So now that the GOP is ""in power"" does that mean Obama is now the obstructionist???

reply to post by snusfanatic

Ha !! Like 8 years under G.W Bush had nothing to with amercas failed economy ?

What do you or anyone hear know about Bill Clinton and NAFTA?

It was suppose to keep are brown neighbors south of the border.

In the meantime he and his female insured that their Chinese "friends" were well taken care of.

She when she was on the board of directors of WALMART told them they could make more money by having all their crap made in China!

Slick Willy , left a surplus when he left office.

No he did not.That is a fallacy that he continues to perpetrate.

They cooked the books and moved money around to make it appear that way.

They deferred a lot of debt that came due after Bush was in office.

Clinton gutted the military and closed bases.

Eliminated a lot of civil service jobs too.

This did save some money,but cost more in the long run run cleaning up the toxic mess at a lot of the bases.

The biggest hit was California.

Tens of thousands of people lost their jobs and the opportunities for young people to have a good job disappeared.

Look at Stockton,Sacramento,Oakland ,Vallejo,Concord,Monterey pick a place where bases were and there were jobs galore.

Clinton closed those bases from 1992 until 2000 while he was in the white house.

That was the beginning up the end of Calif. for people to have decent jobs.

He eased the regulations on loans and opened the country for crooks to come here from all over the world without any restrictions.

Clinton and his she devil are the ultimate globalists.

And it is being done for their greed.

reply to post by Oneolddude


Why do people continue the blame game, with the two party illusion.
Both partys are to blame.

NAFTA
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it.

Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own. The ability to enforce these clauses, especially with Mexico, and with much consideration and emotional discussion the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200.

en.wikipedia.org...

BANK DEREGULATION
An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22,1999 sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system. ( republicans held a majority in the house and senate.)

www.wsws.org...

BASE CLOSURES

Downsizing began under Reagan and continued under G.H.W. Bush , Bill Clinton and G.W. Bush.

www.fas.org...


Both partys are to blame. So stop playing the blame game and perpetuating the two party illusion.
Both partys are moving the SAME AGENDA.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
I don't buy into americas two party illusion.

Well you seem to think that only 1 party is at fault considering all you do is rant against Bush.

Slick Willy , left a surplus when he left office.

Again, it's Congress. Who was in the majority during the Clinton years?........That's right, the republicans.
Again, the President is not king. Congress has the power.

The republicans controlling Congress during the Clinton years are the one's who kept him in check and allowed the economy to grow. Now, the Dem's have controlled Congress since 06 and the economy is in the tank. Are you finally starting to see the error of your illogical thinking?

reply to post by WhatTheory


Do you not know how to read or do you have selective memory?
Reread my last post.

It is better to be silent and thought a fool, then to speak and remove all doubt .

You ,WhatTheory, have removed all doubt.

Try reading it again.

BANK DEREGULATION
An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22,1999 sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system. ( republicans held a majority in the house and senate.)

www.wsws.org..

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Do you not know how to read or do you have selective memory?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Reread my last post.

No thanks, I've read enough nonsense for one day.

It is better to be silent and thought a fool, then to speak and remove all doubt .
You ,WhatTheory, have removed all doubt.

Please, you don't even know what you are trying to say.
First you say the Clinton years were great then you point to regulation which you think hurts the economy.
I see you are trying to have it both ways.

reply to post by Aim64C


First off, I agree with you. Everybody should be responsible for their own well-being, and everybody should manage their budgets carefully and live according to their means, and not allow themselves to be caught up by that materialistic motto; "He who dies with the most toys wins!". I''d worked in a couple of casinos right before the economy took a dump, and was flabbergasted at how much money some of the graveyard shift blackjack dealers were raking in ($2,000 to $3000 a night), but even more appalled at how much they were putting themselves in debt, by building custom, 3 story homes and splurging on jet skis and ATVs, and at how low their credit scores were compared to mine. (I was making $7.00 buck an hour, and about twice that an hour in tips as the world's fattest valet.)

My post was a reply to a previous post, however. Here's a quote;
"Couldn't have anything to do with people buying houses they could not afford and racking up tens of thousands in credit card debt per capita."
Again, I agree, that people should know what they're getting into. However, where I have a problem is where the banking conglomerate breached the public trust due to corruption and greed. Instead of working with a massive number of struggling families, like mine, they'd rather BS about how homeowners have to repeatedly fill out the same paperwork, only to deny them over and over, like they did to me, and pass you from one department to another, where nobody can give you a definite answer and you have to keep calling them every few weeks to see if they've figured anything out yet. In the background, these banks have been continually working on pulling the carpet out from under your feet, until you get a notice on your front door telling you that SURPRISE, even though they said you were almost approved for a refinance, you have three days to vacate. I've heard that banks make more money by foreclosing than they do by refinancing, and here's some figures to prove it. (We've all seen the old westerns, where the bank is about to foreclose on some poor family's ranch, and the hero has to gallop by the greedy bankers and BLAST them. Kind of makes me wish this was still the old west.)

Foreclosures in 2008: 1 Million LINK
Foreclosures in 2009: 2.8 Million Link
Foreclosures in 2010: 1.05 Million Link

And I also don't like when they deliberately screw over certain segments of the population: Link, Link, and one that affected me directly, Link
Predatory lending may be the norm, but that doesn't make it just. Blaming the victims for 100% of the mess isn't just either. Link How does a homeowner cause fraud in this type of case? Please, enlighten me.

As for the Presidential comparison, here's another quote:
"You're right. It was Bush's fault. Problems in 3025 will be blamed on Bush, it seems."
My point was that they're both incompetent, and pointing fingers like the previous poster did, ain't gonna do much good unless a parrot comes by and lands on it.

Not trying to hate on you personally, as I found your answer intelligent and well written, but this whole mortgage mess does get me pretty worked up. My last job kept cutting my hours until they let me go, my wife got sick and got fired as a result, and when we asked PNC mortgage for help, they dragged the re-modification process along for over 2 years before they finally took our house.

I'm having a great time living at my mom's, though, while my wife and kids are staying a couple of miles down the road at her parents' house. Thank you, Mr. Bush, and thank you, Mr. Obama, for coming to America's assistance in a timely manner and helping make that a reality!

edit on 4/29/2011 by Monstertako because: angry mispelling

reply to post by Monstertako


I agree that banks could be more 'human' about things.

The main problem with banks, though, has been the Federal Reserve. So long as we have the Federal Reserve, we'll still have the same problems - they will just pop up in different sectors or follow periods of no regulation or a lack of effective regulation.

The banking industry really isn't a "free market" practice because of the federal reserve. They are, effectively, a government-mandated monopoly - all banks ultimately issue the same note backed by the federal reserve. Their service agreements may differ from one bank to another - but a bank note from 3rd national carries the same weight as a bank note from 1st community regardless of their accounting practices (or malpractices). One could operate on a 10% reserve and the other on a 90% reserve - U.S. Bank would accept a bank-note from either equally.

In a true free market banking system, banks that routinely lack the reserves to back their stated assets would not be treated as accredited banks. Those that had good banking practices and ensured they kept fractional reserve banking to a reasonable level (to expect it to go away completely is unrealistic) would be regarded as 'good' banks and have a positive rating and (at least in theory) get more business.

The Federal Reserve was brought into existence in the belief it would stabilize the value of the national currency (as all currencies have a tendency to rise and fall in value). Since it's creation - the economy has become even more unstable and the value of the dollar varying to even greater extremes.

As for your specific situation - I'm not really sure how to address it. In many cases - banks will use intimidation to scare people into taking actions that void their legal privileges. For example - there may have been state or local laws that prevent seizure of property so long as some percentage is being paid on the loan, or until the loan has had the opportunity to be renegotiated.

There is a lot of stuff out there that people don't really know is out there to help them. That's the down-side to our hideously complex system of laws these days - laws written to help people in financial trouble become obscured by the mounds of hundred-page bills passed on a monthly basis - and lawyers have bills to pay, too - legal counseling on such situations for free is not often all that easy to come by - especially when you consider the outcome is simply a cease and desist order against the bank rather than an lawsuit for damages (or settlement for damages).

And the other part of it is simply the reality that we have or had large portions of the population living well beyond their reasonable means. Going back to that lifestyle is not a realistic, or wise goal. We're going to have to spend some time huddled up under the same roofs and splitting bills to start saving to pay for a house of our own. I'd -love- to have a house of my own. I want a couple pets, a garden, a hobby room, a bedroom where I can mount stuff on the wall, etc - and I could probably pull off a loan and down payment for one.

But it wouldn't be a wise move for me.

Granted - my room mates and I are contemplating on gunning for a house large enough for all of us - enough room for us to all have our space and hobbies. But it wouldn't be a 'house of my own' and we'd be splitting the living expenses so that we weren't merely working to sustain our existence, but able to put something aside for the future - for when we have families.

And if something happens and we find ourselves unemployed... not much we can do about it other than to find another job and do what we can to make ends meet. I mean... ultimately - the only cure for unemployment is employment - and it all probably means a pretty big change in life.

At least you and your wife still have parents to help. I lost my mom at 18 and my dad at 21 - many of my friends (both male and female) either have only one parent - or parents that may as well be dead due to being incarcerated or having drug/sanity problems.

The obstructionists are the GOP as it's either, "Their way or the highway" and have already threatened the stability of the nation and the recovery if they don't get their way.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


While I somewhat agree with you - it's really for completely different reasons.

The GOP has not strong-armed the spending issue enough. A few billion in spending? Please. We're spending over 1.2 Trillion into the hole this year, alone. Government healthcare costs are expected to skyrocket in the coming years as more people begin drawing Medicare. Already, Medicare and Medicaid account for about 1 Trillion in spending with an estimated 60 Billion (more than the cuts being negotiated) lost to fraud each year. That's about three times the budget of NASA.

While everyone likes to point a finger at the wars... the fact of the matter is that, even while deployed to fight two and a half wars (or whatever this issue is in Libya) - the Defense budget amounts to about 800 billion dollars including military payroll, ongoing R&D, and procurement (as well as operation and replacement expenses).

We could completely get rid of the military and still be spending about 400 billion into the hole.

It's not an option. And it can't just be a "slash spending" - we have to look at how to restructure to make everything more efficient (get the same or better results with less spending). The way we spend money as a government -MUST- be restructured, almost from the ground-up. It is an issue of such importance we really need to hold a 'constitutional convention' to resolve it.

And not just the spending structure - we also need the revenue (tax) structure overhauled as well. The fact of the matter is that a lot of the wealth out there actually sits outside of the tax pool. While we like to tax the living piss out of income and demonize anyone making over 300K annually - the reality is that the "ultra-wealthy" live on capital gains - investments. The tax rate on investments is low. That doesn't mean the solution is to start taxing the bejesus out of stock or start income-grading stocks, either.

Personally - i think the solution is to just make a more simple tax structure, and that's all there is to it. Simpler taxes mean fewer loop-holes for companies to exploit. I'm partial to a sales tax applied across the board with a tax prebate to offset the taxes one would pay at the poverty level (pretty much what the Fair Tax proposal is all about). But it isn't the only line of thinking out there that could provide a useful solution.

However - the way we are doing things: "Spend into oblivion while demonizing business" is not working. We also need to stop setting things up for failure - like the banks. On one hand - we set up the Federal Reserve and monopolize the entire banking industry - then we blame private banks for the economic crisis. It was a system that, by its very design, was destined to fail. Banking institutions were merely a free-market service for a socialized industry utilizing fiat currency.

It's lose-lose but makes the banks look like the bad guys.