American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Governmental interference was certainly the largest force in the economic calamity of 2009/2010 and continued governmental meddling threatens the economy's ability to pull us out of this funk.[/QUOTE]No doubt. And, while I'm no real fan of George W. Bush and the Republican majority (then minority) in the Senate while he was in office, the blame for the housing crisis can't be laid at his feet. The biggest culprit in this debacle were legislators who, for years, have created false housing incentives to curry favor with their own constituents. Starting with the the G. I. Bill, the creation of HUD, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and many, many more programs, the government did more to create this mess than anyone else. So what do they do now? Hold hearings on why the "free market" failed. Virtually no one in the predominantly left-of-center media are doing much to scrutinize government's role.

Bush II had a ton of flaws. Ignoring the risks caused by Fannie and Freddie wasn't one of them, however. The article below is from the NY Times in 2003. And, while the proposal involved the creation of a new federal agency, there was little else Bush could do. Fannie and Freddie had been legislatively created and propped up long before he came on the scene. It wouldn't have been possible to eliminate these two quasi-entities overnight, but it was possible to make them more responsible. Guess who stopped him in his tracks?

[quote][b]New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae[/b]

By STEPHEN LABATON.

September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

"There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises," Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

"The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises," Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. "We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight," the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

"These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator," he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

"We welcome the administration's approach outlined today," Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a "responsible proposal."

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525. Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

"The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied," said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. "Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work."

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing," Mr. Watt said."[/quote]

This is hilarious. Remember Ricardo? How Jackson says that he is probably a "generic" person who used to post Democratic talking points and probably was one of many who were trying to show "grass roots" support for Obama and his administration?

Do a search for Ellie Light on Google and see what comes up.

It appears that someone has been sending the same talking points to newspaper editorial sections and blogs. The text is almost identical and defends Obama and his policies. I read somewhere that this letter has shown up in 60+ (at last count) newspapers around the country, claiming to live in the area where the paper publishes.

A number of people are trying to track "her" web presence and discover where she's been posting from by "her" posts on blogs and such. I saw one such blog where they were linking the posts back to people who are connected loosely with Demorcats and Obama's administration. Personally, I think some of what I saw there was a bit tenuous.

I would think that if the Obama administration actually looked to do this to help tehmselves, they would have done it differently - certainly changed the name of the poster, the statements made, etc.

What I do find interesting is a comment I saw one person make related to this - what does it say about newspaper media (at least) that this letter has been published in so many newspaper's editorial sections, with all the other submissions that are presented? 60+ news papers is a LOT of newspapers around the country.

Has anyone noticed that [url]www.recovery.gov[/url] hasn't been updated since Octoboer 30, 2009? At least as far as the home page goes, where they are supposed to be summarizing the money that has been spent and the supposed effect it's having.

[QUOTE=El Queso]This is hilarious. Remember Ricardo? How Jackson says that he is probably a "generic" person who used to post Democratic talking points and probably was one of many who were trying to show "grass roots" support for Obama and his administration?

Do a search for Ellie Light on Google and see what comes up.

It appears that someone has been sending the same talking points to newspaper editorial sections and blogs. The text is almost identical and defends Obama and his policies. I read somewhere that this letter has shown up in 60+ (at last count) newspapers around the country, claiming to live in the area where the paper publishes.

A number of people are trying to track "her" web presence and discover where she's been posting from by "her" posts on blogs and such. I saw one such blog where they were linking the posts back to people who are connected loosely with Demorcats and Obama's administration. Personally, I think some of what I saw there was a bit tenuous.

I would think that if the Obama administration actually looked to do this to help tehmselves, they would have done it differently - certainly changed the name of the poster, the statements made, etc.

What I do find interesting is a comment I saw one person make related to this - what does it say about newspaper media (at least) that this letter has been published in so many newspaper's editorial sections, with all the other submissions that are presented? 60+ news papers is a LOT of newspapers around the country.[/QUOTE]Take those blinders off! What the Democrats do, the Republicans are doing. I always thought Ricardo address directly to the issues or the post at hand. Only the "shadow cabinet" in BA could not stomach it. Obama has shown poor leadership so far, but the Nobel Peace Prize was an indicator that the rest of the world is desperate for a different American president and foreign policy.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Obama has shown poor leadership so far, but the Nobel Peace Prize was an indicator that the rest of the world is desperate for a different American president and foreign policy.[/QUOTE]Maybe so, but it also shows how much we shouldn't necessarily give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks! According to the prize's own guidelines, Obama wasn't even eligible for the gift. That's already been discussed. Obama should never have accepted that prize because he did not earn it.

Yes, everyone knows that the committee giving Obama the prize was making a statement on the few words that Obama said toward "peace" during his campaign. But in my view, he's been rather ineffective and hasn't really done much. How can anyone really say he's lived up to a Nobel Prize?

Sorry, it was a blatant use of a peace prize to influence events rather than recognize events and those who reacted to them and actually did something of use. I personally think that they can kiss my ass as far as telling us that they approve of our choice of presidents in such a manner. A simple speech by those who thought that way would have been fine.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Take those blinders off! What the Democrats do, the Republicans are doing. I always thought Ricardo address directly to the issues or the post at hand. Only the "shadow cabinet" in BA could not stomach it.[/QUOTE]The Republicans AND the Democrats have people who post the party line, undoubtedly. Of course there are lists of party talking points. But there has been no Republican proponent that has gone around to newspapers and blogs with the same wording, from the same person, defaming the President (opposite of what this person is doing). At the very least it just looks juvenile.

I agree with you related to Ricardo - I don't think he was the puppet that Jackson sees him as. However, I do believe that he was somehow affiliated with organizations whose aims are to do what I described above. Not a rote poster, but an arguer, of party points. Nothing more. He never posted on other things except jokes.

He obviously wasn't a monger and never showed an interest in getting together with any of us, which I took to mean he either wasn't interested and / or he didn't even live or visit BA. After all, he could have lived here and not been interested in mongering, but the only real draw for this website for such a person should be because he makes some friends among us, as I have (those who know me know I'm not a monger, although I am very sympathetic to the sport)

Which means he was only on the forum to defend the Democratic Party and Obama on a website for mongers and posters about other aspect of life in Argentina. It was stirring up more angst than normal in the politics forum and that was overpowering the actual purpose of the website - mongering and information about living / staying in Argentina. I think Jackson had every right to kick him out and indeed did the right thing.

[QUOTE=El Queso]Maybe so, but it also shows how much we shouldn't necessarily give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks! According to the prize's own guidelines, Obama wasn't even eligible for the gift. That's already been discussed. Obama should never have accepted that prize because he did not earn it.

Yes, everyone knows that the committee giving Obama the prize was making a statement on the few words that Obama said toward "peace" during his campaign. But in my view, he's been rather ineffective and hasn't really done much. How can anyone really say he's lived up to a Nobel Prize?

Sorry, it was a blatant use of a peace prize to influence events rather than recognize events and those who reacted to them and actually did something of use. I personally think that they can kiss my ass as far as telling us that they approve of our choice of presidents in such a manner. A simple speech by those who thought that way would have been fine.[/QUOTE]I have been travelling a great deal, the rest of the world is truly excited by Obama and what it could represent. The Nobel Prize is ridiculous, but can't you understand why the masses are so stimulated when you are not? Time, they achanging (Bob Dylan) don't get caught in a time warp.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]I have been travelling a great deal, the rest of the world is truly excited by Obama and what it could represent. The Nobel Prize is ridiculous, but can't you understand why the masses are so stimulated when you are not? Time, they achanging (Bob Dylan) don't get caught in a time warp.[/QUOTE]As soon as they immigrate legally to the US, obtain citizenship and the right to vote, I'll give a sh*t about what they think about the US.

There are obvious reasons that foreigners aren't supposed to vote in our elections (of course there are exceptions for foreigners and the dead in Chicago) US elections are supposed to be individual expressions of self interests, which when taken in the aggregate (directly and via the electoral college) should indicate the direction the nation or particular portions of the nation want to go.

Since much of the nation cedes its individual self interests when it comes time to vote (think unions) this doesn't always work out perfectly. I can think of a recent example of this. These groups are aided by the main stream press.

As for Team Obama's spam campaign, it shouldn't surprise anyone that none of the 60+ media outlets that ran the piece bothered to verify anything about it. "If it is pro-Obama, it's good enough to print, air or carve in stone" has been the mantra of the main stream press since he started his campaign. If a high school teacher can use the internet to find out if a student has plagiarized a paper, an editorial staff can use that same internet to check any piece to see if it has run elsewhere or if the work belongs to someone else. To do anything less when considering running what could be pro-regime propaganda is tantamount to actively participating in the propaganda effort.

Guys,

Let's get a grip here. Every nation's foreign policy is an exercise in self interest, regardless of what their citizens believe about other countries leaders (in this case Obama).

After Obama's world apology tour resulted in a net gain of nada, we have the Muslim apology tour which netted us another attempted airline bombing and the same old "Death to the Great Satan". Got a lot of traction on that one, didn't he?

For all you flower children, hippies in a time warp, and peaceniks, the world does not work that way. America's foreign policy should be the same as every other nations: a policy of self interest. It is our government's duty to take care of its citizens, not another countries. We act in concert with others for our own benefit. That is just how it is.

If you don't believe the above, then prove it by giving up all your worldly possessions to the poor, joining the Peace Corps, go to some under developed country and help the natives.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Guys let's get a grip here. Every nation's foreign policy is an exercise in self interest, regardless of what their citizens believe about other countries leaders (in this case Obama)

After Obama's world apology tour resulted in a net gain of nada, we have the Muslim apology tour which netted us another attempted airline bombing and the same old "Death to the Great Satan", got a lot of traction on that one didn't he?

For all you flower children, hippies in a time warp, and peaceniks, the world does not work that way. America's foreign policy should be the same as every other nations, a policy of self interest. It is our governments duty to take care of its citizens not another countries. We act in concert with others for our own benefit. That is just how it is.

If you don't believe the above then prove it by giving up all your worldly possessions to the poor, joining the Peace Corps, go to some under developed country and help the natives.[/QUOTE]Now, I have never smoke pot in my life, and quoting Bob Dylan does not make me a flower child. I am not naive enough not to know that countries act in their self interest, Iraq was a perfect example, it was all about oil. Ah, I had a difficult time convincing all those people driving SUVs who were cursing him. So, maybe, Bush was a Boy Scout once upon a time and you bought cookies from him. And if you still think nothing has changed since the Berlin War came down, you just qualify to work for the State Dept. By the way, I am in the process of donating all my worldly possessions to the poor (but only to well-developed women) in undeveloped countries. And thank you, I am my own Peace Corp and you are welcome to join me.

I guess what we're trying to say, Black Shirt, is that of all the reasons to think positive about Obama, saying that the rest of the world is excited about what Obama can do (for them! Is one of the emptiest, shallowest, and for American interests, farthest reasons to like Obama.

The rest of the world would have been happy with anyone who didn't represent Bush's ideals (and I've said before that neither did I like Bush and what he did with Iraq) The fact that the rest of the world at one point endorsed Obama doesn't put any meat in the thought that Obama might actually have something to contribute. Their only interest, personal / country interest, was that the US would not be as strong internationally with Obama in the driver's seat.

For us, those who are citizens of a country that was once proud of being made up of individuals who cared about being personally responsible for themselves and making conditions right for the pursuit (not the guarantee) of happiness, we've gone down the wrong road. We seem now to be a bunch of whiny pussies who want the government, Big Papa, not even Big Brother, to put His big strong arms around us and take care of us.

[QUOTE=El Queso]I guess what we're trying to say, Black Shirt, is that of all the reasons to think positive about Obama, saying that the rest of the world is excited about what Obama can do (for them! Is one of the emptiest, shallowest, and for American interests, farthest reasons to like Obama.

The rest of the world would have been happy with anyone who didn't represent Bush's ideals (and I've said before that neither did I like Bush and what he did with Iraq) The fact that the rest of the world at one point endorsed Obama doesn't put any meat in the thought that Obama might actually have something to contribute. Their only interest, personal / country interest, was that the US would not be as strong internationally with Obama in the driver's seat.

For us, those who are citizens of a country that was once proud of being made up of individuals who cared about being personally responsible for themselves and making conditions right for the pursuit (not the guarantee) of happiness, we've gone down the wrong road. We seem now to be a bunch of whiny pussies who want the government, Big Papa, not even Big Brother, to put His big strong arms around us and take care of us.[/QUOTE]Like you, I am a believer of individual responsibility, old fashioned work ethics and initiative. The wrong road can be explained this way, " wealth & life becoming too easy". In Chinese folklore, a fortune can be lost within 3 generations. Before the days of trust funds, insurance, etc. The lazy, well-fed and foolish 3rd generation could be counted to squander the fortune that their grandparents made, and their parents protected.

Yes, Obama is still a question mark. Right now, the opposition would love to see him fail, but what would that accomplish? Another 4 years down the drain.

Here's how the world really works:

- We shouldn't care (and I certainly don't care) how the rest of the world "feels" about the USA, because their "feelings" are irrelevant to us.

- The rest of the world doesn't care what we "feel" about them, because our "feelings" are irrelevant to them.

- No country ever cares how any other country "feels" about them, because to them the other country's "feelings" are irrelevant.

In summation:

- Every country in the world makes every decision about their country based on their own self-interests.

- No country ever makes any decision based on their "feelings" about any other country.

Get it?

Obama doesn't, but then he's...

[size=3][I]Obama: the [strike]dumbest[/strike] most inept President ever![/i][/size]

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]I am a believer of individual responsibility, old fashioned work ethics and initiative.[/QUOTE]Liberals always say that, it's just that they never actually mean it when it comes to patronizing their constituency groups.