Time's Up!!! OK Obama, no more blaming Bush!

[Nickdfresh]

Wow, that's wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to start.

- A 5% drop after a 50% run is not "plummeting."

Oh please! The Dow dropped over 100% since it's all time high. A 50% run is nothing but an adjustment as the Dow was undervalued at the height (or bottom) of things at the end of 2008...

- The 5% drop has nothing to do with the proposed "reform."

Where are you getting this from? It had EVERYTHING to do with legislation and it directly coincided with the signing of it.

There's not even legislation yet to be concerned about. It started with China pulling back lending, the debt worries of european countries (Greece, Spain, etc.), our shitty unemployment number last week, and a natural pullback. Reform, whatever.

Several weeks later, and the unemployment numbers have unexpectedly dropped below 10%...The instances of irrational fear mongering you mentioned happened later..

- The "reform" that's being discussed is a joke. It's nothing for the banks to be concerned about, and it wouldn't even touch most of the places that got the tarp money. In fact, didn't Goldman Sachs cry last week that a whole 10% of their business would be subject to the reform? Wow, 10%, cry for me. 90% unchanged.

It reduces their "profitability," which is everything they're concerned about! More importantly, it also is representative of an age where legislators can "hunt and peck" to close loopholes abusive to consumers as the banks try to bait and switch...

And not necessarily everything Goldman BallSachs does is inherently evil when not directly effecting the mass of consumers...

- The "reform" is being discussed in Congress. Not by Obama.

He was one of the major forces behind it last time I checked and lobbied for it. He certainly won't veto it!

- In a broader sense, are you really arguing that after flat-out giving these entities $500+ billion in cash, that this reform (that is nowhere near legislation) is these politicians showing these banks who's boss? It proves Obama and Congress is not beholden to them? Come on. You can't say that with a straight face.

The gov't "gave" them $500 billion and the banks have largely given most of it back as they grew tired of what they considered strings attached of gov't meddling...

So, I'm sorry, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Wall Street owns Obama. Period. Look at the top donors to his campaign and look at who he gave billions of dollars to. You've already established yourself as an Obama apologist, so nobody can take you seriously on this topic.

Did you say "populist?" Yeah, the government is really "populist" right now.

The point I'm trying to make is that Wall St. "owns" the American economy, stupid, like it or not, and Obama or any other president has to deal with that. The term "populist" was not my coining. It was all over the various wings of the media --I assume you read it?

What do you want Obama to do exactly? To destroy the economy to prove a point? I certainly support policies which support "Main St." over Wall St., but they're not easy to enact without the "guber'ment" paranoids crying
"Bull'shove'ism!!"

Obama goes populist as Democrats lick their wounds - washingtonpost.com

And if I'm an "apologist," then you're the mindless blamer/scapegoater like the unwashed masses of Tea-baggers that links everything to a single president while failing to offer an alternative nor understand the limits of his power -- especially in the face of a largely ignorant public fixated on said Tea-bagging and honestly believing whatever he does is some "so'shall'sit" ballyhoo...

[Blackflag]

Oh please! The Dow dropped over 100% since it's all time high. A 50% run is nothing but an adjustment as the Dow was undervalued at the height (or bottom) of things at the end of 2008...

And you think it's supposed to be straight up back to the high. Ok.

Where are you getting this from? It had EVERYTHING to do with legislation and it directly coincided with the signing of it.

There is no legislation.

Several weeks later, and the unemployment numbers have unexpectedly dropped below 10%...

Not because of new jobs. Because of "long term unemployment" - people falling of the unemployed rolls, because they're not looking anymore. Somebody last week estimated "real" unemployment at a high of 20% now.

The instances of irrational fear mongering you mentioned happened later..

What's irrational about China pulling back its lending? You're not arguing facts anymore.

It reduces their "profitability," which is everything they're concerned about!

Yeah, because Goldman Sachs is having problems with profitability. They would be hurting if you regulated 10% of their business.

More importantly, it also is representative of an age where legislators can "hunt and peck" to close loopholes abusive to consumers as the banks try to bait and switch...

Fascinating. You realize that Goldman Sachs doesn't even lend to individuals, right? That's why this reform is pointless, and wall street doesn't really give a fuck about it. Even the banks who do - aren't doing much lending right now. So they don't give a FUCK.

And not necessarily everything Goldman BallSachs does is inherently evil when not directly effecting the mass of consumers...

No, I don't think they're evil. They're just looking out for theirs. Who's evil are the politicians who shoveled my fucking cash to them.

He was one of the major forces behind it last time I checked and lobbied for it. He certainly won't veto it!

So it went from Obama is cracking down on the banks to... 'well, at least he won't veto it!'

The gov't "gave" them $500 billion and the banks have largely given most of it back as they grew tired of what they considered strings attached of gov't meddling...

"Largely" is one of those words people use when they're bullshitting. Show me the number. No, it's "largely" sitting in accounts, buying treasuries to earn free interest, because some fucking retard never conditioned that they have to lend the money out.

The term "populist" was not my coining. It was all over the various wings of the media

Everything you write comes from the media...

And if I'm an "apologist," then you're the mindless blamer/scapegoater . . . that links everything to a single president.

That's bullshit, considering I blame the last president and the Congress, also. I blame every politician who hasn't voted against this shit. You, on the other hand, are on a crusade to avenge Obama's good name. Whatever.

[Blackflag]

Boo yah - that was a long one!

[Nickdfresh]

And you think it's supposed to be straight up back to the high. Ok.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said, fudge-nugget...

There is no legislation.

Actually there is, super-genius. When congress works on stuff, it's called "legislation."

Not because of new jobs. Because of "long term unemployment" - people falling of the unemployed rolls, because they're not looking anymore. Somebody last week estimated "real" unemployment at a high of 20% now.

You don't fall off unemployment rolls because you're not "looking anymore." You fall off because the benefits run out. Congratulations on figuring out the low ball of unemployment numbers though. I mentioned that several years ago here...

What's irrational about China pulling back its lending? You're not arguing facts anymore.

I don't know. What is "irrational about China pulling back its lending?" Why don't you answer your own question that has fucking nothing to do with anything I said, strawgirl?

Yeah, because Goldman Sachs is having problems with profitability. They would be hurting if you regulated 10% of their business.

Why would you necessarily try to destroy Goldman Douches profitability?

Where are you getting your numbers from?

Fascinating. You realize that Goldman Sachs doesn't even lend to individuals, right? That's why this reform is pointless, and wall street doesn't really give a fuck about it. Even the banks who do - aren't doing much lending right now. So they don't give a FUCK.

What's fascinating is that you're a retard that has failed to grasp that I was talking about the banking industry as a whole, and not Goldman Sachs.

And if Wall Street "didn't give a fuck," then why the consecutive drops of several hundred points after the news broke?

No, I don't think they're evil. They're just looking out for theirs. Who's evil are the politicians who shoveled my fucking cash to them.

"Shoveled YOUR cash?" Whooptee fucking dooo....

They shoveled most of it back...

So it went from Obama is cracking down on the banks to... 'well, at least he won't veto it!'

I never said Obama was "cracking down," dummy. I said he was pushing legislation...

"Largely" is one of those words people use when they're bullshitting. Show me the number. No, it's "largely" sitting in accounts, buying treasuries to earn free interest, because some fucking retard never conditioned that they have to lend the money out.

You're an ignorant ass who hasn't even the basic adolescent grasp of it all! Why don't you show me your fucking numbers first? How much of the TARP was actually lost to the banking industry for good?

Everything you write comes from the media...

And everything you write comes out of your asshole...

That's bullshit, considering I blame the last president and the Congress, also. I blame every politician who hasn't voted against this shit. You, on the other hand, are on a crusade to avenge Obama's good name. Whatever.

Clickity clack! Cliche spam gasp (shits self).

[Nitro Express]

Obama should blame Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan for the economic mess because those two deregulated all the laws that allowed the speculation and abuse to happen.

Bush deserves blame as well.

Meanwhile Obama is blasting full steam ahead expanding the middle east wars and involving India to destabalize Pakistahn and buying off the Taliban. The Bush foriegn policy chugs along.

[Nitro Express]

The problem with Obamas first year was that he did what he thought was best for the country....and not what the country thought was best. He knew what we needed better than we did. He focused all his energy on making really good promises, making friends around the globe, and getting his health care agenda passed. Instead, he should have concentrated on unemployment, home foreclosures & war. He just said that "2010 our primary focus is going to be jobs". That's great, but we really needed that from the get go.

Presidents can only redistribute wealth with fiscal policy but one thing they can do is define problems and give motivation to solve them. One huge problem the US and the world has is a dependance on oil. There is much talk about the pollution effects of burning oil products and how key sources of oil are in unfriendly parts of the world. The president could issue a challenge to get the country off of oil in ten years and give incentives for the private sector to develop a solution. This would create a huge number of jobs and stimulate domestic technology. It would also create products the US could sell worldwide and bring much needed money back into the USA.

[Seshmeister]

Obama is still blaming Bush for this country's economic woes when he's still spending money like a sailor in a whore-house on payday.

Man-up Barry, you wanted the job; you promised change, supposedly for the better...now quit whining and fix it!!!

You would have wanted to risk Palin to be dealing with an economic crisis?

Are you fucking joking?

The markets would have collapsed at the thought of it before she could even fuck up.

[PETE'S BROTHER]

Presidents can only redistribute wealth with fiscal policy but one thing they can do is define problems and give motivation to solve them. One huge problem the US and the world has is a dependance on oil. There is much talk about the pollution effects of burning oil products and how key sources of oil are in unfriendly parts of the world. The president could issue a challenge to get the country off of oil in ten years and give incentives for the private sector to develop a solution. This would create a huge number of jobs and stimulate domestic technology. It would also create products the US could sell worldwide and bring much needed money back into the USA.

i thought that was one of his "change" campaign points. maybe he's savin' that for 2011

[PETE'S BROTHER]

Obama Doesn?t ?Begrudge? Bonuses for ?Savvy? Blankfein, Dimon - Yahoo! News

[knuckleboner]

to be technical, the VAST majority of deficit spending today is a direct result of the bush administration's policies.

seriously. you don't think the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were free do you? try billions of dollars a year in lost revenue. adding up to trillions rather quickly.

then there was medicare part D. a brand new entitlement. completely unpaid for.

then there were 2 wars to fight. but all done through supplemental appropriations, so that the yearly deficits didn't appear quite as bad as they should be.


of course, at the end of the day, it matters more who actually fixes the problem. but, with the republicans constantly blaming the democrats for prolifigant spending habits, it's worthwhile for a history lesson now and again...

[Guitar Shark]

to be technical, the VAST majority of deficit spending today is a direct result of the bush administration's policies.

seriously. you don't think the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were free do you? try billions of dollars a year in lost revenue. adding up to trillions rather quickly.

then there was medicare part D. a brand new entitlement. completely unpaid for.

then there were 2 wars to fight. but all done through supplemental appropriations, so that the yearly deficits didn't appear quite as bad as they should be.


of course, at the end of the day, it matters more who actually fixes the problem. but, with the republicans constantly blaming the democrats for prolifigant spending habits, it's worthwhile for a history lesson now and again...

Fuck... I hate it when I click the Groan button by mistake.

Stellar post, kb. Wish you were around more often!

[knuckleboner]

new job, shark. makes it a little tougher, but you know, once you get pulled back in...

(by the way, speaking of stellar, thanks again for jim zorn...)