Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do pretty well regardless of who is president... GDP doesn't really affect me... I look more at the substance of someone's presidency... Obama is one of the weakest... I think it was probably 85% his and 15% Republicans fault... you can't blame the opposing political party when your policy sucks a$()... The problem that he had was that he thought he could be a dictator and when he couldn't, he tried a different route with executive actions.... dumb move, Obama, dumb move.. the better president would of negotiated with both sides to make a deal... Obama lack the ability to negotiate... its a shame, a shame he was given two terms to do absolutely nothing productive (I am looking at you America)... you can't make a better president, that's why you have to pick one... I think Hillary would probably be better as a president than Trump, provided she didn't take the insanity pill to start believing the rhetoric she started spouting to win votes... Trump has the same problem like Obama... poor negotiating skills... however, I cannot stand the smell of lying panderers like Hillary...
Obama didn't need to talk to the opposing political party when he had Harry Reid shelving bills that passed the house voted on and passed by both Democrats and Republicans. Obama did think he would have the power of a dictatorship with Reid, the liberal media and the ever loyal (no matter what he did) Obama supporters.
Hillary is Obama 2.0. Hillary is so fake. When Obama spoke it seemed that he was laughing at the American people. Hillary is so fake, and she thinks (like Obama) that Americans are stupid. Then again so do Liberal elitist. As Johnathan Gruber once said (and was given a pass) ..."the stupidity of the American voter"
Don't you know it's all 100% the President's fault? He has complete control over the economy, the job market, governmental spending, etc. Probably the weather, too.
If we get it right this time around, it'll all be better in 4 years, don't worry.
Isn't that why Obama blamed "president" Bush for almost 2 terms? <sarcasm>
I'm just saying America is better off with Obama than Romney.
Again, we are discussing Obama.
Quote:
Money controls Washington and some cool people like Warren Buffet give democrats money.
Warren Buffet feels guilty that his tax rate is lower than his secretary's, so he used his political pull to try to get CEO billionaires tax rates raised. The democrats even named the law after him (but of course the republicans stopped the law from passing.)
Warren Buffett doesn't pay income taxes. The (D)'s had the numbers to be able to raise the tax on capital gains but didn't. Obama did sign off and support an extension on Bush's tax cuts though.
Quote:
But the republicans don't have cool billionaires like Buffet giving them money, they only have billionaires like the Koch brothers looking for CEO tax cuts and corporate deregulation.
.
You just can't stop yourself from trying to blame everyone else.
Quote:
Perhaps, but Obama did more for the poor than Romney ever would have.
He did pretty much nothing. Romney could have met that bar.
Billionaire CEO's pay taxes by capital gains and they pay 6%-14% tax rates on their personal income. While single Americans making $100,000 a year pay 22% personal tax rates.
Quote:
The (D)'s had the numbers to be able to raise the tax on capital gains but didn't.
The republicans stopped the "Buffet Rule" from passing.
In 2008 GW Bush had a (negative) -0.92% GDP growth rate. Bush handed that negative GDP rate to Obama, but Obama has stabilized the falling GDP. US GDP Growth Rate by Year
The republicans oppose high min wages and oppose middle class tax cuts.
Inflation causes home prices and rent prices to rise with time. And republicans refuse to adjust wages to inflation (their corporate leaders like to pay workers as little as possible to increase corporate profits.)
He most certainly plays a role. The Fed prints money And gives it to Wall Street. That is part of our GDP. The president picks who this person will be.
Quote:
Republicans were the last to incorporate a tax cut for the middle class. Taxes for the middle class have gone up under Obama.
The house of prices has quickly outpaced inflation. In many markets, house prices are HIGHER than the 2007 bubble.
Which only means they are in another bubble created by the artificially low interest rates.
He most certainly plays a role. The Fed prints money And gives it to Wall Street. That is part of our GDP. The president picks who this person will be.
Which only means they are in another bubble created by the artificially low interest rates.
The financial sector is de facto the 4th branch of government (by word, deed, & action). Concentration of economic power tends to become self reinforcing & self perpetuating. 'Rent-seeking' behavior takes many forms; when government intervenes, lobbyists are paid to argue the libertarian case.
The financial sector 'hedges' their bets when it comes to buying government favor, they pay both sides. They pay lobbyists a lot of money however it's money spent wisely because it reaps rewards far beyond any election day. These types of things have been going on since the 'Gilded Age'. Widely recognized then but now ...? Back then, after the Great Depression, folks tended to trust the conclusions of the Pecora investigation. More recently?
Perhaps it's because the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission did not achieve the same sortof results as the much earlier, however similar in focus Pecora investigation. Apparently the FCIC evidenced its most success in further dividing the people (to be more thoroughly conquered).
"The Commission's final report was initially due to Congress on December 15, 2010, but was not released until January 27, 2011.[10] The Commission concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“[4][11]
A dissent by Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute claimed that the crisis was caused by government affordable housing policies rather than market forces. However, Wallison's views have not been supported by subsequent detailed analyses of mortgage market data.[12]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financ...iry_Commission
Last edited by ChiGeekGuest; 04-29-2016 at 04:58 AM..
Reason: in word, deed, & action
This one is particularly interesting because OTC derivatives were not de-regulated, they've never been regulated in the first place (& still aren't):
We conclude over-the-counter derivatives contributed significantly to this crisis.
"The enactment of legislation in 2000 to ban the regulation by both the federal and state governments of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives was a key turning point in the march toward the financial crisis. ... OTC derivatives contributed to the crisis in three significant ways. First, one type of derivative—credit default swaps (CDS) fueled the mortgage securitization pipeline. CDS were sold to investors to protect against the default or decline in value of mortgage-related securities backed by risky loans. ... Second, CDS were essential to the creation of synthetic CDOs. These synthetic CDOs were merely bets on the performance of real mortgage-related securities. They amplified the losses from the collapse of the housing bubble by allowing multiple bets on the same securities and helped spread them throughout the financial system. ... Finally, when the housing bubble popped and crisis followed, derivatives were in the center of the storm. AIG, which had not been required to put aside capital reserves as a cushion for the protection it was selling, was bailed out when it could not meet its obligations. The government ultimately committed more than $180 billion because of concerns that AIG's collapse would trigger cascading losses throughout the global financial system. In addition, the existence of millions of derivatives contracts of all types between systemically important financial institutions—unseen and unknown in this unregulated market—added to uncertainty and escalated panic, helping to precipitate government assistance to those institutions."
"...This bill is the most important legislation for financial institutions in the last 50 years. It provides a long-term solution for troubled thrift institutions. It's proconsumer, granting small savers greater access to loans, a higher return on their savings. And when combined with recent sharp declines in interest rates, it means help for housing, more jobs, and new growth for the economy. All in all, I think we hit the jackpot. ..."
Presidents have often been 'dazzled' by the financial sector's shenanigans:
President Ronald Reagan partly orchestrated the Savings & Loan scandal & crisis. What did he say after signing the above legislation? We hit the jackpot. Is this an example of considering long-term effects (& unintended consequences)? Fool the American people once, continue to fool them with more deregulation sprees, culminating in the complete dismantling of common sense regulations like Glass Steagell in 1999. Ensuring even more moral hazards galore. This has created the casino like atmosphere on Wall Street. Playing the casino with other people's money? (Is that what President Reagan meant?) If they win, they run, if they lose, the government bails them out?
I do pretty well regardless of who is president... GDP doesn't really affect me... I look more at the substance of someone's presidency... Obama is one of the weakest... I think it was probably 85% his and 15% Republicans fault... you can't blame the opposing political party when your policy sucks a$()... The problem that he had was that he thought he could be a dictator and when he couldn't, he tried a different route with executive actions.... dumb move, Obama, dumb move.. the better president would of negotiated with both sides to make a deal... Obama lack the ability to negotiate... its a shame, a shame he was given two terms to do absolutely nothing productive (I am looking at you America)... you can't make a better president, that's why you have to pick one... I think Hillary would probably be better as a president than Trump, provided she didn't take the insanity pill to start believing the rhetoric she started spouting to win votes... Trump has the same problem like Obama... poor negotiating skills... however, I cannot stand the smell of lying panderers like Hillary...
I would consider country first.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
