A question to Obama detractors

This is a serious question. Not rhetorical.

And for arguments sake (and less characters typed) lets just call the "Obama Detractors" republicans

I realize not all are republicans, but remember, this is for arguments sake


On one hand, i see republicans saying:

The current economic crisis is a direct result of the Clinton years because the democrats forced banks to loan money to people who couldn't afford it.
They say that changes to the economy take years to come about, and that actions by the Clinton 10 years ago, are just now starting to effect the economy.



NOW

On the other hand:

Republicans are blasting the democrats for the stimulus bill, and bashing Obama saying that he's been in Office X number of weeks, and nothing has changed.
So they're suddenly changing their philosophy that it takes years for actions to have an impact on the economy, and all of a sudden (when it fits their agenda) ... the stimulus bill (and obama himself) are supposed to have an instantaneous impact on the economy and everything is to go back to the way it was.



So my question to (if you're a detractor of the current administration is)

Can you please explain to me why there's a difference?
Can you please explain to me why you have two different standards when judging someone from across the aisle?

I neither support nor detract the current administration yet.

I just call it like i see it.
And unless someone can convince me otherwise, the way i see it is that the Republicans are cutting off their nose to spite their face, in a very pathetic and sad manner.

reply to post by Fremd


I haven't seen any posts claim that the current economic situation was due to Bill Clinton. Where have you seen those?

The current crisis is due to a lot of things and a lot of people. Barney Frank. Pelosi. Bush. Congress. Groups like ACORN. Obama now. Obama years ago when he was a lawyer and sued Citibank to push bad loans on them.

But yours is the first post I've seen saying that Bill Clinton had anything to do with it.

reply to post by FlyersFan


My apologies for not clarifying, i am new to ATS, i was refering to what i read and hear in the media.

They are claiming that this is all a direct result of banks being forced (by the Clintons and other democrats) to lend money to people who can't pay it back.

There will always be an ignorant majority who attack one administration or another based only on the fact that that administration is of the opposing party, sometimes these ignorant folks may be completely correct with there position however, the ignorance still remains in that the reason behind the position that they take isn't due to the party, but rather their own ignorance in believing that the mess we are currently in has anything to do with political parties, It doesn't nor does it have to do with the current issues we are facing.


Two sides of the same coin, This ignorant ideology can be easily observed by the recent direction Fox news has taken its programing.

Once a Neocon propaganda machine, who ignored all the bad, Now a Neocon propaganda machine who amazingly after the Obama administration takes office, begins airing alternative news and essentially blaming the woes on Obama...

Now the alternative news that FNC is currently running with is obviously spot on especially that of the issues Glenn Beck discuses, however the reason that alternative news is being discussed has nothing to do with reality but rather left v.s right, when its not even a left v.s right issue.


BOTH SIDES SCREWED US.

But as to the OT, the current problem dates back to 1913, not 1993-2001

[edit on 6-3-2009 by C0le]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by Fremd

 

I haven't seen any posts claim that the current economic situation was due to Bill Clinton.

Where have you seen those?

The current crisis is due to a lot of things and a lot of people. Barney Frank. Pelosi. Bush. Congress. Groups like ACORN. Obama now. Obama years ago when he was a lawyer and sued Citibank to push bad loans on them.

But yours is the first post I've seen saying that Bill Clinton had anything to do with it.

Wasn't the Glass Steagle act removed under Clinton's watch? In defense of the OP, I have heard that Clinton's economic advisors enacted policies that invariably led to this crash, I think it was on the Alex Jones show. He then went into how Bush carried the torch after Clinton though.I believe that poor management from any administration (Bush & Clinton) caused this.

Originally posted by Fremd i was refering to what i read and hear in the media.

It's not just in the media, it's here on ATS, too.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Good questions, OP, and welcome to ATS.

As to the point on Clinton, I assume that you are referring to the ideas surrounding the lending to SubPrime Mortgages. This caused a lot of the problems in the housing market over the past two years. It was begun during the final years of the Clinton Administration.

On the topic, however, I would consider myself an equal-opportunity detractor. As far as the Republican criticism of Obama goes, I'd offer this explanation:

The stuff about how he hasn't changed the world in his first few weeks is purely rhetoric. However, the major charge is that, in his first few weeks, his policies are things that are not universally good. Rather, there is significant concern over the financial and foreign policies established in the first few days of the Obama administration.

Personally, my biggest concern about Obama is symptomatic of the modern presidency. Each of out past presidents has grown the power of the office without being checked by congress. Bush used national security to expand the power of the Presidency in ways unseen since FDR. Obama hasn't given up any of this power, and he has added to it in the name of Economic Security. So, Obama is the most powerful individual, next to Lincoln and FDR who have ever held the office. This is my concern.

When "dissent" is just about the new powers taken by the president and not about the systematic growth of the power of the office... and when there is no real possibility to have actual dissent through votes, as the Obama bloc in congress is unassailable... it looks bad. That's my criticism.

Clinton's repeal of the Glass-Steagle act was similar to wht happened under the Regan Administrtaion that led to the Savings & Loan collapse. In each case, regulations that prevented the banking industry from engaging in high-risk lending were removed. The banking lobby was behind each of these movements. President Clinton has admitted that he wished he'd not allowed the G-S repeal. However, if you really want to get a sense of that aspect of the problem it would be instructive to research exactly how that legislation happened to be passed. Let's just say that it wasn't exactly done in the light of day, so to speak. Look it up. No one here will likely be surprised by how it happened but we all should understand the history.

That said, given that the problem took almost a decade to unfold, you'd think that the people minding the store would have noticed something a miss and maybe DONE something to avert disaster? Several Federal agencies (Treasury, SEC, FBA, etc.) have the specific resonsibility to monitor and reel-in the banking and investment industries. Like the intelligence agencies and 9/11, the FDA/FTC and Chinese imports, FEMA and Katrina, they pooched their job. There was plentyt of time to do something but no one was either interested, capable, aware or some combination or was complicitous.

The whole argument that this problem is because 'banks were forced to loan to people' is as ridiculous and it is specious. This is an argument that is parotted by people that have no idea what they are talking about and ae simply repeating what they've heard/read somewhere else.

There is no 'simple' explanation as to what happened. But a large part of it rests with Wall Street. They specifically lobbied to have regulations removed so that they could whip-up dubious investment products on the premise that housing prices would always rise. They churned these products out as fast as they could and these products were snapped-up by investors all over the world. Other boneheads came up with the brilliant idea of devising yet more products to essentially insure these dubious investments because --- everyone say it with me now --- housing prices were always going to go up.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, everyone was happy as little clams. The elite were hauling in obscene returns on these investments and, of course, lining the pockets of the politicians and lobbyists that put the pieces in place to allow it to happen. The people in DC, OUR elected/appointed people, looked the other way or didn't look at all as this house of cards imploded. They did nothing when it was possible to mitigate the damage. Instead they exacerbated the problem by underwriting a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanastan, a war on terror, a war on drugs and borrowed scazillions of dollars in the process.

Clueless (or very possibly complicitous to the collapse), both Bush and his ersatz clone McCain were touting the 'fundamental soundness' of the economy as late as July. And, if you havn't already seen it (you definitely should), the clowns on CNBC were solidly onboard the Crazy Train:

Jon Stewart and the Geniuses at CNBC

Now, when the SHTF we could have done what has been done throughout American history when a bank 'fails'. Take the good assets out of the zombie bank and place them in healthy banks and then pull the plug on the zombie bank. In so doing, the equity shareholders of the bank would lose. As would the holders of the toxic assets. Too bad.

Who owns these equity shares? Well, the PTB will have you believe that it's all the blue-collar 401K holders. Bullpox. That accounts for a monrioty stake that is apread amongs a large pool of investors. The people that would be screwed are the large equity holders. Not you. Not me. Not our friends, family or neighbors. But the very elite that were raking in the profits from this whole scam to begin with. So what did BushCo do? Told Congress (through Hank 'Trust Me' Paulson) that the entire U.S. ecopnomy, and possibly the world's as well, was only days away from complete collapse and they had to give him $700B to prevent martial law and riots in the street. No time to debate. No time for conditions or oversight. Now or never.

And the money? Poured into the banks without oversight, accountability or reason. Much ended up in the personal accounts of the prople that created the problems and gave the rest enough time to mitigate their losses.

And you and I end up with a dramatically watered-down currency, joblessness, homelessness and a bleak future for us and our families.

So yea, Clinton allowed the Glass-Steagle regulations to be repealed. But blmaing him for this mess is like blaming the guy who fueled the Exon Valdez for the oil spill.

I viewed CNN this morning looking for a current perspective on this issue.

Unfotunately, they only repeated a story about a girl (evidently a rich hollywood type?) can't remember her name,
That was beat up and bit by her boyfriend.
That's about all I got for two hours.

I will opt out until I can find something substantial.

Trying C-SPAN next....

Currnetly, Louie Gohmert is denouncing Pelosi, using a graph like an exponential hockey stick, blaming the Dems, Omnibus, Stimulus, calling them "insane"

[edit on 6-3-2009 by imd12c4funn]

i agree, to an extent, that president Obama got a few things wrong.

I wish he would try out the trickle-up effect, instead of trickle down

(IE: Give the stimulus money to people who are behind on mortgages, car payments, etc, so they can pay the lenders...everyone wins, everyone is happy)

The money going to the banks is not going to forgive the loans that cannot be paid.

It should be "lesson learned" you either let the banks fail, or you help out the banks, by helping out the little guy. The loan is forgiven (atleast in part to help bring it current) and that person will have something on their credit record that states such. (i've probably given this TOO much thought)



But to give it to the banks themselves, based on the premise that we shouldn't bail out irresponsible Americans (though i do agree)
is nothing more than hypocrisy.

Instead of bailing out irresponsible individuals - we are bailing out irresponsible billionaires who are going to use this money to pad their wallets a little bit more.

(we've all seen the news stories where bank of america conducts a multi-million dollar super bowl party, and the such)



But i still feel the Republicans are digging too deep on this one.

None of them were crying foul when trillions were going to Iraq
But when Trillions go to Americans, suddenly it HAS TO STOP here.


Stop the bickering
You were elected to protect me and those like me (americans)

Why not start doing that right about now

Originally posted by Fremd
This is a serious question. Not rhetorical.

And for arguments sake (and less characters typed) lets just call the "Obama Detractors" republicans

I realize not all are republicans, but remember, this is for arguments sake

Your criteria makes your question a loaded question and invalidates a legitimate discussion.

Why cannot you hate obama because he is the american president and that makes him a murderer, full stop.

I am not republican or democrat, but being american pres makes you a murderer. So what is wrong with hating murderers. Your country even likes paedos like m jackson, is it wrong me hating him too.

I will answer from at least my own perspective as to why I am not a fan of "the One"

1) I don't like being termed a racist just because I don't bow and worship the man, I question, and apparently that's bad. I questioned Bush and noone cared, why should it be different now.

2) I don't think the man has nearly enough experience to be President

3) I do not for any reason believe it when anyone says that the documents that everyone wants to see are "sealed for his protection" I think there's something in there that would shed a lot of light on the fact that he has no experience.

4) I think that he is making mockery out of the White House with these weekly parties affirming his superiority.

5) I think that the public (the general public) was mislead and most only voted for him on color, not on issues.

6) I think he's a puppet anyhow, Pelosi is pulling the strings and Obama is talking the pretty talk.

my reasons, and not one of my reasons has anything to do with the fact that I "just don't want a black man in office" if Colin Powell had run he would have been my choice, after Ron Paul of course.

This 'blame Clinton' thing is a surprise to me. Yes he did some screwy things like releasing our strategic reserves and like using up our cruise missiles without paying to replace them.... But I don't see how Clinton can be blamed for what is going on.

Blame Barney Frank. Blame George Bush (43). Blame Congress.
Blame ACORN and groups like it. Blame Obama - both then and now.
Blame greedy people for purchasing past their ability.
Blame those who don't care about self responsibility.
Blame Corporate greed.

But blame Clinton?
Right now I'm thinking ... no.

Originally posted by Protostellar

Originally posted by Fremd
This is a serious question. Not rhetorical.

And for arguments sake (and less characters typed) lets just call the "Obama Detractors" republicans

I realize not all are republicans, but remember, this is for arguments sake

Your criteria makes your question a loaded question and invalidates a legitimate discussion.

If you can't answer the question - there's no reason to dodge it

It's a loaded question only in the sense that the overwhelming majority of obama detractors are republicans

that goes without saying

but there are others who ARE NOT republicans

so i like to include them too - hence the reason for a disclaimer


sorry if that question was too tough for you though

I think it started with Clinton. At the time it was a bad idea, but I don't think they looked at all possibilites. Like what happens if what is going on today happnen. If all was copecitic like it was then, well it wouldn't have hurt as bad as it does now.

When we went to war, gas prices went up, people lost jobs and then lost their houses we saw that our utopia was only a magic trick gone wrong.

Clinto signed a bad piece of paper that would only work if we stay in the black.

Bush got caught up in 2 wars that drained our surplus of money.

People lost jobs and their homes

The market suffered

Bush signed a stimulus package to save the banks, it didn't help

Obama is furthuring our debt faster then anyone President in our history



Was Clinton to blame? Sure he was, he didn't look to see what would happen if we ever got into the red.

Was Bush to blame? Sure he was, he didn't plan the war responsibly

Is Obama to blame? Sure he is, he is spending so much money that we cannot feasibly pay it off. The interest alone will take more then 8 years to pay. Lets not forget people are still unemployed and his plan says it will create OR save millions of jobs. We spent all of this money with no garuntee that new jobs will be created and who can tell if it will actaully save jobs?

There is enough blame for everyone.

Originally posted by vkey08
I will answer from at least my own perspective as to why I am not a fan of "the One"

1) I don't like being termed a racist just because I don't bow and worship the man, I question, and apparently that's bad. I questioned Bush and noone cared, why should it be different now.

2) I don't think the man has nearly enough experience to be President

3) I do not for any reason believe it when anyone says that the documents that everyone wants to see are "sealed for his protection" I think there's something in there that would shed a lot of light on the fact that he has no experience.

4) I think that he is making mockery out of the White House with these weekly parties affirming his superiority.

5) I think that the public (the general public) was mislead and most only voted for him on color, not on issues.

6) I think he's a puppet anyhow, Pelosi is pulling the strings and Obama is talking the pretty talk.

my reasons, and not one of my reasons has anything to do with the fact that I "just don't want a black man in office" if Colin Powell had run he would have been my choice, after Ron Paul of course.

This is my take on your 3rd statement. I believe that the reason the Powers that be are hiding the truth about his sealed documents is because if We The People found out the truth we would be irrate.

My theory is the sealed documents concerning his schooling when he attended Columbia, Occidental and Harvard are sealed because I believe he put down he was born in Kenya to recieve grants and scholarships because of being a foreigner.

My theory is the reason Obama will not release his medical records is because it might have showed him being born in Kenya to recieve free medical care in the U.S. Medical records going as far back to President Kennedy to George W. Bush have been released to the public.

I believe Obama was born in Kenya and it is being covered up to keep his Presidency from being unconstitutional. If his grandmother says he was born in Kenya are you going to call her a liar. The supposed birth certificate shows him born in Hawaii and others say his mother did not live long enough in the U.S. to legalize Obama being the U.S. President even though it shows him being born in Hawaii.



[edit on 7-3-2009 by amari]

Hold on but dont folks credit the Clinton administration era with the Republican majority in congress at the time? So in that fact if we are to blame the crises on Clinton.... uhh then wouldnt that lie on the majority republican congress at the time? Since the last two years of Dems were attributed.

Originally posted by C0le

BOTH SIDES SCREWED US.

But as to the OT, the current problem dates back to 1913, not 1993-2001

[edit on 6-3-2009 by C0le]

This right here I just quoted somes it up as well as anything I've seen.

This didn't come about overnight and there is more than enough blame to be had on both the left and right sides of the fence. Neither side is blameless and the causes are so complex it would almost impossible to lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of any one person.

Left and right together with the finanical giants all played a part in this mess.

reply to post by amari


you are probably right, but it would still not cause him physical harm (unless some nut takes it too far) and there's no real harm in the American people knowing those records, I mean we know all about Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan, why not our current president.

I guess i'm just sick of being called names for not swearing allegiance and worshiping the ground the man walks on. Didn't do it for Bush, sure not gonna for Obama.