Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Varchild2008 (85.35)

Barack Obama has already created JIMMY CARTER 2 ERA



February 23, 2009 – Comments (32)

President Barack Obama has already created the JIMMY CARTER II  Era.

Everyone scratching their heads wondering how on Earth can Obama be so stupid as to threaten businesses and people across the board with sky high tax hikes has to realize that Obama is intentionally destroying America as much as he can.

The more America "DIES" as a nation and people, the more power Obama and his Democrats get. Because, a nation of unemployed is a nation of beggers begging at the altar of Welfare Checks and Food Stamps.

President Obama wants there to be nothing but an endless SOUP which you'd be lucky if there was any soup left when it was your turn to feed at the trough.

Conservatives, like myself, predicted this.

Granted, I supported the Infrastructure spending idea... But...Obama's infrastructure spending isn't enough money to fix a leaky bathroom sink.   In the form of BAIT and SWITCH, we went from promising real Tax Relief and Infrastructure Spending.... To Welfare Spending.......And that's it.

So.... What should investors do?   Bail out while you still can.  Or at least stop putting all that much money into the Stock Market.

Amerca's Economy will *SUCK* as long as Democrats are in power...sucking the life out of the American Spirit and Will to even want to Work anymore.  Anyone read the Boston Globe Article about how it's a good thing to be unemployed?

I mean... This is going to be worse than the 1970s because there's no guarantee any real Conservatism will emerge in the Federal Government anytime soon...if ever....

All hope IS LOST until someone...somewhere....miraculously is able to rise up from the dead and resurrect the massive destruction that Liberalism wrought on our once great Country. 

Only a True Conservative can save us now.....

32 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 23, 2009 at 9:32 PM, einniv1234 (< 20) wrote:

It is similar in one way. Nixon wrecked the economy and handed it over to Carter much like Bush wrecked it this time.

By the way, the economy does better under Democrats which is well documented. (and that includes Carter by the way). The only growth that occurs under Republicans is based on debt. In other words , if you adjust GDP growth under Republicans (which is already smaller than under Dems) by the amount of debt taken on it is zero while it remains a positive numner for dems.

Now, when you get your premises and assertions so wrong is it any wonder we liberals consider your type to be a bunch of morons? 


Report this comment
#2) On February 23, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Varchild2008 (85.35) wrote:

If you have to resort to insults like calling me a Moron then obviously your other statements are 100% false.

Free Market Capitalism only works under the atmosphere of reasonable taxation.  Unreasonable taxation breeds contempt by workers to want to even work and businesses to want to bother earning a profit.

Conservatism is about finding a balance.  Where's the balance when President Obama just past a $1.2 Trillion Stimulus Welfare Check that doesn't help the economy one bit?

President Obama's stimulus bill was only created and past to do one thing.  That one thing is to simply justify raising taxes and gutting America's Military.

And that sure worked wonders (SEPT. 11th, 2001) didn't it?

Report this comment
#3) On February 23, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Seano67 (24.46) wrote:

"President Obama's stimulus bill was only created and past to do one thing.  That one thing is to simply justify raising taxes and gutting America's Military."


Where are you getting that from? What makes you think that Obama's going to 'gut' the military? As far as I know, he has given no indication of doing that or desiring to do it, and the fact that he's immediately ramping up operations in Afghanistan would seem to belie your assertion that he intends to gut our military. 

He knows just as well as anyone and I'm sure more than most, it's a dangerous world out there, filled with possible threats. You've got a belligerent and aggressive Iran, you've got a belligerent and aggressive South Korea, you are already fighting a hot war in Afghanistan, and you've got troops on the ground in Iraq, which is still not entirely pacified. Then you've got the emergence of a strongly nationalistic Russia, and one with possible territorial ambitions. You've got the possibility of social, political, and national disruption taking place if the global economy continues to deteriorate. As a viable military force, we are spread far too thin as it is, I mean dangerously thin- and if a conflict were to break out elsewhere, disastrously thin. Do you honestly think Obama and his people don't know these things?

The American military is our greatest strength and best feature right now. It's the greatest force on earth, and it's what's kept us a superpower, while our economy has fallen by the wayside over the years. We used to be able to project power economically, but now we project it militarily- sort of the global sword. There's no way they're going to cut back the military. 

Report this comment
#4) On February 23, 2009 at 10:21 PM, mprongue (< 20) wrote:

One month in and the BS is already starting. The hyper-emotionalized and ridiculous rhetoric is not only unappreciated it is immature and dangerous.

Nothing worked in the last 8 years for this country. The losers leading the charge failed. It's over. So, if you can't lead, or follow then just shut up and let the new team do their thing.

The so-called right wing is desperate and their desperation is like a lingering infection for this country that won't go away. The fail to spell out their own agenda because they don't know what they want- all they can do is say "No". It's a shame they are saying "No" now that they are out of power after rubberstamping "Yes" to everthing Bush wanted for the last 8 years. 

"No" is not a strategy and neither is lashing out with political rhetoric already.

Report this comment
#5) On February 23, 2009 at 10:36 PM, herztical (27.63) wrote:

Does anyone realize that politics have NOTHING to do with the mess we are in? Washington didn't get us here and certainly won't get us out of it since they only care about where their next vote is coming from. Plain and simple we are a nation of over spenders who don't produce anything. Until we change that, we are screwed. Suck it up, stop your bitching, and put your efforts towards something productive. Maybe then we can turn this around.

Report this comment
#6) On February 23, 2009 at 10:53 PM, nthought (< 20) wrote:

Now you know conservatives are, at some point, going blame Obama for this disaster.  They're hoping we forget that all this transpired while their guy was in power.  It's a bit early to be pulling this trick, but what the heck, half the American public has A.D.D.


But really, one month in and this is already Obama's fault?  You got to be kidding.


Let's hope this is a desperate last gasp from a dying ideology. 

Report this comment
#7) On February 23, 2009 at 11:10 PM, russiangambit (28.96) wrote:

> Does anyone realize that politics have NOTHING to do with the mess we are in? Washington didn't get us here and certainly won't get us out of it since they only care about where their next vote is coming from. Plain and simple we are a nation of over spenders who don't produce anything. Until we change that, we are screwed. Suck it up, stop your bitching, and put your efforts towards something productive. Maybe then we can turn this around.


Exactly. I agree 100%.

Stop blaming politicians for everything including the rain and sunshine. Take charge of your own lives. Politicians are the product of our own creation. We elected them. We delude ourselves into believing their promises. Like we don't know if it is too good ot be true, it is. And if somebody here says, well, I didn't vote for Obama. Who did you vote for , - McCain? He is no better, or arguably worse. They are all the same, incompetent and full of empty promises. Most politicians are lawyers. How does that qualify them to run the country? It doesn't.

And what is more, who is worried about military here? It is time to stop freaking empire building which is bankrupting this country. It is dangerous out there? Well, if you take time to travel the world and talk to people you'll understand that people are essentially the same everywhere. They want stress free secure lives for themselves and their families. Everything else is just the means to the end. There are crazy people and fanatics everywhere, including the US. But 99% of people are  reasonable and in sound mind, they can be negotiated with. No need to boimb them and create more enemies.

Instead of spending billions of dollars on fighting terrorists, how about every citizen of the US stops using drugs? That will immidiately eliminate drug business in Afganistan and Mexico. And the gained security will be free of charge.

Report this comment
#8) On February 23, 2009 at 11:21 PM, nthought (< 20) wrote:

Drugs are cool, fun if used properly, and moderate usage of most of them usually shows health benefits.  How about we stop buying worthless trinkets from the shopping mall instead?  The drug business is the most profitable real free market business in the world.  Most drug dealers are smart enough not to lend credit to those without collateral.  I say throw the bankers out and put these hard working entrepreneurs in charge.  Need legal advice?  Ask a dealer.  They'll shoot you straight for no charge, then sell you an honest product.


This was half sarcastic, so please, no lectures... 


but at least legalize and tax it. 

Report this comment
#9) On February 23, 2009 at 11:34 PM, PrestonCheek (31.33) wrote:

"Plain and simple we are a nation of over spenders who don't produce anything"

Thats a fact, it's no wonder were in this mess. We make nothing for ourselves anymore, how do you expect an economy thats based on spending to survive when we make nothing and everything we get comes from another country. The best thing we have left is auto's and they have priced themselves out of business, have been doing so for years now. 

Report this comment
#10) On February 23, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Seano67 (24.46) wrote:

"but at least legalize and tax it. "


Marijuana is the second largest cash crop in America, so abso-fricken-lutely legalize it and tax the hell out of it just as they do tobacco. Keeping it illegal is obviously not working, simply because people want to smoke weed, and it is so readily available it's not even funny.

So why drive this huge market and massive source of taxable revenue underground by keeping it illegal? Like Prohibition, that makes no sense, it defies all reason, and the bottom-line is that people are going to do what they want to do, whether that's illegal or not. So rather than fighting against human nature (aka- tilting at windmills), why not just accept those realities, get it over with and just legalize it already, and then tax the bejeezus out of it and just sit back and watch the rivers of cash flow in.

Our government has got its hands in almost every pocket. It's absolutely assinine that they're not getting any cut out of this. It's insane.

Report this comment
#11) On February 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, PauvrePapillon (99.85) wrote:

Those who claim that the Fibpotus isn’t to blame for the $7 trillion dollars in losses (and counting) in the U. S. equities markets are walking around blind without a cane.

First of all, at the bottom of this so-called crisis are the high-default rate, sub-prime, affirmative action loans that Democrats encouraged and even coerced banks into making. The Fibpotus was right in the middle of that debacle having both coached ACORN and their allies on how to disrupt and intimidate bankers and having himself filed suit against Citicorp on behalf of ACORN alleging discriminatory lending practices as well as using the rules of the Senate to stonewall Republican led efforts to clean up and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Second, despite numerous problems in the financial system, the stock market didn’t crash until it became obvious that the next president of the United States would be a socialist.
Check your dates. From 6 May 2008 (when the Fibpotus took the permanent lead in delegates for the Democratic presidential nomination) to 20 November 2008, the market lost 42 percent of its value. The markets have added to those losses as the Fibpotus has advanced his Marxist agenda with the passage of the Trillon-Dollar Wealth Redistribution and Political Payoff Act and the Aid For Irresponsible Real Estate Speculators Act.
Based on results, specifically, the loss of $7 trillion dollars (and counting) of equity in the U.S. stock market which has occurred in direct response to first the prospect and then the reality of a Marxist occupant of the White House, the Fibpotus is already, far and away, the worst president in U.S. history.

Congratulations Jimmy Carter, you're now off the hook!

“I call upon all responsible, productive people to work hard and sacrifice so that we can redistribute their incomes to those who will never be able to find a decent job because they refuse to buy into bourgeois middle class values like staying in school or learning a trade or finding a husband before starting a family but are, nevertheless, the Ones We Have Been Waiting For because they will get on a bus and go vote for me whenever and wherever I need to send them.”

His Most Beloved and Exalted Excellency Barack Hussein Obama, the Fibpotus 

Report this comment
#12) On February 24, 2009 at 12:00 AM, PrestonCheek (31.33) wrote:

the Ones We Have Been Waiting For because they will get on a bus and go vote for me whenever and wherever I need to send them.”

It's ironic that thats the same people that needed George W to escort them on a bus during Katrina.

Report this comment
#13) On February 24, 2009 at 12:11 AM, nthought (< 20) wrote:

These conservatives KNEW Obama would do this.    Smart people, those conservatives.  Nice job they did too.  Hey, I know what crashed the markets.  Bush leaving office.  Is that the story now? 

Remember, things were fine when they were in office....just close your minds and imagine.


BTW, ACORN campaigned and protested against sub-prime lending.  I guess you'd never know that if you only listen to conservative propaganda.

Report this comment
#14) On February 24, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Jhana9 (21.15) wrote:

I like Obama for one reason only: he's pissing off conservatives. 

That's a good thing! 

Report this comment
#15) On February 24, 2009 at 1:03 AM, herztical (27.63) wrote:

...this was decades in the making and will take decades to unwind and involves much more then just the U.S.  It's bigger then any U.S. president (past, present, or future)

Report this comment
#16) On February 24, 2009 at 1:20 AM, daftstockpicker (90.97) wrote:

The current economic problems can be attributed to only one person. And that person is  GW Bush. The worst president ever.  Notice anything about how the housing crisis was handled by the worst president ever? A huge transfer of wealth from us taxpayers to the CEOS of the banks; the same banks that are responsible for the current mess we are in. At least Obama has passed a housing bill that provides relief in some form to us commoners.  The GOP is clueless when it comes to the economy as the past eight years has demonstrated. The mantra of Tax Cuts and Spend does not work and doesn't make sense.  Bobby Jindal is supposedly the new face of the GOP. It will be interesting to see how whites from the deep south(including Lousiana) react to Jindal over the long run.

Report this comment
#17) On February 24, 2009 at 2:47 AM, ATH001 (< 20) wrote:

Not being an American, or residing in the U.S., I do not think I am entitled to comment on your domestic politics, though most non U.S. citizens were not fond of G.W. Bush. However, U.S. citizens voted him twice into office...

However, on the issue of legalization of drugs, would like to support those that support this move. We have been trying the illegal drug thing for at least 50 years and we are losing the battle terribly. This illegal trade is corrupting all of our society, including judges, police, politicians.

Is it not time to try something different? Let's get the profit motive out of drugs, so the pushers stop standing outside our kids schools, trying to seduce new customers, in order to maintain their lifestyles.

Luis in Africa

Report this comment
#18) On February 24, 2009 at 6:44 AM, cbwang888 (25.77) wrote:

Market is down on its fundamentals. It went up on the hope promoted by Obama. Otherwise, we shouldn't have market rallying from 7500 to 9200 in between late Nov'08 to end of Dec'08.

We only down 300 pts from Nov'08 low up-to-date after 3 months that Obama was elected. Not too bad in comparison to the drop rate we had in the last year of GWB.

This credit crisis will impact many Americans and the Obama admin have 2 choices: (1) punishing the bads (2) sharing the pains. Looks like his choice is the later.

GWB is the worst US president ever. 

Report this comment
#19) On February 24, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Gemini846 (35.36) wrote:

Its sad how warped "conservative" has become. I think if you ask people what a "conservative" is they will give you GWB as a poster child. True conservatives are more libertarian in thier thinking and would never agree to long term deficit spending. We haven't seen one of those in a LONG time so perhaps thats why nobody knows what a "conservative" is.

Most Republicans are sleaze, but I've been investigating the house reps who were re-elected and many of them did not "rubber stamp" GWB policies including the 2008 stimulus.  Many of them are actually... "conservative" meaning low taxes AND low spending.

Republicans, pay attention to which of your governers are begging for handouts the loudest now and DONT vote for them in the future when they run for congress.

What does someone who is low taxes AND low spending call themselves now? I expect to see a broad base libertarian movement in 2012. Lets see if they can pull it togeather and get this whole nation back on track.

Can we take some personal responsiblity here? Our choices for Pres in 2008 were a puppet loon w/ every lobby in his pants vs a guy who said he didn't know much about economics. To me that tells us that the Pres needs LESS POWER. Congress needs LESS POWER, and anyone who isn't elected needs a LOT LESS POWER. (I'm looking at the Treasury Secretary and Fed Chairman right here).

Wake up!

Report this comment
#20) On February 24, 2009 at 9:49 AM, russiangambit (28.96) wrote:

PoorButterfly, what is up with the French name and extereme Republican propaganda? A strange combination, so I am just asking ...

Report this comment
#21) On February 24, 2009 at 10:39 AM, lenri (65.77) wrote:

Crazy libbies! Except you Glen you're still my favorite, nice to see you back in action.

Go get 'em Varchild. Keep up the assault. It won't do any good but it's still fun to read.


Report this comment
#22) On February 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Varchild2008 (85.35) wrote:

Yesterday, Barack Obama held a meeting discussing Gutting the Military defense budget.  Barney Frank suggested 25% to be slashed.  Major defense programs suggested to be unfunded.

Everyone is expecting contraction in the entire Defense Sector because of Obama right now.

Welcome to Sept. 10th, 2001.  Welcome to Jimmy Carter II. A world where tripling the Deficit and Cutting the Military makes sense....

Oh and blaming President Bush when it was his political party demanding reform in the mortgage system for nearly a decade...and it was the Democrats who put affirmative action policies into the mortgage lending business is wrong.

The real blame is "Liberalism."  President Bush was highly "liberal" and did many wrong things...especially in 2008 with his worthless stimulus welfare check / joke.

I don't support LIBERAL ideas.  They never worked.

Report this comment
#23) On February 24, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Varchild2008 (85.35) wrote:

You can point fingers at "PEOPLE" all day long.  I don't care who you blame.

I step in and lay the smack down if anyone dares question "Conesrvatism" because conservatism works.

Libertarianism doesn't work because that means ZERO reglulations on businesses.  Conservatives are different in that they support common sense regulation of the markets.

The Financial Markets were SOUND under Ronald Reagon and became UNSOUND under President Clinton. 

I stand by that there is nothing wrong with an economy built on Credit and Investment Risk....  But, regulation is/was needed to control it.  Things went overboard when Democrats created Freddie and Fannie and the whole "Can't refuse a minority no matter what the credit is" housing bill.

Sure there were other disasters that occured of which none of it would have happened if the Democrats played by the same set of rules as Republicans on the issue of common sense regulations of the free market system.

Report this comment
#24) On February 24, 2009 at 8:00 PM, gormenghast20 (< 20) wrote:

By the way, the economy does better under Democrats which is well documented. (and that includes Carter by the way). The only growth that occurs under Republicans is based on debt. In other words , if you adjust GDP growth under Republicans (which is already smaller than under Dems) by the amount of debt taken on it is zero while it remains a positive numner for dems.


Democrats favor high government spending...lower government spending leads to higher economic growth.

According to a study of investment and growth in industrial economies (conducted by Professors Silvia Ardagna and Fabio Schiantarelli of Boston College, Alberto Alesina of Harvard University and Roberto Perotti of Columbia University), higher government spending decreases business investment, which reduces an economy's growth potential.

Not only does the stock market do well with low inflation levels and low interest rates, but two decades of data demonstrate that the size of government also affects the stock market -- according to a study prepared by Lowell Gallaway for the Joint Economic Congress.

It is a fact that when federal spending (as a percent of total output) grows, the stock market falls dramatically.  It was Newt Gingrich and the other Republicans in Congress who were, in large part, responsible for the rise in the market from 1994-1999.  They did this by limiting Democrat pork-barrel spending.

 Another fact is that dollar-for-dollar the private sector is more productive than the public sector.  After all, the government is not forced to face any sort of market discipline.

Productivity falls when the government crowds out private activity.  The best possible environment for the private sector to flourish is lower tax rates on businesses and individuals, no burdensome regulations and free trade guidelines.  Hmmm, seems like the Democrats are calling for the exact opposite.

 Government spending does not affect GDP because it merely shifts existing income.  The Democrats are basing their plan on outdated Keynesian economic theory which claims the the government can inject money into the economy to stimulate growth...asserting that government purchases of goods and services expand GDP.  This is ridiculous...the government is not creating its own money, every dollar it puts into the economy is first either taxed or borrowed.  These governmental purchases displace private purchases, using tax dollars to acquire goods and services from the private sector to stimulate economic economic activity is unchanged.

 The markets are forward looking...they are reacting to what is happening today...which, not surprisingly, is why they are tanking.  


Report this comment
#25) On February 24, 2009 at 9:12 PM, threepaweddog (28.23) wrote:


You can repeat the mantras of the supply siders ad nauseum, but the empirical evidence is that equity markets do statistically much better during Democratic presidencies.  Maybe it is because Democratic presidents have been much more fiscally responsible.  The only Republican presidents since 1927 to have excess equity returns were Eisenhower and Reagan during his second term.  And the only Democratic president NOT to have excess returns was Carter.

Report this comment
#26) On February 24, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Paladina (95.71) wrote:

Dear Conservatives:

  If Senator McCain had been elected, this current crisis would look like a little blip in the economy of the country. You want to talk souplines and boarded-up businesses, yes, that would be the expedient ticket. The Rich will always be rich and do not care about anything except make to make sure that they and their ilk continue to get richer. (A few exceptional philanthrophists care for their fellow citizens and contribute to or start charitable foundations.) So, you are better off. Just give our new President a chance and let's work in a bi-partisan way to benefit everyone.

Can you bear it???

Report this comment
#27) On February 24, 2009 at 10:28 PM, 8intUPlainWrong (< 20) wrote:

You maybe doing well in your "pointed" picks here, einniv1234 , but I believe you FAILED your HISTORY lessons on the Economy!  Reagan got us out of the MESS that Jimmy Carter's double digits got us into, and if I remember right, it was NIXON who tried to regulate several areas that we are now in trouble with today!  But it was the DEMS that got us into trouble in CONGRESS and the voting smack-downs that let REAGAN be Reagan that helped the economy so much then, where we had HUGE GAINS in tax revenue and investment money to let AMERICA PROSPER!

Your claim of "By the way, the economy does better under Democrats which is well documented. (and that includes Carter by the way)" IS FICTION!  "The only growth that occurs under Republicans is based on debt"   I don't think you know what you're talking about AT ALL!.

The country had HUGE GAINS under REAGAN!  Check the revenue income stream under those years and you'll find that YOUR WRONG! (even in G W Bush's year of 2007!* see below)

I think you have it all wrong, even with your errongance!  Just because you say it, with out fact doesn't mean it's true!  I say the NEW EMPERIOR is WEARING NO CLOTHES!

PLEASE go back to the history books, unless they've been changed by the ever-loving media to side DEMOCRATIC (SOCIALISM) in the books. (They're trying people!) for the out comes that NEVER HAPPENED!   You'll see that we had good times.  I know.   I LIVED THEM!


*Bush tax cuts brougth in more money into the Government coffers in the summer of 2007 than the Dems brought in the entire Johnson and Carter years combined.  It's funny...they want money, but they always do it thru TAXES! ....and now STIMULUS PORK BILLS.. Why was the $787B done first instead of the HOUSING BILL now being done?  TO PAY OFF SUPPORTERS OF OBAMA... LOOK AT ACORN!  They caused a lot of this mess with their pressing of the banks to make loans!

"(paraphrased)...If you pay off the mortages or even lowering them by 2% or have people pay them off, it would give the Government $150B a year, more than 100% profit to the government than OBAMA would get at his $100B a year?" [the Lars Larson Show]    Why?

Look that up folks!  Lars Larson said it best on Monday about the above, with Ms. Savage as guest.  Check out the podcast/stream from his page...  

Report this comment
#28) On February 25, 2009 at 1:46 AM, threepaweddog (28.23) wrote:


"Just because you say it, with out fact doesn't mean it's true"

As you are making many claims not backed up by posted evidence or objective fact, I'd make the same statement regarding your post. 

The fact is that the Reagan years provided much less federal revenue growth (1.8% annually) than the Clinton years (3.2% annually).  At the end of the Reagan years we had record deficits and debt.  At the end of the Clinton years we had a surplus and were paying down the debt.  At the end of the Bush years we are back to record deficits and debt.  And these federal revenue increases under Clinton weren't at the expense of household income.  Under Reagan, household income for the middle quintile went up 8%, under GHW Bush down 3%, under Clinton up 12%, and under GW Bush down 1%.  You may not like Obama's policies -- and I'm certainly no fan of many of them -- but the facts of recent history regarding the fiscal health of the country, our citizens, as well as that of the equities market, shows that we have fared worse under Republican presidents. 

 ....and who the hell is Lars Larson?  More importantly, why should anyone care?

Report this comment
#29) On February 25, 2009 at 2:28 AM, troothseeker (< 20) wrote:

Were you born during the Bush administration? Seems to me and I guess you could check on this one that last time a "liberal" democrat, (Bill Clinton) was in power he left this great nation of ours in pretty good shape. The DOW was around 11,000, we weren't accruing debt like it was going out of style, infact correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we actually added anything to the deficit the last year that he was in power, maybe, and again I'm not sure, but I think it was getting lower, and most people (at least the ones close to me) had a pretty strong feeling that life was good. And by no means am I saying that the state of the nation is entirely Mr. Bush's fault, I am saying that his administration and it's emphasis on the use of force over diplomacy, careless spending on military, while ignoring social programs and general welfare of Americans at home, and turning a blind eye to corporate greed, did alot to aid the social and financial unrest we're faced with now. If liberals were so bad for the basic financial structure of this world why then has global finance under the last two conservative leaders (remember George H.W.'s recession as well) been so bad, when global finance under Bill Clinton was so great? Or are you old enough to remember that?

If things are going to change for the better we are going to have to learn to play as a team and end the "my team's better than your team" or you're red... or you're blue so f'you!... that doesn't solve anything. Obama didn't create this and it's a giant mess. Things have gone unchecked for far too long. It's not going to be fixed over night. Our president (and yes, wether you voted for him or not, if you're American he's your president too.) needs us to come together as a people. No more b.s. divisiveness, that's what got us into this mess. You're fellow conservative Rush Limbaugh wants Obama's plan to fail. Awesome. That's a great attitude to have. Why? So he can be right? So all the Rush loving "conservative" fans can keep their "Rush is right" and not have to think, "Well, gee, if he was wrong on that, maybe Rush isn't ALWAYS right... What does that mean, am I an idiot for having this sticker on my truck?"

Why not "I hope he succeeds", I mean I do I really hope Obama succeeds, I hope he creates peace world wide, I hope American children of today and tomorrow enjoy the same great education that I enjoyed. I hope that we can settle our differences in the middle east, I hope we can come to terms with pollution caused by plants in developing nations that fuel consumerism in the 1st world. I hope that we can end violence in our schools, on our streets, and that no one will have to go to bed scared. I hope that we can find a way to provide the sick with what they need to get well, whether they're republican, democrat, independent, jewish, muslim, christian or wiccan. I hope we can get to a place where we can start to see eachother as human beings fellow travellers and see that each and every one of us have a right to be here, and that since we are all human that none of us will ever be right all the time, but maybe just maybe, we'll learn enough humility and tolerance, and dare I say it, love for one another.

Obama is here for at least four more years. I for one am happy to have an articulate, clearly intelligent, and humanitarian diplomat in his post. I hope for all our sakes that he gets us out of this one. And if you want to make a compelling argument for your cause, look at the record, I don't think you'll find that the pinko commie liberals have been all that bad for business.

Report this comment
#30) On February 25, 2009 at 2:39 AM, PauvrePapillon (99.85) wrote:

Fibpotus meet Karl Benz.

How can it be that the Fibpotus doesn’t even know that Karl Benz invented the automobile? Inspires confidence, doesn’t he? He’s going to save the auto industry but he doesn’t even know the most basic history of the automobile industry. In the third line of his inaugural address he claims he is the 44th person to take the oath of office of the President of the United States. Doesn’t even know his basic U.S. history. This guy is an empty suit, an absolute moron. Was his reference to 57 states an early senior moment or did he really think there were 57 states? You have to wonder. How did this fool ever become president? Oh, I remember. It was time for a Fibpotus and he butted into the front of the line.

The market was up today but then Tuesday night the Fibpotus opens his mouth and the overnights are down again. If you want to see the markets go up 1,000 points, all we need is for the Fibpotus to shut up for a month. The economy is not now and never has been as bad as advertised. That’s the real reason the Marxists had to fast track their massive pork package through Congress. They’re afraid that the economy will recover before they can take credit for it. Too bad they won’t stand up and take credit for crashing the whole finance system in the first place.

From the NYTimes September 1999:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.


Report this comment
#31) On February 25, 2009 at 5:14 AM, threepaweddog (28.23) wrote:


"The economy is not now and never has been as bad as advertised."  Really?

So what's your point with Freddie and Fannie?  Please tell us that you're not blaming minority recipients of Fannie and Freddie-pacakged mortgages for the subprime meltdown?  It seems like the collapse was Wall Street's and Washington's responsibility.  Considering ~75% of subprime mortgages were originated during the 2001-2007 Republican control of Congress, who would you blame?


Report this comment
#32) On February 26, 2009 at 8:21 PM, bostoncelitcs (67.29) wrote:

Come on!!  Get an effin spine!!..........So the kids are gonna have to eat macaroni and cheese for a few you're gonna have to give up the country club membership and play the "public" you're gonna have to trade in the "Escalade" for a Honday Odyssey..........Get a grip man!!

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners