So how muh longer until we can say Obama sucks?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

He is now remembered as perhaps the greatest President, and probably rightly so. But his first 60--indeed, his first 100 days, were a complete disaster--and he could easily be (and was) criticized for his bungling of the entire affair from start to finish, as long as you ignore what happened later.

Matter of opinion. Many people say that Lincoln was the President who first big government President who wanted a central power to have control, instead of individual states.

I don't see how you can compare an economic problem to a civil war.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

ACORN again? Wow--that's more passe than a giant cell phone.

And the reason they should get bailout money is.....?

Anyway, when was the auto-bailout passed? Seems weird to lay that at Obama's feet. We may not be able to compare, but we should at least remember that TARP and the auto bailout were done in 2008, during the Bush administration. So... no. I don't blame Obama for bailing out GM--because he didn't do it: Bush did.

And Obama was involved. Again, you're trying to deflect blame. Bush made a lot of mistakes, including the initial auto bailout, but he isn't in a position to fix anything. Obama is.

Laying the AIG bonus thing at his feet is even sillier.

No its not. The fact that Obama played 'dumb'....when the news came out speaks volumes about the mistake.

And then to blame AIG for paying out the bonuses....and wanting to force them to give it back through taxes, a very well placed deflection from the bigger problem at hand. Government mismanagement and incompetance.

I don't care who was in charge.

[Azure]

About the original bailout...

Obama's position....

The struggling auto industry was thrust into the middle of a political standoff between the White House and Democrats on Monday as President-elect Barack Obama urged President Bush in a meeting at the White House to support immediate emergency aid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us...hp&oref=slogin

According to the article, Bush balked at the deal....and then it was passed anyways in December.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

And the reason they should get bailout money is.....?

And Obama was involved. Again, you're trying to deflect blame. Bush made a lot of mistakes, including the initial auto bailout, but he isn't in a position to fix anything. Obama is.

No its not. The fact that Obama played 'dumb'....when the news came out speaks volumes about the mistake.

And then to blame AIG for paying out the bonuses....and wanting to force them to give it back through taxes, a very well placed deflection from the bigger problem at hand. Government mismanagement and incompetance.

I don't care who was in charge.

Obama was "involved" in some mysterious way prior to even being sworn in? We're in tinfoil hat territory here. I don't pretend to know why ACORN should receive bailout money--nor do I know for a fact that they did other than your say-so. I do know that ACORN isn't what you think it is--it certainly is not what the right-wing hot-air-o-sphere claimed during the election--nor are Obama's ties to that organization anything like as damning as they claim.

More importantly, if they receive bailout money, it's only because state and local governments choose to send it to them. Note the following language from the relevant bill:

TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.

DEPOSITS. Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).

USE OF DEPOSITS. Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1) 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).

REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY. All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry...pposition.html

That's the language that Republicans claim means "bailout money to Acorn." Figure it out if you can--I can't.


Also--note the date: September 27, 2008. It's bad enough that you want to blame him for things that happened prior to his being sworn in--but for this ACORN issue... Obama wasn't even elected yet! Can we seriously claim that he was "involved" before he even won the election?!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

About the original bailout...

Obama's position....



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us...hp&oref=slogin

According to the article, Bush balked at the deal....and then it was passed anyways in December.

I'm sorry, but that's just goofy. Obama "urged" Bush to support emergency aid? That doesn't mean he had any input into how that aid was managed--nor does it really mean anything at all. Obama could have "urged" Bush to close Guantanamo for all we know. Bush is the man who was making the decisions at that time. The decision, and the responsibility, are his.

Don't you think today's announcement of a policy change toward GM reflect something of a shift from the prior bailout?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Obama was "involved" in some mysterious way prior to even being sworn in? We're in tinfoil hat territory here.

No we're not. Obama was President-elect at the time, and was working closely with Bush regarding many things. I remember if clearly because it was impressive how smoothly it seemed to be going, and how people were saying Bush and his wife were making it as easy as possible for Obama's family to move into the Whitehouse.

I don't pretend to know why ACORN should receive bailout money--nor do I know for a fact that they did other than your say-so. I do know that ACORN isn't what you think it is--it certainly is not what the right-wing hot-air-o-sphere claimed during the election--nor are Obama's ties to that organization anything like as damning as they claim.

Where did I claim anything like that? It is accused of voter fraud apparently, but that really has nothing to do with it. Fact is they shouldn't be getting taxpayer money if they can't run their own company properly. Especially not $5.2 billion dollars worth.

More importantly, if they receive bailout money, it's only because state and local governments choose to send it to them. Note the following language from the relevant bill:

And if states refuse bailout money, the Obama administration vilifies them. Like they did with Mark Sanford, who was actually trying to restructure a plan to reduce his state's debt with the bailout money.

Also--note the date: September 27, 2008. It's bad enough that you want to blame him for things that happened prior to his being sworn in--but for this ACORN issue... Obama wasn't even elected yet! Can we seriously claim that he was "involved" before he even won the election?!

Obama, like everyone else in the executive and legislative branches was involved. He shares the blame too.

Just like McCain and Bush share the blame. Except neither of them are President.

The then presidential candidates from both major parties, Senators Barack Obama (D) and John McCain (R) voted in favor of the Senate version of the bill on October 1, 2008. Senator Barack Obama pledged to telephone wavering House of Representatives members to urge them to support the legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...on_Act_of_2008

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm sorry, but that's just goofy. Obama "urged" Bush to support emergency aid? That doesn't mean he had any input into how that aid was managed--nor does it really mean anything at all. Obama could have "urged" Bush to close Guantanamo for all we know. Bush is the man who was making the decisions at that time. The decision, and the responsibility, are his.

Don't you think today's announcement of a policy change toward GM reflect something of a shift from the prior bailout?

You seriously think that the President-elect of the United States had no influence on the decisions made prior to his inauguration?

Of course he does. That is why both him and Bush were working together for those 3 months.

Just because he didn't make the final decisions doesn't mean he wasn't involved.

What exactly is your point here anyways? That Obama isn't to blame for any of the mismanagement of the original $700billion because he wasn't President?

Of course the news today about GM and Chrysler is good. Its about time Obama showed some balls while he's in the process of pissing away taxpayer money.

[Azure]

Oh, I also wanted to mention that the original bailout deal was given to each member of Congress to read, and then vote on.

Meaning they either didn't read the bill, which would explain why none of them knew about the AIG bonuses....or they did, and decided to do nothing about it.

I found this gem while reading about the original bailout.

Obama said. "And we must also ensure that the solution we design doesn't reward particular companies, or irresponsible borrowers or lenders, or CEOs, some of whom helped cause this mess."

Nice.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew..._name=&no_ads=

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

No we're not. Obama was President-elect at the time, and was working closely with Bush regarding many things. I remember if clearly because it was impressive how smoothly it seemed to be going, and how people were saying Bush and his wife were making it as easy as possible for Obama's family to move into the Whitehouse.

Saying nice things to each other does not mean that Obama is somehow the de facto President.

Where did I claim anything like that? It is accused of voter fraud apparently, but that really has nothing to do with it. Fact is they shouldn't be getting taxpayer money if they can't run their own company properly. Especially not $5.2 billion dollars worth.

They were never accused of voter fraud. They were the victims of "voter registration fraud" carried out by in the field contractors. There was a lot of nonsense from McCain proxies about this, but nothing ever came of it.

And if states refuse bailout money, the Obama administration vilifies them. Like they did with Mark Sanford, who was actually trying to restructure a plan to reduce his state's debt with the bailout money.

You're missing the point. Here it is: there is nothing in the bailout about giving money to ACORN. There is a provision that allows states and local governments to use ACORN, or another similar organization, as subcontractors. That's all. This whole thing is just Limbaugh-manufactured baloney. Don't fall for it.

Obama, like everyone else in the executive and legislative branches was involved. He shares the blame too.

Just like McCain and Bush share the blame. Except neither of them are President.

OK--so let me get this straight. We can't compare the Obama administration to the Bush administration because the challenges they face are so different. However, we also can't hold Bush responsible for his actions before he left office, because the last actions of the Bush administration are actually and in secret the actions of the Obama administration--because through magic voodoo he took over Bush's brain from Karl Rove and worked him like a meat-puppet when he became president-elect. Moreover, he actually started to control the executive branch at the end of September in 2008, when he was in the midst of a campaign, and Bush was working with Congress to craft a financial bailout plan while Obama was riding around swing states in a decorated bus. I don't know exactly how he did this, but I'm going to guess it involves time travel.

By your logic, Obama is approximately as responsible for these things as former Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman. Both have roughly equal seniority in their parties, both were about equally involved in drafting the bill, both voted for it. So why aren't we demonizing Norm Coleman? Because that's silly. To borrow your phrase, neither man was President--and there's only one President at a time.

If you want to say Obama sucks, just say it. But blaming him for things that happened before he took office--or even before he was elected--that just reveals that for you the deck is stacked. It doesn't matter what Obama does or does not do--you'll pronounce him a failure anyway, even if you have to revise history to do it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh, I also wanted to mention that the original bailout deal was given to each member of Congress to read, and then vote on.

Meaning they either didn't read the bill, which would explain why none of them knew about the AIG bonuses....or they did, and decided to do nothing about it.

I found this gem while reading about the original bailout.


Nice.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew..._name=&no_ads=

Nice indeed. Obama, in September of 2008, warned that the TARP should include regulations to prevent the use of Federal money to pay bonuses to failed executives. No such language was included--and it turns out, Obama was right.


I'm not sure that quote is damning who you think you're damning. This one lies at the feet of one Henry Paulson.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I found this gem while reading about the original bailout.


Nice.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew..._name=&no_ads=

Well Obama's amended TARP plan uses those stated goals which you quote. So, the plan that Obama proposed while president ascribed to the values that he was quoted as saying while he wasn't president but voting on the TARP plan as proposed by the previous president. What the hell is your point man?

This debate is so moronic. A bunch of guys trying to stir up crap for the sake of it without any contextual realization and a heckuva lot of blatant conjecture.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You seriously think that the President-elect of the United States had no influence on the decisions made prior to his inauguration?

Of course he does. That is why both him and Bush were working together for those 3 months.

Just because he didn't make the final decisions doesn't mean he wasn't involved.

What exactly is your point here anyways? That Obama isn't to blame for any of the mismanagement of the original $700billion because he wasn't President?

Of course the news today about GM and Chrysler is good. Its about time Obama showed some balls while he's in the process of pissing away taxpayer money.

He might have influence. But he has no power. Bush is not somebody who is known for listening to people before making decisions. Let's review what each of us is implying:
1. I'm saying that the President is the President. Bush's decisions are Bush's decisions, and Obama's are Obama's.
2. You're implying that after the election, Bush (not known as a bipartisan operator) for reasons known only to himself, suddenly decided to start taking advice from a Democrat.

One of these passes the Occam's razor test--and the other does not.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Well Obama's amended TARP plan uses those stated goals which you quote. So, the plan that Obama proposed while president ascribed to the values that he was quoted as saying while he wasn't president but voting on the TARP plan as proposed by the previous president. What the hell is your point man?

This debate is so moronic. A bunch of guys trying to stir up crap for the sake of it without any contextual realization and a heckuva lot of blatant conjecture.

The context has always been the massive stimulus packages. It is fair to criticize those simply on the moral question, "Should governments use taxpayer's money to bail out industries that are no longer competitive?"

Not to mention the overlaying issue of whether a fiscal stimulus is AT ALL effective in increasing consumer confidence. Me, I go with Friedman on this one. All a massive increase in public spending will do is cause inflation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

The context has always been the massive stimulus packages. It is fair to criticize those simply on the moral question, "Should governments use taxpayer's money to bail out industries that are no longer competitive?"

Not to mention the overlaying issue of whether a fiscal stimulus is AT ALL effective in increasing consumer confidence. Me, I go with Friedman on this one. All a massive increase in public spending will do is cause inflation.

Plus a massive tax burden on future generations.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Saying nice things to each other does not mean that Obama is somehow the de facto President.

Give me a break. Ignoring the fact that Obama had to vote for the bailout bill as well.....the President=elect is directly involved with the serving President, and throughout history, the POTUS has always gone out of their way to accommodate the policies and agenda of the President-elect.

NBC News reported that Obama advanced his economic agenda with Bush, asking him to attempt to pass a stimulus package in a lame duck session of Congress before the inauguration. He also urged Bush to accelerate the disbursement of $25 billion in funds to bail out the automobile industry and expressed concern about additional Americans losing their homes as mortgage rates increase again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside...f_Barack_Obama

Like I said.....very much involved.

They were never accused of voter fraud. They were the victims of "voter registration fraud" carried out by in the field contractors. There was a lot of nonsense from McCain proxies about this, but nothing ever came of it.

You're missing the point. Here it is: there is nothing in the bailout about giving money to ACORN. There is a provision that allows states and local governments to use ACORN, or another similar organization, as subcontractors. That's all. This whole thing is just Limbaugh-manufactured baloney. Don't fall for it.

And the fact that states and local governments have the ability to give money to ACORN is because of the bailout passed by the Federal Government. Either way, doesn't matter. I don't care about ACORN....they're just one company, or one part of the bailout process that was handled incorrectly.

OK--so let me get this straight. We can't compare the Obama administration to the Bush administration because the challenges they face are so different.

Because the direction of their Presidency is completely opposite. At least for now. When it came to a bailout....Bush largely agreed with Obama on everything while he was still in office. Not very much to compare them with.

However, we also can't hold Bush responsible for his actions before he left office, because the last actions of the Bush administration are actually and in secret the actions of the Obama administration--because through magic voodoo he took over Bush's brain from Karl Rove and worked him like a meat-puppet when he became president-elect. Moreover, he actually started to control the executive branch at the end of September in 2008, when he was in the midst of a campaign, and Bush was working with Congress to craft a financial bailout plan while Obama was riding around swing states in a decorated bus. I don't know exactly how he did this, but I'm going to guess it involves time travel.

Not even going to bother responding. For someone who rails against arguments that 'Rush' uses....you're doing quite well yourself.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Plus a massive tax burden on future generations.

I honestly think that the underlying intent is to cause inflation in order to decrease the domestic debt. Problem is, it's never worked.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Nice indeed. Obama, in September of 2008, warned that the TARP should include regulations to prevent the use of Federal money to pay bonuses to failed executives. No such language was included--and it turns out, Obama was right.


I'm not sure that quote is damning who you think you're damning. This one lies at the feet of one Henry Paulson.

Link?

Either way, it doesn't matter, because Obama's people denied that they knew about the bonuses until March. So who is lying?

My problem with Obama isn't that the AIG bonuses were paid, but the way he handled it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Link?

Either way, it doesn't matter, because Obama's people denied that they knew about the bonuses until March. So who is lying?

My problem with Obama isn't that the AIG bonuses were paid, but the way he handled it.

It was your link.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Well Obama's amended TARP plan uses those stated goals which you quote. So, the plan that Obama proposed while president ascribed to the values that he was quoted as saying while he wasn't president but voting on the TARP plan as proposed by the previous president. What the hell is your point man?

This debate is so moronic. A bunch of guys trying to stir up crap for the sake of it without any contextual realization and a heckuva lot of blatant conjecture.

I didn't realize that his amended TARP plan mentioned anything about that. I never bothered to go look it up after the Obama people said they never knew anything about the bonuses.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It was your link.

And here is the link about not knowing about the bonuses....which is why I was confused.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...adminis-1.html

Sources in the Obama administration Tuesday said that despite previous media reports administration officials did not know until a couple weeks ago that the officials of the controversial AIG Financial Product Division were set to receive $165 million in bonuses on March 13.