Obama regroups, fine tunes financial overhaul
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 2 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 2 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 23 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
32 Comments
Login to comment
0
adaydream
What a mess. Can you believe the mess that Obama walked into. It would have been so much better if he'd have taken the reins of a financially sound country, but instead he received the country's biggest financial disaster since Teddy Roosevelt.
Watching one TV Sunday political program this morning a speaker said paraphrased; 'The republicans have gotten plenty of use out of Teddy Roosevelt and his financial disaster over the years, well we're going to get a lot more use out of george bush before this mess is over with.'
Barack Obama will pull this country out of the mess we're in, but it'll take time. It took the republicans years to get us where we're at right now. It isn't going to change over night. < :-)
0
Sarge
"credit crisis"
There wouldn't be any credit crisis if people would just do as I do and not buy stuff they can't afford. I may not be rich, but I have zero debt.
adaydream: "It took the republicans years to get us where we're at"
Which party has controlled Congress since 2006? Checking...
Yeah, it's the Democratic Party!
0
USAFdude
And which party controlled Congress for years before 2006, years in which the financial mess began, as adaydream inarguably rightfully pointed out? Checking...
Yeah, it's the goddamn Republican "party"!
Next.
0
SuperLib
I'm still on the fence about whether I should blame Democrats or Republicans. Can you guys present your cases for me?
0
SushiSake3
The Republican failure-fuelled global economic meltdown rumbes on....
billj200 put it nicely yesterday - "Most of you Republicans are made up of Blind Obedient followers who are less concerned with the welfare of our country and more concerned the look of the party. Who has for the last 8 years was doing all this crazy spending? Was it Obama? HECK NO! It was Bush Jr! What did HE and HIS admin do for the US and the rest of this world? If any one tries to tell me that Bush left us in a better situation at the end of his last term and that all this mess we are in now is directly caused during the short time Obama has been in office then I would love for you to say that to me and a few of my friends who have mangled children and spouses laying in VA medical centers all over this country. I cant believe you Republicans forgot about the last 8 years like it never happened. Bush is the one who got us into a senseless war and ignored the the country with the real threat(Afghanistan). Oh don't forget about how under Bush's watch that his party and Admin decided to cut record funding to VETS and VAMC's. You cant blame Obama for this mess and I do not see anyone else out there trying to resolves this with any real strategy. Only thing Republicans and people who follow them know how to do is point fingers and blame others. Non of them have enough courage to be accountable or even admit to the slightest mistake. I am sure if any Republican had a real plan that made any sense I am sure the new Admin would listen(unlike the last who refused to see any reason what so ever)!"
0
SushiSake3
Sarge - "There wouldn't be any credit crisis if people would just do as I do and not buy stuff they can't afford."
But Sarge, that's not being realistic.
Ditto for your comments last year about 'If only the terrorists would get with the program and stop blowing people up."
Realism please.
0
VOR
its always amazing seeing JT's cadre of instant experts blame the republicans for the current state of affairs while ignoring the role of the democrats over the past four years. Pelosi has been in charge of the House for 4+ years, Reid been leading the Senate for over 2 years. The economy turned sour only after the Democrats were firmly in control of Congress. Putting all the blame on the Republicans is more than a little dopey.
Now that the Democrats have total control of the government, its put up or shut up time. Spending trillions and then hearing the President of the United States say "don't expect much" pretty much sums up how much confidence the American people should have in their current government.
0
SushiSake3
VOR - "Pelosi has been in charge of the House for 4+ years, Reid been leading the Senate for over 2 years."
That sentence ignores the fact that bush weilded the veto pen and made sure Republican aims were achieved during the 2 bush terms.
That sentence ignores the fact that the bush Republicans blew $2-3 trillion on the Iraq war.
That sentence ignores the fact the bush Republicans slashed taxes for the super rich, and borrowed every penny for the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, while not asking Americans to sacrifice anything for the wars.
That sentence ignores the fact that the bush Republicans added more than $6 trillion to U.S. national debt.
I always get a kick out of hearing Republicans deny all responsibility and complain about Obama adding to the country's debt mountain. :-)
Like the economy was running perfectly before Obama assumed power.
It's sheer cluelessness like this that will ensure the GOP doesn't regain the reins of power any time soon.
0
SushiSake3
At this point, America needs people to be honest about the nation's problems, causes and solutions.
Republicans pointing fingers at President Obama and blaming him for the nation's financial woes - especially considering he has only been President for just on 8 weeks - is the exact opposite of the honest accounting and accountability America needs at this point.
0
skipthesong
repub and dem die hards... its time for you both to retreat. But, as super libs puts it, make your cases.
aday: "It would have been so much better if he'd have taken the reins of a financially sound country, but instead he received the country's biggest financial disaster since Teddy Roosevelt." Then, he wouldn't have had the economy fear factor. I hate to find out what politicians would have to scare us, we have terror, the economy, and country music. What else should we be scared of?
0
SushiSake3
clueless Republicans who think they know how to get the economy back on track.
The same ones who said squat all when bush and co. were adding $6 trillion to the national debt.
0
SushiSake3
skip - you have for a long time - and to your credit - been talking about a 3rd party.
Sorry if I have asked you this before, but who do you think that would be made up of?
0
SushiSake3
skip - you have for a long time - and to your credit - been talking about a 3rd party.
Sorry if I have asked you this before, but who do you think that would be made up of?
0
adaydream
I think the democrats have made their case. I think it's the republicans who have forgotten the country for the sake of the GOP and for the sake of justifing hopes of Obama failing to fix the economy. < :-)
0
GJDailleult
That's like an alcoholic complaining that he never had liver problems until after he stopped drinking. You can't turn the richest country in the history of the world into a house of cards in two years. It takes a lot more time and "effort" than that.
0
VOR
==That sentence ignores the fact that bush weilded the veto pen and made sure Republican aims were achieved during the 2 bush terms.
sushi: really? thats news to me. i'm familiar with this tired old line and looked at the Bills that Bush vetoed and none of them had anything to do Democrats efforts to address the economy. Go ahead, try to prove me wrong.
==That sentence ignores the fact that the bush Republicans blew $2-3 trillion on the Iraq war.
Sushi: Congress voted unanimously to go to war in Iraq after much debate. In fact Congress keeps funding the war so blaming Bush is another ridiculous notion of the left.
==That sentence ignores the fact the bush Republicans slashed taxes for the super rich, and borrowed every penny for the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, while not asking Americans to sacrifice anything for the wars.
Sushi; Bush slashed taxes for every American and not just the super rich. Everyone paid less taxes in America under George Bush. Again, the legislative branch allocates the funds. The executive branch identifies the cost.
==That sentence ignores the fact that the bush Republicans added more than $6 trillion to U.S. national debt.
Sushi; i hate repeating myself but again congress approves spending, the president can only sign it into law or veto it. That 6 trillion in debt also pays for a lot of social programs which are sacred cows of the democratic party. can't put that all on Bush and the republicans.
==I always get a kick out of hearing Republicans deny all responsibility and complain about Obama adding to the country's debt mountain. :-)
Sushi; not true. i have yet to see any Republican claim Bush messed up. In fact most any real conservative would tell you Bush's compassionate conservatism is just Obama lite.
Like the economy was running perfectly before Obama assumed power.
==Sushi, you like making things up.
0
teleprompter
What a disaster.
Politico is reporting Obama is even getting hit by The New York Times.
This is almost unimaginable to many political junkies - on either side of the spectrum in the US.
Krugman, Frank Rich, Thom Friedman - even Maureen Dowd is piling on.
“The leading liberal voices of the New York Times editorial pages all criticized—and, in some cases, clobbered—President Obama on Sunday for his handling of the economy and national security..." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20325.html
0
adaydream
Hmmmmmm, george bush never put the Iraq war in any budget. They were all spending bills that the democrats tried to either vote down or george bush vetoed after the democrats took over congress. By adding spending after spending bill for the war and not in the general budget as Obama has done the republicans could manauver around.
Yes, 'most' not all of congress did voted for the war. Then when the democrats tried to put an end or a time period to end the war, bush vetoed it.
george bush didn't cut my taxes. I didn't get some fictous tax break that the republicans like to pander.
Sure the president can only sigh the bills. The republican congress, against the will of the democrats, pushed through a bill to give the rich, richer and richest of the country $4Trillion tax break.
george bush wasn't a true conservative. A true conservative would have done everything possible to keep the country solvent. george bush was a miserable failure.
But inspite of all that Barack Obama will fix the economy. With or without the republicans Barack Obama will revive the economy on the backs of those who want to succeed. In spite of the republicans who have said that they want Barack Obama to fail, which would mean this country would fail, we will get strong again. < :-)
0
SuperLib
That's why I mostly ignore your posts nowadays, except for the occasional snipe for old times sake.
Ya know when Obama took office I thought we'd see an end to the constant references to Bush and an end to at least some of the polarization that existed over the last 8 years. I'm pretty surprised at how wrong I was. Bush supporters turned into Obama bashers that rival the intensity of the Bush bashers before, and the Bush bashers simply took the election as a mandate to increase the level of their rhetoric. To put it bluntly, the trolls gained about 50 lbs.
0
skipthesong
skip - you have for a long time - and to your credit - been talking about a 3rd party." First, that's hard to answer. I would not like it to be many of the big players from either party. Look how they played us on terror and look how they are playing us on the economy. And at the end of the day, after all the bickering, most of the dems and reubs retreat together and are probably laughing at us on how they have been able to split us all in two. There are many members from both parties that I respect and hate so I'd prefer to clean the whole system out.
I thought I would be able to get away and give you a number of party switches, which I had assumed that only a few had taken place and over the last 30 years, but yo, just since 2000 we have had about fifty!!!!!! Why be one or the other if you are going to switch when parties are supposedly suppose to be different?
The economy crashing is not as much fault of the repubs as many here believe and most of all have been led to believe. And no, I am not taking a side on the issue because in all actuality, the presidency itself has very little to do with the policies that govern the finance market (and I believe they should stay out of it and giving AIG money with very little strings attached should be the key indicator to most) but yet so many believer the president to have this power.....
0
Helter_Skelter
Sushi - The entire military spending for the US military is only 21% of the annual budget. And the Iraq war is only a fraction of that spending. The majority of US government spending is on entitlement programs such as medicare and social security. So although I too opposed the war in Iraq, to say this is the reason for the current budget crisis is nonsense. If you're so pleased with Obama and the democratic congress, how about defending their fiscal policies rather than the same tired rants against the Republicans no one cares about anymore.
0
Madverts
I'm going to ignore these threads for at least another 6 months to give President Obama time to show the old hated, Reality - what he can actually do given time. The winner of the '08 elections of either party was always going to be saddled with a global and internal mess.
I'll leave the radicals from both sides in peace to shriek it out 'till a time those of us not frothing at the mouth and a radical agenda can see what Obama can achieve and make judgement accordingly.
0
adaydream
I posted this on the other article, but it's worth repeating.
Market up 497 points.
Keep up the good work Obama and your financial plans. < :-)
0
Helter_Skelter
You mean now I'm supposed to celebrate my 401K is only down 52% rather than 56%?
0
adaydream
I'm celebrating for the moment that the stock market isn't making a decline like it has since bush was president.
I can't help that you see nothing positive. Maybe that's your attitude about life or maybe you're disappointed that Obama's plans and projects might really work. < :-)
0
Helter_Skelter
What dream world are you living in? The market didn't decline under Bush. The steep decline has been the last quarter of last year and first quarter of this year, coinciding with the election of Obama. There's gonna come a time when bringing up Bush isn't going to cut it anymore and you're going to have to answer for Obama.
0
likeitis
Its like somebody put you under hypnosis and forgot to snap their fingers!
Which was still under Bush. The lengths you go to to absolve Bush but blame a president elect are frankly getting creepy. I am wondering if you have pictures of Bush stuck on the ceiling above your bed, and if you stalk him too.
0
Helter_Skelter
The market crash, beginning the last quarter of last year, was because of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sub-prime loan debacle brought on by democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. It was also because of a lack of confidence in the market with the election of Obama in November, which has continued through the beginnng of his presidency. The crash wasn't about Bush. From now on, do your homework before posting.
I've never been a fan of Bush. Now go back to genuflecting your new Messiah.
0
goodDonkey
Obama and Geithner are doing a great job of untangling the mess they inherited. It is quite delusional to state or even infer that the Democrats are responsible for the financial meltdown. Obama truly offers a set of solutions to many of our country's pressing problems. Managing the toxic loans would be something that could begin to restore our financial markets by allowing money to flow again. We need to get to a level of confidence where commercial paper is available to qualified corporations again because short term loans are the grease that helps the financial gears run smoothly. I think 9 weeks is a fair amount of time to study this issue and now he is offering a solution that integrates public funds with private funds.
Many economists saw a problem in 2005 where the quantity of sub-prime mortgages hit a level that could not be sustained if there was a consistent upward trend in ARM (adjustable rate mortgages). When this occurred the predicted crisis began. The Republicans had the opportunity to pass legislation concerning Freddie/Fannie. The common lie being told is that Democrats blocked legislation. The Republicans were in charge of both houses and never even put the one proposed bill up for a vote. In other words the Republicans had a chance to act if they found Freddie/Fannie 's practices unacceptable but they failed to act.
There are just some people who should never study Economics. They could never believe the truth above their own foundation of theories.
It is really too bad that some people will only take courses by Prof. Limbaugh. Limbaugh Revisionist History, Limbaugh Revisionist Economics, Limbaugh Fuzzy Finance, Of course these are all literary courses with fiction as the only reading material. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of other conservative "Professors" that the conservative masses bow down before.
I don't claim that a jump in the stock market proves Obama is doing something correct. Anyone who thinks investors have some profound knowledge of Economics or Finance should study Economics or Finance.
Of course if you understand a little about economics you will see that drawing a firm conclusion is a bit messy. That would be why both conservative and liberal economists have not drawn firm conclusions as to the solution yet.
One of the main causes of the mortgage crisis was every size bank, many small ones, making shady loans bundling them with other loans and selling the bundle. Thus they could make some more shady loans bundle them with well deserved loans and sell the bundle. The practice is called securitization and it began in the 1970's. Often a company that bought the bundle or MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) would want to insure it. They could use a Credit Default Swap (CDS) to do so. If the MBS failed they would get payment from the other party in the swap. Problem was that you don't need to own the MBS to get a CDS on it. A CDS is simply a wager but payments are made periodically to the insurer of the asset (it does not have to be a MBS it could be a bond for example). That is what hedging is all about; you own something but you bet that it will lose its value or default etc. - you own it but you bet against it. Although a Credit Default Swap is a derivative it is not regulated. The last administration should have attended to this; it was a major failing on their part.
Investment banks in particular and other financial institutions essentially issued large amounts of structured debt (borrowed money) and used that money to invest in MBS. Investment banks were able to carry much more debt due to a ruling in 2004 by the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission). Due to that ruling they purchased and even greater number of MBS's it meant they were highly leveraged and failure of the MBS's meant they were unable to pay back their loans with that expected capital. As one can plainly see Freddie/Fannie had little to do with many of the practices that brought down our financial market. I am not saying that they were not a major contributor but like I said the Republicans had the legislation written but they did not pass it. The Democrats did not block it; it never came up for a vote in the Senate or the House.
There is nothing wrong with insisting that banks give lower income people housing loans. There were many qualified borrowers in the lower brackets. They should not have qualified for the higher amounts often granted them but that was the banks doing. Many, many wealthy and middle income people have defaulted on their loans and will continue to do so. They took out risky loans. Not that they were not being paid well but they took out far too large of a loan. The conservatives have no explanation for that when they are blaming low income loans for this debacle. The truth is there is a difference between a low income loan that is not sub-prime and one that is. Sub-prime loans were made to all incomes and were one of the main factors that sparked the crisis. The reason that banks were required to make loans to lower income recipients is because they were not doing so because it did not seem to be worth their time and effort for the lower returns realized. Inaccurate credit ratings played a significant role in the crisis but I won't get into that now; but it is also a major factor.
There is absolutely nothing simple about the cause or solution to this crisis. I guess it makes some people feel smart to believe and preach that they know what caused the crisis. Then all you have to do is blame "democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd."
0
Helter_Skelter
So it's really the Republicans fault because they didn't stop the Democrats from screwing up Freddie/Fannie? Funniest thing I've read on JT in a long time. :-D
Anyway, the Bush administration did attempt to reform Freddie/Fannie back in 2003 but was blocked by House democrats. McMain also recommended reforms in 2005 in order to prevent a crisis. Go on youtube and listen to House democrats reassuring the nation that Freddie/Fannie are sound, just prior to the collapse.
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
0
goodDonkey
Helter_Skelter said:
It is totally impossible for an opposing party to block legislation in the House. It can't be done. Only in the Senate can the opposing party "block" legislation. Technically it is a failure to get 60 votes for a cloture vote which prevents a filabuster by limiting the time for debate. But there is no reason for Helter_Skelter to get caught up in such details because there is little truth in what he has to say any way.
"Proposing" is not governing. You must pass legislation and have the president sign it. Well in Bush's case you also needed to get past a signing statement hoping he didn't sign something and then say what he signed has no real meaning - real constitutional that was.
The Democrats did not "screw...up Freddie/Fannie." Helter_Skelter has a habit of making a statement like that and then diverting attention to "proposing" and "recommending" when the Republicans clearly had power to draft and pass legislation. They even had a bill but they did not vote on it.
We will never hear Helter_Skelter tell us how the Democrats "screw[ed]...up Freddie/Fannie" because it was an event that clearly never took place. So just prepare yourself for an endless supply of diversionary tactics so the conservative do not have to take responsibility for their deeds.
You see the conservative's new argument is that the Democrats blocked legislation and that is how they screwed up Fannie/Freddie. But when I prove that never happened they have to invent a mystical action that the Democrats did to do this screwing up. But they will never, ever be able to tell us what that is. You see they got the lie of Democrats blocking legislation from conservative talk shows and they are left speechless without new instructions from them.
Back to top