Obama - the failed president

[Xlgx]

11th hour leniency for Wikileaker transgender military prisoner....

 

[kawilt]

So, let me get this straight... Obama signed fewer bills than any other president, passed one of the most catastrophic bills ever enacted (obamacare) and openly defied our Constitution by bypassing Congress for 8 years and yet he's the greatest president there ever was? Well, I mean, he was dubbed the greatest president ever since just a few months after he was sworn in to office. That, plus the Nobel Peace prize before he did anything. Amazing.

Nobel Peace Prize?....Tell that to the 400 ( actual number unknown) or more innocent people and their families that were killed in the over 500 drone strikes he authorized!

 

[Xlgx]

Nobel Peace Prize?....Tell that to the 400 ( actual number unknown) or more innocent people and their families that were killed in the over 500 drone strikes he authorized!

Collateral damage aka cost of doing business.

 

[kawilt]

Collateral damage aka cost of doing business.

And creating more business....

 

[DedLift]

Ive heard sound bites of his last address and the tv special created about his wonderful legacy narrated by the guy with the dramatic, raspy voice and i find all of it hilarious. Just hours and hours of absolute lies.

Its similar to me making a video about myself with a dramatic narrator highlighting all of the great things I've never really accomplished, then I'd go to work and most would look at me and just shake their heads like "guys full of shit", but some of my coworkers who watched it would want to shake my hand and get a picture with me. Id call them morons

 

[tenpoundsleft]

Doesn't really mater. The US can't pay its debts and never intended to do so. Any government running its own central bank should be aware of this. Dumping Treasury notes is sort of the economic version of a suicide bomber. It pisses a lot of people off, but does little real harm unless you happen to be standing next to the bomber, or long treasury futures in your margin account.

Obama has been spending money like a ghetto lottery winner. And unlike the lottery winner we don't have a lot of blinged out Escalades to show for it.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-debt-to-gdp (Country List Government Debt to GDP)

SInce the EU area has an average of over 90% (of GDP) debt levels, the US has 104% (same as Singapore btw), and Japan has almost 230% (!) - I'm curious who holds the other side of the balance sheet? - who owns all the debt? I can't recall ever seeing a tally of that. Anyone seen that?

In any case, talk about mortgaging the future. Burn these modern-day Keynesians at the stake - and don't lecture me on the 'real' Keynes, that's like lefties talking about "how misunderstood" Marx was and "how it will work if it's just done right" - just piss off.

 

[flenser]

Obama has been spending money like a ghetto lottery winner. And unlike the lottery winner we don't have a lot of blinged out Escalades to show for it.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-debt-to-gdp (Country List Government Debt to GDP)

SInce the EU area has an average of over 90% (of GDP) debt levels, the US has 104% (same as Singapore btw), and Japan has almost 230% (!) - I'm curious who holds the other side of the balance sheet? - who owns all the debt? I can't recall ever seeing a tally of that. Anyone seen that?

In any case, talk about mortgaging the future. Burn these modern-day Keynesians at the stake - and don't lecture me on the 'real' Keynes, that's like lefties talking about "how misunderstood" Marx was and "how it will work if it's just done right" - just piss off.

We live in a world of fractional reserve banking and barely regulated derivatives. Matching the lenders to the debtors is impossible. Financial institutions leverage debt instruments like US Treasuries by using them as collateral against highly leveraged trades, sometimes (illegally) managed within the same company. The reporting requirements are a joke.

If a government the size of the US were to be foolish enough to try to pay off its debt, or even reduce it significantly, for all practical purposes it would have the same deflationary impact as defaulting on that debt. Then all those NGO's managing the banking sector would find they can no longer meet the interest payments on their leveraged derivatives. This is what happened in 2008 when they tried to build their card castles a little too high. The resulting bailout cost trillions in new debt. Nothing changed.

Trump seems to be courting hawks for positions at the Fed. That would be a complete reversal of policy since the 90's. Volker did it in the 80's, caused a huge recession and an even bigger recovery, which made Reagan look like a financial wizard. That's when the neocons first coined the phrase, "deficits don't matter".

So if you give presidents credit/blame for monetary policy, you could say Regan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama all kept the money spigot as open as the Fed Chairs they appointed were willing to go. Each one has to spend exponentially more to keep the river flowing. In Trump's case, though, I suspect the establishment will use any serious recession as grounds for impeachment. Too many entrenched powers rely on that river for their cushy lives.

 

[tenpoundsleft]

We live in a world of fractional reserve banking and barely regulated derivatives. Matching the lenders to the debtors is impossible. Financial institutions leverage debt instruments like US Treasuries by using them as collateral against highly leveraged trades, sometimes (illegally) managed within the same company. The reporting requirements are a joke.

If a government the size of the US were to be foolish enough to try to pay off its debt, or even reduce it significantly, for all practical purposes it would have the same deflationary impact as defaulting on that debt. Then all those NGO's managing the banking sector would find they can no longer meet the interest payments on their leveraged derivatives. This is what happened in 2008 when they tried to build their card castles a little too high. The resulting bailout cost trillions in new debt. Nothing changed.

Trump seems to be courting hawks for positions at the Fed. That would be a complete reversal of policy since the 90's. Volker did it in the 80's, caused a huge recession and an even bigger recovery, which made Reagan look like a financial wizard. That's when the neocons first coined the phrase, "deficits don't matter".

So if you give presidents credit/blame for monetary policy, you could say Regan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama all kept the money spigot as open as the Fed Chairs they appointed were willing to go. Each one has to spend exponentially more to keep the river flowing. In Trump's case, though, I suspect the establishment will use any serious recession as grounds for impeachment. Too many entrenched powers rely on that river for their cushy lives.

Congress is the one that raises the debt ceiling, not the president.

So much is mutual back-scratching btw countries. There's never any real audit done of anything government run.

BTW, since when did derivatives need regulating? Financial institutions need a lot fewer regulations, and zero government support, let them go bankrupt like any other organization if it comes to that.

It's interesting how the Federal Reserve is such a large debt holder - around $3 trillion. No wonder they don't want to be audited. My point is that it's funny money - so much is liquidity out of a political bottle.

Reference how the unemployment numbers reported are also purely funny numbers - "only 5%, nearly full employment!" - this has no bearing on reality. I'm talking about the U3 numbers obviously. Ref this image from Alternate Unemployment Charts - note the disastrous ACTUAL unemployment stats under Obama.



"The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers."

 

[flenser]

Congress is the one that raises the debt ceiling, not the president.

So much is mutual back-scratching btw countries. There's never any real audit done of anything government run.

BTW, since when did derivatives need regulating? Financial institutions need a lot fewer regulations, and zero government support, let them go bankrupt like any other organization if it comes to that.

It's interesting how the Federal Reserve is such a large debt holder - around $3 trillion. No wonder they don't want to be audited. My point is that it's funny money - so much is liquidity out of a political bottle.

Reference how the unemployment numbers reported are also purely funny numbers - "only 5%, nearly full employment!" - this has no bearing on reality. I'm talking about the U3 numbers obviously. Ref this image from Alternate Unemployment Charts - note the disastrous ACTUAL unemployment stats under Obama.

View attachment 58137

"The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers."

There is no debt ceiling, just theatrics and a perfunctory vote. Anyway, I wasn't actually blaming presidents for the debt, or Congress for that matter.

Derivatives need regulating, because governments bail out the lenders when the debtors default. They also use the leveraged instrument as an asset, and can use that asset to borrow (create) more money. Of course, I agree with you in principle. I would prefer the lenders to go bankrupt right along with the debtors for making such foolish trades/loans.

I would agree with you that it's funny money, except... except I have to pay my taxes with that money, just like most others in this country.

 

[kawilt]

Everybody seems to look at the constitution when it's convenient, as if it mattered. Actually nobody there (Washington) seems to pay attention to the constitution.
It say's that only congress can coin money and regulate the value. but......

 

[tenpoundsleft]

There is no debt ceiling, just theatrics and a perfunctory vote. Anyway, I wasn't actually blaming presidents for the debt, or Congress for that matter.

Derivatives need regulating, because governments bail out the lenders when the debtors default. They also use the leveraged instrument as an asset, and can use that asset to borrow (create) more money. Of course, I agree with you in principle. I would prefer the lenders to go bankrupt right along with the debtors for making such foolish trades/loans.

I would agree with you that it's funny money, except... except I have to pay my taxes with that money, just like most others in this country.

Orange County - let them burn. No bailouts.

 

[tenpoundsleft]

Everybody seems to look at the constitution when it's convenient, as if it mattered. Actually nobody there (Washington) seems to pay attention to the constitution.
It say's that only congress can coin money and regulate the value. but......

Our cesspool is not as terrible as the ones elsewhere, the only solace.

 

[ronin17]

Congress is the one that raises the debt ceiling, not the president.

So much is mutual back-scratching btw countries. There's never any real audit done of anything government run.

BTW, since when did derivatives need regulating? Financial institutions need a lot fewer regulations, and zero government support, let them go bankrupt like any other organization if it comes to that.

It's interesting how the Federal Reserve is such a large debt holder - around $3 trillion. No wonder they don't want to be audited. My point is that it's funny money - so much is liquidity out of a political bottle.

Reference how the unemployment numbers reported are also purely funny numbers - "only 5%, nearly full employment!" - this has no bearing on reality. I'm talking about the U3 numbers obviously. Ref this image from Alternate Unemployment Charts - note the disastrous ACTUAL unemployment stats under Obama.

View attachment 58137

"The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers."

"Financial institutions need a lot fewer regulations."

Yes, they have done such a bang up job of policing themselves haven't they?

You must not remember that whole worst recession since the Great Depression thing?

Commonsense regulation could of prevented the housing crisis, predatory lending, gambling with and losing people's retirement.

Regulation doesn't impede business or profits.

 

[flenser]

Everybody seems to look at the constitution when it's convenient, as if it mattered. Actually nobody there (Washington) seems to pay attention to the constitution.
It say's that only congress can coin money and regulate the value. but......

Though it has never been challenged in the USSC, Fed supporters would say it falls under the implied powers clause. Somewhere around 1820 the USSC did rule on and support the creation of the second bank of the US. No doubt the same would happen with the Fed. As they say, "where there's a lawyer, there's a loop hole".

 

[flenser]

Commonsense regulation could of prevented the housing crisis, predatory lending, gambling with and losing people's retirement.

Err, it was regulation that fueled it. Banks have to provide a certain percentage of subprime loans, or face sanctions. I would have to look up the dates, but multiple times in the last couple of decades Congress called out bank CEOs and grilled them for not providing sufficient loan services to "disadvantaged" citizens. State and city governments are even worse, as they see those loans as assets funneling money and new construction into their jurisdiction.

And to talk about predatory lending, you should bring up student loans first. Congress is unconstitutionally protecting lenders by preventing default on those loans against bankruptcy laws written into the Constitution.

Not absolving the banks. But they took their chances and most won big in 2008 when Congress bailed them out. I have little doubt the same will happen in the not so distant future.

 

[ronin17]

Err, it was regulation that fueled it. Banks have to provide a certain percentage of subprime loans, or face sanctions. I would have to look up the dates, but multiple times in the last couple of decades Congress called out bank CEOs and grilled them for not providing sufficient loan services to "disadvantaged" citizens. State and city governments are even worse, as they see those loans as assets funneling money and new construction into their jurisdiction.

And to talk about predatory lending, you should bring up student loans first. Congress is unconstitutionally protecting lenders by preventing default on those loans against bankruptcy laws written into the Constitution.

Not absolving the banks. But they took their chances and most won big in 2008 when Congress bailed them out. I have little doubt the same will happen in the not so distant future.

There is no regulation from congress telling lenders to give loans to people who cant afford them. Are you actually trying to say regulations caused the housing crisis and financial institutions shouldnt be regulated?

I actually like you man and im really hoping I misinterpreted your post!

 

[DedLift]

Watch The Big Short movie. It explains it perfectly and is a very good movie. I wish everyone in the US would see it and understand that the taxpayers (us) had to bail out banks because they got so greedy that they accepted mortgages for people with sub par credit to make a buck and then when they went bankrupt from too many people defaulting on their mortgages all at once we were forced to bail them out because if big banks go down, so does the rest of our economy.

 

[XKawN]

Watch The Big Short movie. It explains it perfectly and is a very good movie. I wish everyone in the US would see it and understand that the taxpayers (us) had to bail out banks because they got so greedy that they accepted mortgages for people with sub par credit to make a buck and then when they went bankrupt from too many people defaulting on their mortgages all at once we were forced to bail them out because if big banks go down, so does the rest of our economy.

Well,.not exactly how it went down. The banks were forced to take on sub prime loans. Remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Blame the banks all one wants, but who are the ones really getting rich?

 

[ronin17]

Not all regulation is the same. There is good regulation and bad regulation. Good regulation helps keep us safe and protects us. There should of been regulation saying you can only give loans to people who can justify them.

There should be regulation against banks selling loans that are designed to fail and the bank still makes money.

There should be regulation against predatory lending and payday loans, gambling with people's retirement.

The lack of regulation created the recession and nothing has been dramatically changed to prevent another. The worst part is now taxpayers are on the hook for supporting banks!

Fuck that. Let them fail. The lack of regulation has created this nightmare that is our reality. The market has never policed itself.

This mantra of no regulation was created by the instiutions that profit from it. Its amazing to me that regular middleclass people have been so easily brainwashed to be the mouthpiece of the people in power.

 

[ronin17]

Well,.not exactly how it went down. The banks were forced to take on sub prime loans. Remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Blame the banks all one wants, but who are the ones really getting rich?

Who were the ones really getting rich?
The banks. They sold loans that were DESIGNED to fail and they still made money.