It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Obama be impeached for sheer incompetence?

page: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by amazed
 


If it took you an hour to read through that stimulus package, then you didnt read through it. Its more than just a few pages long.




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
To the Bush bashers:

If Bush was incomptetent, is it OK for Obama to be incompetent also?

Nobody ever said that.
But if bush didn't get impeached for numerous Constitutional and human rights violations, how can obama get impeached for perceived lack of competence?


I thought Obama voters voted for change?

Yes ? And?


BTW there is nothing incompetent about policies that keep Americans safe.

No but for example the warrantless wiretap program that bush approved is ILLEGAL and in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution is our countries most precious document and bush said "It's just a god damn piece of paper" and specifically treated it like just a piece of toilet paper.


Now burying our children and grandchildren in massive debt...that's incompentence.

What about burying our wives, husbands, and children in graves from fighting an illegal war in a foreign country after suppressing intelligence about WOMD's ?


Bush had a part in it...but he did it for national security,

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


and Democrats loaded up every Bush spending bill with pork knowing Bush had no choice to to approve it. Obama is doing it in the name of Socialism, and Democrats once again are loading it up.

Please don't pretend that democrats are the only ones who put pork in bills as we both know this is simply not true



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Can a president be impeached for sheer incompetence?

I wish. Unfortunately we are stuck with him.
He's only been in 6 weeks and look at the damage done.
God help us, we still have almost 4 full years left of this.
I wish we could impeach Pelosi as well. But we can't.
Frightening, eh?



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by verylowfrequency
 



Originally posted by verylowfrequency
reply to post by jsobecky
 

What do they pay you people (both Democrats & Republicans) to ignore reality and divert all attention so nobody notices the fact the all politicians are criminals corrupted by world corporations and all you do is complain about the ones currently in the head office.


First of all, that remark was uncalled for.

But more importantly, you are right - both sides are corrupted. But we can either attack the nebulous "Dems and Reps", which is like punching a cloud, or we can attack individual cases of corruption, which is what this thread is intended to do.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and all that.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by CapsFan8
 



Originally posted by CapsFan8
Don't confuse creating artificial bubbles to put off and exacerbate the problems of the economy with turning it around.


You're not implying that Bush created the housing bubble, are you? Because that is totally incorrect. He actually tried to stop it and impose regulation, but was stymied.

For the real story, see this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by CapsFan8
 



Originally posted by CapsFan8
Don't confuse creating artificial bubbles to put off and exacerbate the problems of the economy with turning it around.


You're not implying that Bush created the housing bubble, are you? Because that is totally incorrect. He actually tried to stop it and impose regulation, but was stymied.

For the real story, see this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Is this what you mean?



Or this?




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by CapsFan8
 



Originally posted by CapsFan8
Don't confuse creating artificial bubbles to put off and exacerbate the problems of the economy with turning it around.


You're not implying that Bush created the housing bubble, are you? Because that is totally incorrect. He actually tried to stop it and impose regulation, but was stymied.

For the real story, see this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Is this what you mean?



Or this?








GOP RECORD OF DEREGULATION DEMOCRATIC RECORD OF OVERSIGHT
December 28, 2002: A study by Federal Reserve economists reported homeowners taking advantage of falling interest rates and rising home values to extract $131.6 billion via mortgage refinancings in 2001 and early 2002, while consumers spent some of the money, they saved or invested more of it, according to a study published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin. Homeowners spent an estimated $20.7 billion of the cash for personal items such as cars, vacations or medical services, the study said. [Chicago Tribune, 12/28/02]

May 2002: Senator Sarbanes introduces the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2002. [S. 2438]

November 2003: Senator Sarbanes, introduces the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2003. [S. 1928]

February 23, 2004: Instead of heeding warnings, Federal Reserve leadership promotes non-traditional mortgages over fixed rate products in a speech to the Credit Union National Association annual conference. "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage.the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home." [Remarks By Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, 2/23/04]

October 8, 2003: Bush administration objected to a proposal to have an independent regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be an independent unit of Treasury, much like financial regulators housed in the agency that oversee banks and thrifts. The Bush administration also objected to a proposal to have the Department of Housing and Urban Development have oversight over the companies' business activities. The independence provision has broad support from committee Democrats and Republicans. The HUD provision was pushed mostly by Democrats but had been accepted by Oxley and Baker as a compromise needed to move the bill forward. [Washington Post, 10/8/03]

February 24, 2004: At a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Norman Rice, President and CEO of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle questioned having low-income Americans use ARM's to finance their homes. In addition, Senator Sarbanes questioned the Federal Reserve's promotion of alternative mortgage products over traditional fixed rate mortgages:
* Norman Rice: "Particularly if you're talking about serving an underserved constituency. Adjustable rate mortgages for a low income constituency is a nightmare."
* Senator Sarbanes: "[The Federal Reserve] is pushing adjustable rate mortgages.and throwing this risk back on the consumer." [Senate Banking Committee Transcript, 2/25/04]

June 30, 2004: After encouraging the use of non-traditional mortgages, many of which re-set with rising interest rates, the Federal Reserve begins to raise rates-17 consecutive, 25 basis point increases that take the Federal Reserve Funds rate from a 46-year low of 1 percent in June 2004 to 5.25 percent in June 2006. [Market News International, 4/29/08]

October 26, 2005: House of Representatives passed regulation reforming the GSE's. The bill passed the House 331-90 (Republicans: 209-15; Democrats: 122-74), and would have given the new regulator broad authority over setting capital requirements and limiting portfolio size. Senate Democrats picked that bill up and offered it, but the Administration opposed that legislation. According to Mr. Oxley, the White House gave Congress and the GSE reform legislation "a one-finger salute."
* "We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we're facing now, if we hadn't had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed," Mr. Oxley says." [Financial Times, 9/11/08]

February 7, 2007: Federal banking regulators released their voluntary Guidance on Nontraditional Mortgage Products for mortgage lenders. However, the guidance did not apply to subprime mortgages. [Senate Banking Committee Transcipt, Prepared Statement of Martin Eakes, 2/7/07]

March 22, 2007: Senator Dodd laid out how the Federal Reserve was responsible for the "perfect storm" sweeping over American homeowners. At a Banking committee hearing Dodd said, "By May of 2005, the press was reporting that economists were warning about the risks of these new mortgages. In June of that year, Chairman Greenspan was talking about "froth" in the mortgage market and testified before the Joint Economic Committee that he was troubled by the surge in exotic mortgages." [Senate Banking Committee Transcript, 3/22/07]

August 6, 2007: At a White House morning press briefing, in response to a question whether the housing market is correcting or in crisis, President Bush says that the economy is stable: "[I]t looks we're headed for a soft landing." [Remarks By President Bush, 8/9/07]

November 15, 2007: Senator Reid asked unanimous consent to pass the FHA Modernization Act, but Republicans objected. [Congressional Record, 11/15/08]

December 4, 2007: In response to a question about whether the Administration was too slow to recognize the subprime problem, President Bush said: "We've been working on this since August." [Remarks By President Bush, 12/4/07]

December 6, 2007: Senator Reid asked unanimous consent to pass the FHA Modernization Act, but Republicans objected. [Congressional Record, 12/6/08]

October 4, 2007: At a news conference on Wednesday, House and Senate Democrats outlined a plan to help low- and middle-income families keep their homes." [New York Times, 10/04/07]

January 9, 2008: The Federal Reserve finally proposes rule pursuant to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, to combat abusive and deceptive lending practices. Congress passed the law in 1994. [Federal Reserve System, 1/9/08; Public Law No: 103-325]

February 14, 2008: Senate Democrats announce The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 which would keep families facing foreclosure in their homes, help other families avoid foreclosures in the future, and help communities already harmed by foreclosure to recover. [HR 3221, 2008]

February 26, 2008: After Senate Democrats introduce The Foreclosure Prevention Act, White House issues a veto threat and Senate Republicans block consideration of the bill. [Statement of Administration Policy, 2/26/08; Senate Vote #35, HR 3221]

February 28, 2008: Senate Republicans blocked consideration of the Foreclosure Prevention Act. The bill provided $10 billion in bond authority to refinance subprime loans, $4 billion in grants for the rehabilitation of foreclosed homes and tax relief for struggling homebuilders. The bill also included a provision that would allow bankruptcy courts to modify the terms of a mortgage on a primary residence that could have helped 600,000 families stay in their homes. [Senate Vote #35, HR 3221; CRS Summary; Finance Committee Press Release, 2/15/08; Center for Responsible Lending]

March 14, 2008: Federal Reserve and JP Morgan Chase Bailed Out Bear Stearns. "On the verge of a collapse that could have shaken the very foundations of the U.S. financial system, investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. was bailed out Friday by a rival and the federal government. The near-miss raised new alarm about the credit crisis -- and whether other big firms might be in jeopardy." [AP, 3/15/08]

April 1, 2008: Republicans Stall Housing Bill. Republicans force cloture vote on motion to proceed to energy bill. [Senate Vote 86, HR 3221, 4/1/08]

June 19, 2008: After measure is reported by the Senate banking committee, White House issues a veto threat against the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, which includes GSEs reform, on the grounds that the bill provides $4 billion in grants to communities struggling with foreclosed properties. [Statement of Administration Policy, 1/19/08]

June 24, 2008: Republicans Stall Housing Bill. Republicans forced Democrats to file cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Housing bill. [Senate Vote 155, HR 3221, 6/24/08]

June 25, 2008: 79 Senators vote to pass the bipartisan housing bill while some Republican Senators announce they would use procedural maneuvers to delay final passage until after the July 4th recess. "Sens. Jim DeMint and John Ensign both said they were willing to run out the clock on a major housing bill.'I don't intend to allow any unanimous consents to shorten the debate time on the housing bill,' DeMint said." [Roll Call, 6/26/08]

July 7, 2008: Republican Senators force a procedural vote in order to further delay the passage of the comprehensive housing bill. [Senate Vote #163, HR 3221, 7/10/08]

July 10, 2008: Several Republican Senators force another procedural vote in order to delay passage of the housing bill. (Senate Vote #170, HR 3221, 7/10/08) "By a vote of 84-12 Thursday, the Senate cleared away the last procedural hurdle hindering the measure in that chamber, but lingering objections by a GOP critic pushed off passage until Friday." [AP, 7/11/08]

July 11, 2008: White House spokeswoman Dana Perino renews veto threat against the housing bill. [AP, 7/11/08]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


So... you consider saving middle class America from the raping it got from the top 1% a blunder? You consider paying for new roads and bridges in America, not Iraq, a blunder? You consider spending money on America and not new offices in Dubai for Halliburton a blunder? You consider doing every thing the opposite of a president that destroyed America a blunder? Right, makes total sense.
Actually, now it does make sense. You say all this only happened after Obama came in to office. Uh, he was handed a bag of dog doo and now you're saying it came from Obama's dog even though the bag says GWB on it. Right, partisan hack.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by JMasters]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Don't look at me, I supported Ron Paul!

We need a vote of no confidence just like in Star Wars! Oh wait, isn't that how the emperor came to power?



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
well, its pretty much put up or shut up time for obama and the obamatons. so far, he hasnt done squat it seems, but hey, maybe if we wait 4 years, we can get a real president in who might actually make change.

obama will be one of the killing blows to this country, but the kool aid sipping blind followers will just lemming their way into oblivion and then cry the loudest for help when thy find there is none.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I'm sure this has been said 100 times already, but if Bush couldn't be impeached for war crimes, forgetting his incompetence at nearly everything he did as Commander in Chief, I think is highly doubtful if Obama will ever be impeached.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Yet partisan liberals are trying to derail this thread by bringing up Bush.


It's called discussion.

If you think that Bush cannot be compared to Obama in regards of impeachment then there really no hope for any intelligent discussion with you regarding this subject. Any attempt made will be mired in political rhetoric.

There were numerous attempts by congress to have Bush impeached for a number of reason. If this doesn't have validity as a conversation piece pertaining to this subject, then nothing does ... other than anti-Obama mud-slinging.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Can a president be impeached for sheer incompetence? If so, Obama should be impeached at the end of his 100 day 'honeymoon'.


Probably not.

G. W. Bush stayed in office for 8 years.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Don't look at me, I supported Ron Paul!

We need a vote of no confidence just like in Star Wars! Oh wait, isn't that how the emperor came to power?


Unfortunately, we don't have that.

However, it would make sense to have such a vehicle for the PUBLIC to remove elected officials from office when they are really messing up. It could go something like this (in theory)

1) Pres messes up to the point the country has no faith (insert Congressman/senator here as well)

2) A Special No Confidence Election Vote is called by the National Election Board

3) The people vote, the electors are bound by the outcome of that popular vote.

4) New elections are held within 2 months to ensure we have a leader/senator/congressman in that office

5) whoever is elected is bound by the same term limits (Assuming they don't try and pass the amendment getting rid of them again) as their predecessor.

It "could" in teory work, but we all know how these things go in practice.




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Honestly imho hes done a better job in 50 days then Bush junior did in 8 years.

This is a second line.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Where have all you Impeachment and Federal Government Haters for the past 8 years?Give me a break.You, Chuck Norris and Rush Limbaugh actually look lke racists because it seems contrived. All the blame on Obama.
Blame it on Bush,Cheney,Tom Delay,Donald Rumsfeld,Ashcroft and all the incompetance and lies that led us into this situation but No, it's all Obama and the Democrats who are responsible.

Republicans have become the party of the rich and their sycophants who wil say anything to discredit the other party.They just can't handle not being in power, it is Pathetic.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Bruiex]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I see you have no sources whatsoever at all for these ridiculous allegations


"During the first month of his administration, he spent more than Bush did on two wars, and Katrina relief and rebuilding"

Obama spending

"He has committed diplomatic blunders with UK PM Gordon Brown "

Obama miffs Brown camp

"He has proposed taxes that will cause an inflationary spiral, when imposed "

Obama's new taxes

"He has committed to an assault weapon ban"

Obama on assault weapons

"He has targeted private citizens for disagreeing with his policies "

Obama targets Rush

"He has broken campaign promises on hiring lobbyists "

Obama loves the lobbyists

"He has broken campaign promises on stopping partisanship "

Link

I have wasted enough of my day leading you to what is right in front of your face. The rest are up to you.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 

Way to Go, Glad someone was prepared, I sure wasn't ready to stick it under their nose and let them smell the stink.




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
You know what?

From all the self-appointed world police in here, up until the posts that just simply make no sense:

(ie., "that remark was uncalled for, BUT more importantly, you're right"... what??? an uncalled for remark typically has no semblance of correctness OR relevance...),

The one thing that should be blaringly obvious is that this entire thread should be labeled as Political Trolling as it seems every single post hedges on Political Divisiveness.

I'm sorry OP, you claim that your "intent" was to target individual corruption??

The way *I* see it, is that your ONLY intent is two-fold:

(a) To see how many people you can get to agree with you because,
(b) You DO want nothing more than to promote division in the political circumspect.

Funny, I thought this was an ATS taboo


AB1



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join