Obama's done a lot, but gets little credit for it; why?

@talk72000,

I never denied that the financial institutions needed to be salvaged, because without banks, our economy would have ceased to exist. What I criticize Obama for is how he bailed out the banks without much oversight and controls.

There's always a good way and a bad way to solve a problem; Obama failed miserably.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It was Congress that provided the bailout. It was rushed and Geithner had a hand in it. Hank Paulson precipitated the meltdown when he let Lehman Bros. go bankrupt. In the PBS 'Inside the Meltdown', one can see Paulson gloating when he refused to bailout Lehman Bros. stating that it would not affect the economy. That same day in the afternoon, the banks all froze. He realized his mistake and with Ben Barnarke (?) went to Congressional Speaker, Nancy Pelosi for $700 billion bailout money. Right here on A2K I wrote that Nancy should not just give the money but put oversight and safeguards on it. There was a few weeks' delay and there were safeguards but there were hidden aspects put in by Paulson. The whole affair was rushed. Under those conditions it was not a bad job. It was basically Paulson's bailout not Obama.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

It's true that congress approved the money, but Obama had the final say on congress' vote.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

It was an emergency if Obama did not sign it and wanted to change things the stock market would have crashed and a full-blown depression would be on. Congress normally takes very long to do anything and the government could not afford any long debates. The stock market doesn't wait for anyone.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

It was an "emergency" as you say, but approving a bad bill is plain incompetence. All he needed to do was to implement some controls on the money that was given with some rules or regulations about how the money is to be used and returned.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Inside the Meltdown:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/

Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac were run like a private corporation and Paulson fired the two managers.

0 Replies

@parados,

No, I'm not moving the goal posts.
I freely admit unemployment has gone down since he passed his budget, but since it is still above what it was when he took office, that translates to me as an increase in unemployment.

Since it has gone down less then 1 %, AFTER it went from 7.7% to 10% under his watch, do you really think that it now being above 9% is a good thing?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

No, I'm not moving the goal posts.
I freely admit unemployment has gone down since he passed his budget, but since it is still above what it was when he took office, that translates to me as an increase in unemployment.

Since it has gone down less then 1 %, AFTER it went from 7.7% to 10% under his watch, do you really think that it now being above 9% is a good thing?

mysteryman wrote:

So, anything that has happened to our economy, good or bad, is the fault of Obama IF it happened AFTER he passed his first budget.

You ARE moving the goal posts.

1 Reply

I am not happy with Obama or the democrats but the thought of 2 years of republican rule makes my skin crawl! Can any of you say hindsight? Something needs to be done about needing a super majority in the senate to pass legislation.

0 Replies

@parados,

Ok, then lets make this simpler for you.

When unemployment gets below the level it was when he was sworn in, then I will give him credit for turning the economy around.
It has gone down less then 1 percent since his first budget, AFTER it went up on his watch.
So, until it is back down to the same level it was at when he was sworn in, he has accomplished nothing on that front.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

It is like asking a person to fix a flat tire when he is denied a jack. The Republicans blocked or tried to block every effort of Democrats to fix economic problems in Congress.

2 Replies

@talk72000,

Quote:

It is like asking a person to fix a flat tire when he is denied a jack. The Republicans blocked or tried to block every effort of Democrats to fix economic problems in Congress.

and judging by the polling numbers it worked like a charm for Republicans.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Obama strategy of not defending against the nickel and dime offense is hurting him. He needs to respond to every attack and not give in. The key is to bend and not break i.e. respond even if the argument is not 100% and 'bending' works.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

That's simple enough. You moved the goal posts from where they were earlier.

0 Replies

@talk72000,

Quote:

He needs to respond to every attack and not give in

I think he is now boxed in, he needs to grow a set of balls but also the primary perception of him is the he is small, petty and petchulant so doing what you suggest would make an already major problem worse. Likability is hugely important to his ability to amass and weld power, and Obama is not very likable.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Besides, Obama has no chareezma!

0 Replies

@talk72000,

But the repubs dont have enough votes to block anything.
The dems have the majority in both houses, and they have the WH.

Yes, the repubs can use proceedural stalling tactics, but they dont have enough votes to actually stop anything that comes to the floor of either chamber.
So your claim that the repubs are blocking "every effort" doesnt hold water.

3 Replies

@mysteryman,

All they need is 41 votes to block anything in the senate. There is no such thing as a simple majority in the senate. The difference is that the dems wouldent use this tactic to help their constituency during the Bush years and are now paying the price.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

Yes, the repubs can use proceedural stalling tactics, but they dont have enough votes to actually stop anything that comes to the floor of either chamber.
So your claim that the repubs are blocking "every effort" doesnt hold water.

Actually, they do have enough votes to stop anything that comes to the Senate floor. 60 votes are required to end debate. There are currently 41 Republicans. Unless there is a vote to end debate on an issue, there can never be a vote on the issue itself. This isn't a 'stalling' tactic at all. It is a way to block a bill from passing.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

The reality is that the Senate always has a few who are Dems in name only, and the Reps vote in lockstep (against the best interests of the country).

0 Replies

Obama's done a lot, but gets little credit for it; why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know