ass because they told us that business can regulate itself?

I agree we needed far more regulation. Or at least competent leadership in the WH enforcing regulations.

 

And had Obama and the Democrats not stood in the way of reform it didn't have to bust and then their failure to deal with the collapse has kept the housing market in turmoil.

TARP had been put in place, from there Obama and the Democrats have failed to deal with it.

Just more excuse making on your part.

It was Bush who got TARP passed and implimented and saved us from a financial collapse.

The economy had already rebounded before any of the stimulus went into effect and it has kept us from a full recovery ever since.

As the WSJ put it today

"Note, however, that federal spending remains at a new plateau of about $3.54 trillion, or some $800 billion more than the last pre-recession year of 2007. One way to think about this is that most of the $830 billion stimulus of 2009 has now become part of the federal budget baseline. The "emergency" spending of the stimulus has now become permanent, as we predicted it would. "

And what do we have as a result, horrible unemployment, horrible GDP, horrible deficits.

Straight out lie, the job losses the 700,000 you always cite was January of 2009 and the receded from there long before any stimulus went into effect.

Yeah because we had full employment and didn't need to create alot of new jobs DUH, what would you rather have full employment and not alot of new jobs needed or desperately high unemployment and need for LOTS of new jobs?
That being said from start to finish under Bush the civilian employment increased 4.4 million, from the start until the Democrats took over Congress 8.6 million. Obama....1.2 million.
Look it up at bls.gov.

You were asked first and have not responded

So why do you oppose policies that produce full employment for 52 months and soaring revenues and $161B deficits? Why do you support double digit unemployment, trillion dollar deficits and GDP below 2% and falling? That's what you voted for.

Dodge noted

You said ", unnecessarily ran up $5 trillion more debt "

Who controlled the budget in 2008 and 2009?
Bush total 8 years including the Obama Democrat Budgets $3.5T
Bush total 6 years Bush/Republican Budgets $1.6T
Obama/Democrat controlled Budgets $5.8T

So if you claim the deficits during the Bush years the highest during the slowdown and recession he inherited were unnecessary on what basis do you claim the Obama deficits are necessary?

Another lie and more excuses.

Obama and the Democrats have been in control since winning the Congress in 2007 and here it is 6 years later and you still try to blame the Republicans for their failure. How laughable.

 

Do you mean the bill to reform Fannie and Freddie? Please explain why the Bush administration didn't support THAT one bill. I've told you over and over so you should know it by heart by now.

 

and dont forget LBJ,NIxon,Ford.Reagan,Obama and the Bushwackers.hee hee.

you hit the nail right on the head there on what you were saying that you cant get that far without being corrupt.yeah by the time you get THAT high up to the office of the presidency,you have committed crimes along the way to get there.Obama and Romney both have ties to terrorists so they did not care which one of them got in as long as it was one of them and not ron paul since he is not controlled by wall street and the zionists and actually believes in the constitution.

I dont know about Obama.havent studied him as much but yeah with Clinton,I dont think he is as evil as Bush sr is.Bush is worse I think naturally.But based on the actions of what Clinton did while he was in office,he was more evil and more corrupt than Bush was and thats because the establishment upped the anty when he got in like they always do with presidents.

Obama may not be more evil than Bush by nature but by his actions he has been worse than Bush because he has launched more drone attacks against civilians in just his first year in office than Bush did his entire 8 years and that agin is because the establishment has upped the anty.Obama wants to stay alive so he will be their willing puppet for them and do their bidding for them.He knows if he doesnt,he will end up like kennedy who wasnt doing what he was told to do.

You cant blame half the stuff Obama has done on congress though,they werent the ones holding a gun to his head and forcing him to vote to reinstate the patriot act.and they sure as heck did not force him to keep on robert gates Bushs appointee as defense secretary or make HE LLARY secretary of state.thats ALL Obamas doing.I knew right then he was the biggest fraud of a president ever in mankind.Bush you can see right through,he is so transparent.But Obama is one clever evil bastard.see the establishment did not care if Obama or romeny got in since they both have ties to terrorists and are funded by wall street and the zionists.just as long as ron paul did not get in they were happy since he is anti war.

that cracks me up the Clinton apologists who like to shift the blame away from Clinton knowing full well that if he doesnt sign NAFTA,millions of americans dont lose their jobs to overseas.The establishment did not care if Bushwacker or his long time buddy Clinton got in because they knew they were BOTH in favor of NAFTA.

the same thing that happened with ron paul happened back then with Clinton and Bush.as long as one of those two clowns got in they were happy because they knew they were two willing puppets willing to do their bidding and would sign NAFTA.as long as Ross Perot did not get in they were happy because Perot was AGAINST NAFTA and was not a member of that evil organization the CFR that Bush,Clinton,Obama and Romney are all members of.

 

CRA did not make people give shady loans, then pass that bad debt down the line. Greed did. Put the blame where it belongs, and that's squarely on the shoulders of the bankers, lenders, realtors, and politicians(Democrats included) who made all those shady and unethical choices and whose complacency allowed it to continue.

If you actually look at the statistics for CRA, you'll find that the default rate was not much different than normal non-CRA loans. I realize that CRA tends to be the scapegoat, because it's an easy to point to leftist program for your righties to focus your loud mouths on, but facts do tend to get in the way of a good old fashioned emotional hissy fit.

 

He is still better than Jefferson Davis.

 

They didn't.


The truth is that the Democrats, which in 2003 and 2005 were the minority party in Congress with little power to do anything, supported and voted for F/F reform.

The Bush administration blocked it, giving them and the Republican sponsors of the bill "the one fingered salute."

Check this out:

Here is the vote of the Democrats on HR 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which was the *only* bill to regulate F/F to ever be passed (in 2005) by a chamber of the Republican controlled Congress.

Party - Ayes - Nays
Republican 209 15
Democratic 122 74

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll547.xml

And here is the the Bush administration's response to this, the only bill to regulate F/F ever pased by either chamber of the Republican controlled Congress:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851

"the Administration opposes the bill"


And here's a link to an article about Republican Mike Oxley, sponsor of that bill, saying how they "got a one-finger salute” from the Bush White House.

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7...077b07658.html
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/...die/index.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/one-finger-salute/

 

Obama supported it with the Dems. No thanks to the Republicans.

Baseless nonsense.

Utter fabrication.

Right wing propaganda. Spending has shrunk as a percentage of GDP every fully year Obama has been president.

You're confused.

The economy has been growing steadily for more than three straight years, the private sector has added more jobs every month for 32 months in a row, stock markets are up over 90% from their recession lows, the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to 7.9%, and almost 5 million additional private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

That is not horrible.

This, the situation when Bush left office, is horrible:

January 2009

Job loss: Worst in 34 years
Employers slashed 598,000 more jobs in January [2009] as unemployment rate climbed to 7.6%.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Employers slashed another 598,000 jobs off of U.S. payrolls in January, taking the unemployment rate up to 7.6%, according to the latest government reading on the nation's battered labor market.

The latest job loss is the worst since December 1974, and brings job losses to 1.8 million in just the last three months, or half of the 3.6 million jobs that have been lost since the beginning of 2008.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_january/index.htm

Market players were also disappointed by reports that U.S. home prices fell 8.7% year-over-year in November, U.S. housing starts fell 15.5% in December, and weekly initial jobless claims rose 62,000 to 589,000.
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2009/pi20090122_192905.htm

On Wednesday, the 30-stock Dow Jones industrial average finished with a loss of 248.42 points, or 2.94%, to 8,200[/B].

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2009/pi20090114_103250.htm

598,000 Jobs Shed In Brutal January
Unemployment Hits 7.6% as Downturn Picks Up Steam

The need for progress on those fronts seemed more important than ever yesterday, as the Labor Department announced that conditions worsened more than expected last month. The nation's employers shed 598,000 jobs, the most since 1974, driving the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent from 7.2 percent. If the jobless rate keeps rising at the pace it has for the past two months, it will hit double digits in summer and reach its highest rate since the Great Depression by the fall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020601156.html

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: FOURTH QUARTER 2008 (PRELIMINARY)
[Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 6.2 [later revised to 9.2] percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to preliminary estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2009/pdf/gdp408p.pdf

Continued Unemployment Claims at Record High
In the week ending Jan. 24, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 588,000, an increase of 3,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 585,000.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/01/continued-unemployment-claims-at-record.html

Job losses were in the 700,000+ range in the months before after during Obama taking office.

We sure didn't need to lose 4 million.

The only reason there was any job creation at all during the Bush term was because of loading up on government jobs.

See my post responding, and respond to it.

Because when Bush left office, the economy was tanking at a -9% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The housing market was destroyed and the economy was headed straight for a depression.

Why do you oppose policies where now the economy has been growing steadily for more than three straight years, the private sector has added more jobs every month for 32 months in a row, stock markets are up over 90% from their recession lows, the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to 7.9%, and almost 5 million additional private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010?

Baseless notation noted.

Who is counting 2009? Who was in the WH in 2008?

Why are you blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush left him?



Say it bleatingly.

The Great Recession Bush left.

Another lie.

Sure. Because Bush stopped being president in 2007.

Bluesguy's arguments make sense. If you revise history and ignore fact.