PDA

View Full Version : The Road We've Traveled



DiabloViejo
03-15-2012, 11:33 PM
It's a damned shame that so many people seem to have developed a strange type of amnesia about how bad things really were when President Obama took office, and how much he has accomplished since then.

I for one, am damned proud of our President.

The Road We've Traveled (http://youtu.be/2POembdArVo)

cushioncrawler
03-16-2012, 04:51 AM
And dont forget to thank the chineze.
The chineze made obama's budget halfway to being a proper keynesian solution.
If it werent for the chineze i kan tell u that the usofa would still be going down deeper into the shit.
But pretty soon, just when the usofa iz starting to look az if it aint gonna die, and when krappynomicysts all start nodding and agreeing that praps the future iz looking brighter, the sickness will linger, koz the chineze will be knocking for their dough plus interest.
HHAAAAHHHAAAAHAAHAHAHHAHAHA.
mac.

eg8r
03-16-2012, 08:23 AM
I think it is a shame that people are dumb enough to think Obama has done anything to better this economy. I stand up and salute Americans for charging forward inspite of Obama and doing what they can.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-16-2012, 09:12 AM
What is dumb is to think a 4thQ '08 nearly 9% gdp decline turned into a 3%+ gdp growth rate a quarter or two later, without crediting the president's fiscal policies.

There is absolutely not a single thing that one can point to for that gdp turnaround, which was phenomenal and never seen before in American economic history, except for his fiscal policies.

The same is true for the turnaround of the job situation. Without a plausible other cause for it, the monthly job losses decreased consistently, until there were net job gains, private sector net job gains even as government employment declined.

If you want to rationally deny Obama's fiscal policy role in this, you actually need to come up with another reason why in that very bad year of '09, any mending of the economy as to gdp growth and jobs occurred.

What is that other reason, in your view?

eg8r
03-16-2012, 12:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is dumb is to think a 4thQ '08 nearly 9% gdp decline turned into a 3%+ gdp growth rate a quarter or two later, without crediting the president's fiscal policies.
</div></div>Which specific policies do you think had this impact?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-16-2012, 01:18 PM
To prevent the collapse of banks through runs on them, Obama caused the FDIC guarantee of deposits up to $250,000 to be upped to 100% of all monies, even individual accounts well beyond that figure. Likewise, the same guarantee was given to all money market accounts. He made the implicit federal guarantee of the mortgage giants FNMA and GNMA explicit.

Without those steps, anyone holding funds in the money market, or funds above the FDIC coverage, would have pulled massive funds out of them, causing the collapse by run on the banks or money markets they feared would happen, which is why they would have done it.

And of course, his then-scored at $790 billion (later upped to $810 billion, roughly) stimulus bill, passed before January '09 was over (i.e., within a scant couple weeks of his inauguration) had both the psychological effect, and the actual fiscal effect of its beginning to be spent, and continuing to be spent over a two year period. This included about $240 billion sent to the states to support them in the fiscal hole that developed, and as Gov. Crist said, which caused him his political career shortly afterwards, kept 65,000 Florida firemen, policemen, teachers, and the like, employed when they'd otherwise have been laid off. This occurred throughout the 50 states.

Obama created and got passed a $400 a person/$800 a couple tax break, more or less immediately causing the withholding schedule to be changed to put that back into peoples' paychecks and their hands to have extra money (close to $70/month for a couple).

Later, he kept the auto industry intact instead of dissolved in bankruptcy, through a kind of structured bankruptcy the feds funded when there was no private capital appetite, and the couple hundred thousand kept working meant about 1 million jobs saved, as the jobbers and companies supplying the parts were kept in business as well.

Perhaps you meant to ask, 'OTHER THAN THOSE?,' as they are obvious and well known?

ugotda7
03-16-2012, 02:17 PM
Open your mouth and eat it up like the rest of the useful idiots......we all know you love the taste.

http://www.emailajoke.com/images/ver4/funny_pics/general/catch-poop-snowflake.jpg

DiabloViejo
03-16-2012, 04:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Open your mouth and eat it up like the rest of the useful idiots......we all know you love the taste.

http://www.emailajoke.com/images/ver4/funny_pics/general/catch-poop-snowflake.jpg </div></div>

See folks? That is the mind of a right-winger. A typical response worthy of a 12 year old boy. Nothing of any substance, no defense of his views, no addressing the subject. Just the kind of stuff that a petulant child would come up with. LMAO! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

eg8r
03-16-2012, 06:39 PM
LOL, "other than those"...If you really think that is what is driving the increase we are currently seeing then you will believe anything. I prefer to believe in the American people persevering through tough times in spite of a government getting in their way.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-17-2012, 11:07 AM
You know, I take that back. Some of those were not that well known at all, and created the 'shock' headlines back a while that said, to no one's knowledge, the Fed and the Treasury had actually 'leant (or guaranteed) $13 TRILLION dollars.'

Quite a bit larger than the known (even upwardly revised) $800 billion plus, and actually, a 'loan or guarantee' of the roughly equivalent size of the entire gdp.

This was thought to be a shocking amount of loans, because people didn't understand the guarantee part, and who and what were being guaranteed.

As I have explained above, that guarantee extended to all deposits in all FDIC-enrolled bank facilities, and all money market funds, and the roughly $5 trillion in mortgages held by the GMEs. Without those guarantees, banks and money markets would have seen capital flight that would have caused them ALL to have to close because they would have failed, and it's very hard to see how we would have had any banking system survive. All deposits of all monies anyone had would have become unusable, tied up, if there was even enough money left over for anyone to receive any back.

Having heard about this for the <s>first</s> now second time, mull it over, and tell me how a $13 trillion loan and/or guarantee did not impact the economy, and/or how it was wholly unnecessary as the plucky population would begin to reconstruct an economy based on barter and/or plunder with weapons.

eg8r
03-17-2012, 02:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some of those were not that well known at all, and created the 'shock' headlines back a while that said, to no one's knowledge, the Fed and the Treasury had actually 'leant (or guaranteed) $13 TRILLION dollars.'
</div></div>The way this is worded you would have people believe we are loaning out more money than we have or will have any point in the future. Doesn't sound too good to prop up the preggo mommy just to kill her before the baby is born.

eg8r

LWW
03-19-2012, 03:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To prevent the collapse of banks through runs on them, Obama caused the FDIC guarantee of deposits up to $250,000 to be upped to 100% of all monies, even individual accounts well beyond that figure. </div></div>
Actually ... that was Bush. (http://www.elder-law.com/frequently-asked-questions/bank-depositor-insurance/)

LWW
03-19-2012, 04:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Likewise, the same guarantee was given to all money market accounts. </div></div>
Actually ... that was Bush also. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/business/20moneys.html)

LWW
03-19-2012, 04:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He made the implicit federal guarantee of the mortgage giants FNMA and GNMA explicit.</div></div>
And, again, that was Bush. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/fannie_mae/index.html)

LWW
03-19-2012, 04:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Without those steps, anyone holding funds in the money market, or funds above the FDIC coverage, would have pulled massive funds out of them, causing the collapse by run on the banks or money markets they feared would happen, which is why they would have done it.</div></div>

So you denounce Bush for saving the system, and praise Obama for Bush saving the system?

Why am I not surprised?

LWW
03-19-2012, 04:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And of course, his then-scored at $790 billion (later upped to $810 billion, roughly) stimulus bill, passed before January '09 was over (i.e., within a scant couple weeks of his inauguration) had both the psychological effect, and the actual fiscal effect of its beginning to be spent, and continuing to be spent over a two year period. This included about $240 billion sent to the states to support them in the fiscal hole that developed, and as Gov. Crist said, which caused him his political career shortly afterwards, kept 65,000 Florida firemen, policemen, teachers, and the like, employed when they'd otherwise have been laid off. This occurred throughout the 50 states.</div></div>

You mean the stimulus plan that the CBO claimed would increase the deficit and be an anchor against GDP growth?

Open wide ...

http://www.blackhills-audubon.org/images/BabyBirds_Miller_061705.jpg

LWW
03-19-2012, 04:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama created and got passed a $400 a person/$800 a couple tax break, more or less immediately causing the withholding schedule to be changed to put that back into peoples' paychecks and their hands to have extra money (close to $70/month for a couple).</div></div>

Translated:

BUSH TAX CUTS = BAD, OBAMA TAX CUTS = GOOD.

LWW
03-19-2012, 04:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Later, he kept the auto industry intact instead of dissolved in bankruptcy, through a kind of structured bankruptcy the feds funded when there was no private capital appetite, and the couple hundred thousand kept working meant about 1 million jobs saved, as the jobbers and companies supplying the parts were kept in business as well.</div></div>

You mean the deal where they robbed secured creditors ... such as pension funds holding bonds ... to pay off the UAW?

Oh ... and don't forget the part about voiding the franchises ... throwing thousands out of work ... of historic (R) donors and granting those sales territories to Obama donors.

LONG LIVE THE THUGOCRACY!

LWW
03-19-2012, 04:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps you meant to ask, 'OTHER THAN THOSE?,' as they are obvious and well known? </div></div>

Perhaps you might ... just once ... reject the spoon and research reality?

eg8r
03-19-2012, 08:32 AM
LOL, I was going to just ignore it. He was so excited to act like he knew what he was talking about. Kind of like watching a cartoon character spin his legs in a wind up before racing off a cliff.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-19-2012, 09:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To prevent the collapse of banks through runs on them, Obama caused the FDIC guarantee of deposits up to $250,000 to be upped to 100% of all monies, even individual accounts well beyond that figure. </div></div>
Actually ... that was Bush. (http://www.elder-law.com/frequently-asked-questions/bank-depositor-insurance/)
</div></div>

Reading comprehension. Lacking (what else is new?). Take a remedial class at a junior or community college near you, soon.

Yes, there was an extension under Bush, from the previous $100,000 coverage, to the $250,000 coverage.

As I said and you quoted above, Obama lifted that INCREASE (to $250,000 per person per account from $100k per person per account) to ALL THE MONEY THEY HAD IN THE BANK, without any limit.

Soflasnapper
03-19-2012, 09:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Likewise, the same guarantee was given to all money market accounts. </div></div>
Actually ... that was Bush also. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/business/20moneys.html)
</div></div>

No, not exactly. As the link explains, Treasury under Bush extended coverage from losses to less than 2% (about 1.5%) of the total money market funds (up to $50 billion, but those accounts contained $3.4 trillion).

So the comparison is 1.5% covered under Bush (supposedly doing the same thing), and 100% covered under Obama. If these are the same things, would you accept a sale price of something at a 1.5% amount of your asking price as equivalent to 100% of it?

Soflasnapper
03-19-2012, 09:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He made the implicit federal guarantee of the mortgage giants FNMA and GNMA explicit.</div></div>
And, again, that was Bush. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/fannie_mae/index.html)
</div></div>

No, untrue.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ad_icon

Placing the companies in conservatorship, rather than receivership, could signal that the government does not intend to nationalize or liquidate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Instead, under the terms of a federal law passed this summer, conservatorship is designed to allow the government to restructure the companies and return them to private control. Treasury officials have previously compared the process to Chapter 11 bankruptcy. </div></div>

From the WaPost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090503351_2.html)

Soflasnapper
03-19-2012, 09:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Without those steps, anyone holding funds in the money market, or funds above the FDIC coverage, would have pulled massive funds out of them, causing the collapse by run on the banks or money markets they feared would happen, which is why they would have done it.</div></div>

So you denounce Bush for saving the system, and praise Obama for Bush saving the system?

Why am I not surprised? </div></div>

Didn't do either of those things, of course.

Bush is to be commended even for his too-little, too-late moves, I suppose, but also blamed for letting and/or causing these things to develop to that degree of crisis originally.

As I've now shown 3 times, what you say were the doing of Bush were small pre-steps to the guarantee levels eventually necessary and put in place by his successor.

Soflasnapper
03-19-2012, 10:08 AM
You mean the stimulus plan that the CBO claimed would increase the deficit and be an anchor against GDP growth?

Open wide ...

No, the stimulus plan that reversed a near-9% quarterly drop in gdp to show over a 3% quarterly gdp growth within the passage of a single quarter, as CBO agrees it did.

(Of course it did increase the deficit, although not the long-term (75 year) debt outlook by much. Not that the CBO 'claimed' it, or needed to, as that would be obvious.)

Soflasnapper
03-19-2012, 10:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama created and got passed a $400 a person/$800 a couple tax break, more or less immediately causing the withholding schedule to be changed to put that back into peoples' paychecks and their hands to have extra money (close to $70/month for a couple).</div></div>

Translated:

BUSH TAX CUTS = BAD, OBAMA TAX CUTS = GOOD. </div></div>

You are inventing the Bush criticism parts of your replies in this thread. Why would you do that?

Actually, the FORM of the tax cuts was different, and designed for a political boost by the Bushies (a lump sum check that people could see immediately), and instead, financial efficiency, by Obama.

People receiving a lump sum amount are more prone to use part or all to retire debt, and or increase savings. Receiving the same amount over time, making it far less obvious, makes for a larger part of it being spent. Obama chose the latter method for best financial effect, thereby losing the political effect. Because people didn't get a $100 or $300 check in one piece, most people did not realize they were getting a small extra amount in their paychecks, and did not realize they had received any tax cuts at all (80%+ in polling).

Soflasnapper
03-19-2012, 10:29 AM
You mean the deal where they robbed secured creditors ... such as pension funds holding bonds ... to pay off the UAW?

Oh ... and don't forget the part about voiding the franchises ... throwing thousands out of work ... of historic (R) donors and granting those sales territories to Obama donors.

LONG LIVE THE THUGOCRACY!

Chrysler announced its plans to close its plants before Obama was elected, still earlier than when he took office.

Snopes, here, (http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chrysler.asp) debunks your charges.

FactCheck, here (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/playing-favorites-with-chrysler-dealers/) does the same, quoting FOX NEWS OWN FINDINGS on the matter:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As we noted in our earlier post on this subject, car dealers are quite a Republican bunch. The Web site FiveThirtyEight.com used Fundrace to find that 546 presidential campaign donors who identified themselves as "auto dealers" gave to Republican candidates in 2008, and just 72 gave to Democrats. Of those who said they were "car dealers," 141 gave to the GOP hopefuls and 42 to Democrats. (We replicated FiveThirtyEight.com's searches and came up with the same results.)

Similarly, FoxNews.com (which is rarely thought of as part of the allegedly liberal media conspiracy) took a random sampling of the Chrysler list and found no evidence that the closures were politically skewed:

FoxNews.com: A preliminary study by FOXNews.com found that the data do not support the charges. Among the dealerships set to close, 12 percent of a random 50 selected for review donated to Republicans and 8 percent to Democrats. Of the dealerships remaining open, 14 percent of a random 50 selected donated to Republicans and 10 percent to Democrats. In both samples, the average size of donations was similar for both parties.

If anything, the percentage of Republican auto dealers on the list is smaller than their percentage among car dealers generally, or at least self-identified auto dealers who contributed to presidential candidates in the last election. We find the Fox News study especially convincing because it compared a sample of dealerships set to close with a sample of dealerships that were allowed to remain open. That procedure follows the accepted scientific method of using a control group to determine whether a set of data in an experiment is significantly different from what one would find normally, or by chance. In this case, Fox News found the answer was a solid "no."</div></div>