Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Is it Poll Dancin' ......or is Obama really rising in popularity?

UPDATE: I've been watching some news and discussions very early this AM...4:00AM, to be precise: Morning Joe on MSNBC, IMUS (on FOX Business, 'way to GO, Imus and BERNARD!'), FOX, CNN....I'm wondering this: Re: Afghanistan and a decision on its 8th anniversary; WHAT SIGNAL DOES IT SEND ENEMIES WHEN OUR ADMINISTRATION IS TALKING WITH GENERALS, APPARENTLY RELEASING CONVERSATIONS, TELLING THE PUBLIC THAT OBAMA IS FURIOUS WITH McCHRYSTAL FOR GIVING AN OPINION, TALKING ABOUT WHO IT'S GOOD FOR IF WE STAY, IF WE GO, CAN WE AFFORD IT, ETC. There are enemies in this world and we're in complete disarray and SHOWING THEM. How's that read? and, through all of THAT.............(back to my original post subject)...

Obama's job performance number has gone up for the first time since the election. Read it about it HERE. People say it's because of how he's handling health care and the economy.

Most experts are saying the stimulus isn't working nearly as well as it should have. Joblessness is rising at an alarming and unexpected rate. Most people understand that there really isn't yet a health care bill to even discuss let alone vote on. Are Americans this blind? Is the media covering facts this effectively? I know many people who voted for Obama who are not at all happy with him today.

Who is polled? How's that work? Have you ever been polled? NOTHING IS GOING WELL, there have been no accomplishments, who's thinking otherwise? If the media mentioned VAN JONES, reminded people of Obama's ACORN ties, if the czar situation was better explained.......if, if, if. IF we had an honest media, how might the polls read? BIG IF

geeeeeZ

58 comments:

Soloman said...

Z...

The reason - believe it or not - that his numbers are up is because he lost the Olympics.

It has to do with the old theory that everyone will 'pick a guy up when he's down,' if you will.

People aww feewing sowwy for him. He gawt his wittle feewings huwt. Awww...

Either that, or they selectively avoided asking us racists how we feel...!?!?

Elmers Brother said...

only 14% of the stimulus has gone out...the ba*tards are holding on to it till next year's election in hopes that will screw ourselves again by reelecting the incumbents

Opus #6 said...

Americans love an underdog. Obama puts the DOG in underdog.

christian soldier said...

sad-isn't it!?

RightKlik said...

I don't trust any numbers coming from the AP. Obama's numbers have been essentially static for quite a while. Rasmussen's numbers are very reliable and his methodology gives more meaningful information than what is reflected by the polls most commonly referenced by the Democrat-Run Media. Looking at Rassmussen, Obama's approval has been essentially static for the past 3 months.

DaBlade said...

I share your frustration Z. I mean, 53% of the independents approve of Obama's job performance? What exactly is it that they approve of? His systematic destruction of our economy? The dismantling of our national security? His numerous world apology tours?

Beth said...

If Fox News did the poll, methinks the results would be different!

Z said...

by the way....re; my addition to my post very early this AM...
Anybody else love to watch IMUS mostly for Bernard?

And anybody else think Charles has THE JOB OF THE CENTURY? I swear, except for having to get up that early, Charles, Imus' side kick for those of you who don't know, gets to just sit there, read the news, not show any particular talent or intelligence (sorry, but he really IS just a Greek Chorus to Imus), make tons of dough for, let's face it, NOTHING.. and I WANT HIS JOB!

I want Bernard's mind...he cracks me up! BUT, I think Beamish is even better than Bernard and have tried to encourage him to find a way to sidekick some talk radio guy or something. Wouldn't that be GREAT?

"Beamish in the morning..." (little tune there to accompany that..)

foutsc said...

This was a cooked up poll. Rasmussen and Gallup did not show a similar rise. They are trying to drive public opinion.

Poll dancin'... clever!

FJ said...

Obama's poll numbers rise and fall on economic news. The've been fudging the unemployment numbers to make things look better than they really are to stop his fall in the polls.

LASunsett said...

The AP and CBS are skewing numbers to achieve their desired results. I'd love to see the methodology on this one, as well as the recent CBS ones.

If you notice, Rasmussen and Gallup are far better indicators of public sentiment. They show him around 50% +-.

The difference in this AP poll is their relationship with Yahoo News. AP skews it, reports it, and Yahoo prominently displays it like it is some kind of trend. When all along, they have been ignoring the trending down being shown in the more accurate polls.

Deception at its best.

Anonymous said...

According to Rasmussen and Luntz, Obama’s poll numbers are in the tank, but if you are running a large pro-Obama media corporation, you can always rig the polls so that you (eventually) get the results you want. It is easy to shape statistical information, easier still to develop a moronic poll so that the answers to cleverly worded questions support ‘your guy’.

But let’s suppose that there is an increase in satisfaction with Obama’s job performance. We could explain it this way: people who voted for Obama really, really, really want him to do well because it reinforces that they were ‘right’ all along. They are living in denial. You know, like the spouse who won’t turn his or her abusive mate into the police because he or she is convinced that everything will eventually turn out okay. You know, like the pregnant woman who is convinced that her ‘boyfriend’ will own up to his responsibilities as a father to her child and that soon, she and her child will live happily ever after. You know, like the taxpayer who convinces him or herself that chipping-in to pay for a $300K home for someone who can’t afford to live in such extravagance is really, really, really the right thing to do.

Ergo, there is no shortage of idiots in this country and if you leave it up to MSNBC and others, Obama is likely to end up one of this country’s best-ever presidents.

Mustang

EDGE said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EDGE said...

I try not to pay attention to any of these things. The press is already crowned him the greatest Pres. ever. The man can do no wrong in their eyes.

Jungle Mom said...

really? Rising? funny because even a few lefty, pro Obama friends of mine are now confessing a sense of discomfort with his performance thus far.

Ducky's here said...

Most experts are saying the stimulus isn't working nearly as well as it should have.

-------------------------

Yeah, because most of it went to the flambeurs on Wall Street and the rest HAS NOT BEEN LARGE ENOUGH.

Got that, z? it's too small. He's listening to the Republican Know Nothings.

So if he went into a real FDR style program you'd be screaming and if he doesn't you scream.

Know what, I've got the right figured out. They like to whine. They don't care about policy, they just want to whine.

Anyway, I've never seen so much goofy stuff about the economy in my life. Not since Greenspan tanked the world economy, anyway.

The dollar is deflating, not inflating. This isn't a good thing, liquidity is draining out of the system like water through a busted dam.

Gold prices are in a bubble. It's going to burst soon, and gold will plunge. HARD and FAST.

Green shoots? Corporate earnings are on track to drop more than they did last year, a 20% drop last year and a 24.8% drop this year.

So keep whining Repubs, that's what you do best. Meanwhile, your hero St. Ronnie Raygun and his buddies Clinton and Bush have done such a great job of trashing the economy that we are going to have to go through a fundamental life style change (I don't think that's bad, actually) and the Russians and the Chinese are laughing their butts off watching us pee away money we don't have over Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

We are way down the rabbit hole and the irony is that the Rethug revolution under that clown Raygun was what got the ball rolling.

highboy said...

ducky, you're one to talk about whining, what with all your buddies in the dem party who simply said "no" to everything Bush every tried to pass, regardless of the fact that they supported the exact same policies under Clinton. The stimulus idea is a joke, and no matter how much you libs want to play word salad with the numbers, its simple physics: you can't borrow and spend more money to get out of debt. Not going to happen. Doesn't work that way, and no American right now is being fooled by it. Maybe if your dems came up with a policy that had a hope of working, Americans might support it. Until then, I'll continue to sit back and laugh while Obama's numbers level off and the dem Congress' approval of a whopping 21% continues to saunter vaguely downwards. Its a mark of liberal incompetency that they have a majority and still can't accomplish anything.

Z said...

foutsc, glad you noticed :-)

Ducky....lower taxes. Blame Bush for trying to stop Fannie and Freddie from what caused this.
Lower taxes again. But, make SURE you can blame Bush FIRST.
Did you hear Obama's going to AGAIN make 105% loans to people who can't afford a home? (let's face it, if you have to finance 105%,you can't afford your home. that is NOT a sin, that's NORMAL for some people, but not in America; we're so idiotic that we look down on someone without a college educ or who doesn't own a home as if those were character issues.
Republicans prefer character issues to 'things', apparently.
Did I mention LOWER TAXES?...like SWEDEN, the poster child for socialism, is now doing?
And, good try to insult Republicans as if my readers need a reason not to dislike Republicans ALMOST as much as stupid Democrats.
Lower Taxes. Oh, ya. ...I DID say that.

Highboy, well said.

frogBurger said...

"Yeah, because most of it went to the flambeurs on Wall Street and the rest HAS NOT BEEN LARGE ENOUGH."

Good, Ducky--you're admitting this administration is corrupt and not for the people.

That's some progress.

"Not large enough" - That's where you still don't get economics principles.

frogBurger said...

"We are way down the rabbit hole and the irony is that the Rethug revolution under that clown Raygun was what got the ball rolling."

Ducky, who had the largest increase in debt since George Washington?

And we're the whiners? Who's asking for more government because he doesn't have the courage and strength for individual responsibility and accountability?

That's you and your pathetic kind of leftist losers.

With people like you, we'd still be at the neanderthal stage.

Anonymous said...

Just remember what P.T. Barnum said about fooling people---

Elmers Brother, I think the French for ba*tard is 'batard'. Z. will know.

Hey, Ducks, the biggest whiners I see on Fox are the Dems. Colmes (can you believe Monica Crowley has to put up with HIM as a BIN?! Thanksgiving Dinner should be fun!), & Bob 'Butkus' Beckel, along with a few others. I must say, toe-sucker or not, I never thought Dick Morris would turn out so well, as has Greta van Susteren.

Ellen

frogBurger said...

Yes. Batard is the word, which is not a word to use as "bastard" is sometimes used between friends here.

frogBurger said...

"The dollar is deflating, not inflating. This isn't a good thing, liquidity is draining out of the system like water through a busted dam."

Bush started and Obama is making it worse.

Check this diagram on monetary base mentioned by this article, which is interesting.

Ducky's here said...

Ducky, who had the largest increase in debt since George Washington?

----------------------

What does that have to do with St. Ronnie Raygun and his merry men getting the ball rolling, straw man?

Can a right winger carry on a conversation? I'm not sure.

In this case i would ask why we needed TARP and whether or why we need a stimulus. Start there and then decide if Obama has been too little, too large or just right because if you think he's got a liberal economic team then I suggest you read the piece in this week's New Yorker on Larry Summers, one of the main bubble boys.

But keep trying to defend the collapse of laissez-faire, froggy. Intelligent economists like Polanyi have very capably demonstrated that your Ayn Rand fairyland leads to serious destruction but keep it up.

It would be nice if the far right could join us at the grownups table and try to hash this out but I really think you are intent on letting the legacy of St. Ronnie Raygun and Greenspan and Rubin and Summers and Bush and Clinton just trash the place.

Z said...

Ducky, "Can a right winger carry on a conversation? I'm not sure."
First, let me remind you this is my blog and I'm real tired of your nastiness...... you're a guest here, nothing more.

Having said that...
I'm pretty sure the Right can 'carry on a conversation'..as witnessed by how you disappear for want of an intelligent answer to the commenters here once you can't continue slamming and demeaning and Googling for information that suits your side....

This country is in VERY dire straits...most of us know nobody's innocent but that Democrats are more guilty, redistributing that's planned NEVER WORKS (Google Sweden, Ducky); If we had a media worth a lick, they'd be investigating, telling the truth, exposing, but...we don't. So, America just might be following a path prepared by the far left from which she'll never EVER recover.

I'm tired of reposting and relinking to videos showing Bush warn us to get a grip with Fannie/Freddie, or that video of Dan Mudd (I believe that's his name)with the Black Congress group promising (I SWEAR!!, dripping sweat as he speaks) about giving subprime loans ... saying that the Blacks on the hill are the "Conscience of the congress".my GOD. Some conscience...that was Clinton's day.

And now, YOUR GUY wants to give loans AGAIN, 105% ....GREAT IDEA, LEFTWINGERS!! It's proof you ARE insane as the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and never getting better results...Good job, lefties.

HOW utterly stupid.

FrogBurger said...

"Can a right winger carry on a conversation? I'm not sure."

Who's never answering specific questions 99% of the time? You.

My point is valid since you mention Reagan. You look back, therefore I mention the present to you. Let's say Reagan messed up, why does Obama make it worse then? Why is he digging the deficit hole? I think my point is quite relevant.

This is not a collapse of laissez faire. Who created the act to allow people to borrow for housing way too easily in the first place? Who threatened banks of anti-discrimination lawsuits if they didn't lend to people who couldn't afford housing? Is that laissez-faire?

If you really wanted to limit laissez-faire, then we should have done the opposite. We should have prevented ALL people from borrowing. Because the debt we have is also the fault of the American people (credit cards, all kinds of loans)

No we did the opposite because of the leftist mindset, like yours. We encouraged it based on some Keynesian policies, which are not the policies that pure free market people want.

Again, you're off the mark.
You must have low IQ. That must be why.

frogBurger said...

Maybe all of this is for Soros. He must be shorting the dollar so Obama is helping him.

Anonymous said...

How did y'all like the shots this A.M. of the White House minions handing out white lab coats to the doctors who had the temerity to not wear one to the Command Performance photo op. I'm surprised they weren't handing out stethoscopes, too. Talk about stupid. Doctors don't run around in lab coats away from the job, even for O. Talk about 'props' & stage managing phonies! Did they also call 'Rent a Doc'? They blew it again!

Ellen

frogBurger said...

It's to con-vince morons like Ducky.

highboy said...

"What does that have to do with St. Ronnie Raygun and his merry men getting the ball rolling, straw man?"

Yeah, because Carter forcing banks to hand out loans like all get out to people who couldn't pay them back had nothing to do with it right? But I do like your selective history. Bad Reagan and his free market policies! Go government! Checks and loans for everyone!

Anonymous said...

Here's what REALLY matters MOST:

Please let's stay with HEALTHCARE, which should be dubbed HELL CARE:

People who don't watch FOX will of course deny this because it isn't being said by those pushing government health care.

Penalty for no Health Insurance? Yep -- a $25,000 Fine and JAIL TIME!!!!!!

If you are nervous about the Government's desire to "reform" health care please keep reading.
Last night on FOX's "On the Record" REP. JOHN SHADEGG, R - ARIZ said the following regarding one of the House bills on Health Care Reform:

"What the bill says is that this is a tax. If you don't buy health insurance and you don't by government-approved health insurance, then they will impose a tax on you and they told you how much the tax was. But unfortunately, the code says that if you don't pay the tax, that's a misdemeanor, and we can fine you more, in this case, an additional $25,000. And on top of that, we can put you in jail for up to a year.

So the bill that we're all upset about in August because we thought it had some fines it if people didn't buy the government-approved health insurance, we now discover has an additional $25,000 in fines and jail time."

Pretty disturbing right? Wait, it gets worse:

"But you know what else is in the bill, Greta? This is amazing, and I brought this up in committee. The bill not only says you and I have to buy health insurance, but if it's an ERISA plan, which means if it's an employer-provided plan, the health insurance company gets immunity if, when they decline care, when they don't give you care, you are injured or killed, they are immune from damages."

Here is a link to that transcript. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,561540,00.html

If you have not called your Representative and Senators yet now might be a good time!!

Ducky's here said...

Still holding out to blame the Community Reinvestment Act, eh frog. Despite the fact that Greenspan and several others have stated it wasn't a factor. Despite the fact that the American investment banking system which DISAPPEARED never made home loans.

Despite the fact that deregulation pushed by Larry Summers (the nations current chief economic adviser, a real commie) allowed AIG to write hundreds of billions of derivatives with absolutely no backing reserves.

Despite the facts that the primary areas of collapse, California, Nevada, Florida and Arizona were not the primary areas of CRA loans.

Despite the fact that Nationwide, Ameriquest and other subprime pushers were not subject to the CRA.

Despite the fact that Fannie and Freddie as private institutions (thanks St. Ronnie Raygun, they were working fine before that bonehead stunt) had to make underwrite riskier loans to maintain their market share and keep their stock price up ... you decide to blame a group of people who's loans performed BETTER than most.

Despite the fact that everyone was operating on a business model that assumed housing prices could continue an unrealistic bubble expansion.

You will still persist in this idea that banks were "forced" to give out loans to "people who couldn't pay them back" (Hint: That's code for A.C.O.R.N.) even though banks were pocketing a fortune writing the junk paper and couldn't write the stuff fast enough. Yeah, the CRA forced Citi to write three quarters of a trillion in bad paper. Citi alone. Bore me later.

And I bet the CRA was forcing the banks in Ireland and Spain and other countries that went under to write bad paper too, right?

Please, buy a vowel. Anything to catch a clue.

Z-man said...

I don't believe in polls and for the record I've never been polled myself. You know maybe here's a massive conspiracy for the ages, maybe they just make this stuff up.

Ducky's here said...

Would one of the right wing lords of finance here explain to me why most of the banks of Europe especially in Britain, Germany, Spain and Ireland were poisoning their banking system if they knew the mortgage paper they were buying from the American investment banks was based on forced loans to "people who couldn't pay"?

Those folks aren't dummies. Deutsche Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland and those French banks that went teats up, they would have known. Couldn't be that they were just pocketing too much cash and waiting for the suckers (I.E. the average person) to foot the bill.

As I say, I'd like to carry on a conversation. I'm afraid it's going to force you to admit to serious flaws in your view of finance and economics but come on, Alan Greenspan was willing to admit he was wrong, why not you good folk?

frogBurger said...

Moronic Ducky, it's one problem I mentioned.

I could add interest rate policies under Clinton with Greenspan.

I also mentioned the foolish behavior of most Americans.

"And I bet the CRA was forcing the banks in Ireland and Spain and other countries that went under to write bad paper too, right?"

Everything's interconnected so you can't separate countries in what's called globalization.

Collapse of CA? Leftist policies, welfare, high taxes.

Everything you stand for as led to high unemployment and lower prosperity around the world.

You should buy more than a vowel, but a clean new brain that looks at stats and doesn't repeat what his goons around him tell him to say.

I'm going to admit something here - I started as a lefty in France and I saw the numbers and tried to understand why after years of brainwashing.

Maybe you should do the same.

Ducky's here said...

"And I bet the CRA was forcing the banks in Ireland and Spain and other countries that went under to write bad paper too, right?"

Everything's interconnected so you can't separate countries in what's called globalization.

-----------------------

I see, so the failure of banks like Royal Bank of Scotland and the absolute cratering of the Irish housing market were all due to Clinton forcing banks in America to loan to minorities ("people who couldn't repay"). Fascinating.

And your attempts to portray Clinton as anything but a deregulation fan and an economic conservative are not going to get far.

The international banking system went on a feeding frenzy that had NOTHING to do with underlying material assets. It had nothing to do with CRA.

Soloman said...

I'm at work so I gotta be quick...

Community Reinvestment act forced banks BY LAW to write bad mortgages. If not for those bad mortgages, there would have been nothing to collapse on Wall Street, because all dealings would have been secure. Therefore, it was EXACLTY the CRA (along with irresponsible personal finance management on the part of many Americans in a greedy 'bling' driven society) that caused the majority of the economic crisis we're in today. Thank you, Jimmah Cattah and Hollywood / TV media.

The Stimulus was not for Wall Street, it was for Obama / Pelosi payback. Most of it has gone to liberal districts for pet projects of major donors, and the "shovel ready" part was a tunnel under a highway for some turtles.

It was the TARP, initiated by Bush but voted up by Obama that was for Wall Street. Obama's biggest campaign donors? #2 Goldman Sachs , #4 Microsoft Corp, #5 Google Inc, #6 Citigroup Inc, #7 JPMorgan Chase & Co, the list goes on.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 has more on his contributors.

Not even half the stimulus has been spent yet. How can you claim it wasn't big enough when it's not even all spent yet?

Ducky, you're so far off on your FACTS, aside from the fact that your ideas stink of failed economic policy.

Just like FDR didn't bring us out of the Great Depression (private industry building for wartime need did that) Obama will never spend us out of this recession.

Soloman said...

Ducky - you said

"Would one of the right wing lords of finance here explain to me why most of the banks of Europe especially in Britain, Germany, Spain and Ireland were poisoning their banking system if they knew the mortgage paper they were buying from the American investment banks was based on forced loans to "people who couldn't pay"?"

It's called gambling. That's all Wall Street and much of the major financial world is. There is no security.

Want security? Buy gold. $350 in 2004 would have you at almost $1050 today. And it's only going up as long as these buffoons in Washington keep spending money we don't have.

frogBurger said...

'And your attempts to portray Clinton as anything but a deregulation fan and an economic conservative are not going to get far."

Where did you read this? Did I say this.

Maybe you should go back to school just to read properly. That's maybe why you're on the left. You can't even read correctly.

FrogBurger said...

"The international banking system went on a feeding frenzy that had NOTHING to do with underlying material assets. It had nothing to do with CRA."

Again, didn't say that. But things are interconnected. Banks loan to themselves and buy assets and securities that are global.

So the CRA may not impact banks directly in Ireland but what affects banks and other financial institutions in the US affect banks worldwide.

Again, your lefty brain is trying to make me oversimplify things when that's not my intent.

Anonymous said...

"Corporate earnings are on track to drop more than they did last year, a 20% drop last year and a 24.8% drop this year."

Ducky, yes the dollar's value is dropping like a rock!

There are reports that France Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others want to dump the dollar, and use a "basket" of other currencies as the world currencies. They deny this, but where there's smoke there's fire.

This would be devastating.

Now, you can bait and switch by bringing up President Reagan, but you know and we know, we now have the fourth President since Ronald Reagan. Get a grip, genius.

This president has tried to sell the idea that you can spend your way into properity. You can't!

Now Ducky, you explain to me how printing worthless paper called dollars, ameliorates the problem.

You explain how passing trillion dollar entitlement programs when we have no money, and existing programs are trillions in the red, are sustainable.

You explain how raising taxes on businesses and corporations, will provide jobs and keep inflation from rising.

You explain how an added VAT tax helps the economy, and for that matter, helps the poor.

The Bush tax cuts are due to expire in January. The middle class is poised to get hit and get hit hard, and the engine of productivity is under assault by our own government.

And you want to blame President Reagan? What a fool you are. I would think as a good Marxist, you'd be happy.

All that is coming down on us, is being done intentionally. If it isn't intentional that would mean not one person in a leadership position, has the brains God gave a gnat.

We will lose our rights as Americans as the government promises and grabs more and more control, with fines and punishment for those who won't cooperate.

I could go on and on but you get the picture. You see Ducky, socialism, marxism, fascism, take your pick, require the same oppressive heavy hand of the government no matter where it is implemented. Even here.

So, how's that far left extremist utopia working out for ya, huh?

Pris

Impertinent said...

These are the numbers that matter:


Americans "approval" ( why do they always use approval when it's REALLY the disapproval ) of the job Congress is doing is at 21% this month, down significantly from last month’s 31% and from the recent high of 39% in March.
Approval of Congress today is significantly below the average 36% rating found across the past two decades.



Translated...79% of Americans...DISAPPROVE of our government. How can a government, this disliked, even exist in this country?

Z said...

You ALL make far too much sense.
Don't baffle Ducky with facts........:-)

The Vegas Art Guy said...

Duckling, since you are so much smarter than the rest of us, please explain (in simple terms) why the Democrats in the Senate would not allow Bush to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and then why the one time they were able to even get it out of committee, the Democratic party threatened a Filibuster (the GOP did not have 60 votes) to stop it from going through. Again, use short simple words for your explanation of why the Democrats thought it was OK to allow Freddie and Fannie to do as they did.

And try to stick to the topic this time.

Anonymous said...

"please explain (in simple terms) why the Democrats in the Senate would not allow Bush to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae."



Da love of dat sweet, old time slave vote? Keeping dem down and stupid on dat plantation? Da promise of dem reparations? Dere promise to end poverty? Amazingly...there's still poverty...dems haven't yet...yet ended it...nor has welfare...but dey keep on a votin' for dem...dems? Maybe if dey was a bit brighter...dey'd be smaking dem dems upside da head wit dem boards?


Stupid is as stupid does. Too bad dey have da IQ of an eggplant.

Anonymous said...

This blog should be called Canardo v. Sanity.

Otalp

Z said...

Otalp....could be!

Ducky's here said...

Vegas Art Guy, we hear a lot about Democrats blocking the Fannie Mae bill but it died in a REPUBLICAN controlled committee.

Now I know that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were the demons in both branches that you think stopped all legislation but fact is that a Republican controlled committee blocked the bill.

Republicans were playing power politics at the time so I suspect the bill wasn't what they wanted since very little of their program was ever blocked.

Ducky's here said...

I'd also point out, Vegas Art Guy that the horse was way out of the barn when 180 was proposed.

Folks had all been taking big wads of cash (and McCAIN was way up the list, that mentally ill hypocrite) so the fix was pretty much in.

An organization with as much dough as Fannie controlled can play both sides of the street and avoid any meaningful changes.

Ducky's here said...

I'd also like to ask my Republican brethren why they feel a bill to manage the accounting manipulation at Fannie which was manipulating the stock price and executive bonuses would have resolved anything.

Why target Fannie alone for shenanigans with stock options and bonuses? You are pretty vocal about avoiding regulation in other cases.

Why would this have saved the institutions? The collapse was caused by the collapse in housing prices, not the bonus and stock behavior.

Let me know how we could have saved a financial system built on instruments that depended on a perpetual rise in real estate prices.

Folks like Vegas Art Guy are asking me to stay on topic. I am very much on topic and let's just say it, I await your answer and sir, I don't think you've got a fastball.

highboy said...

Of course its worth noting that while Biden and Obama constantly ridiculed McCain during the campaign for always voting for bank deregulation, the voting record has McCain recorded as not voting one way or the other at all, while Biden himself voted along with every other democrat FOR deregulation, a bill that Clinton signed. But now that deregulation, according to liberal turds, is one of the root causes for our economic collapse, and Bush and the Republicans are to blame. Fortunately for the dems, most Americans are too lazy and uneducated to actually look up those voting records. But its hilarious to listen to ducky and the rest try to nuance the problem as if the constant spending of the U.S. government since the Carter administration is not to blame for our economic mess. Even more hilarious is the blame they give Reagan even though its an historical, documented fact, that the last time our unemployment was this low he got jobs back at a record rate. But don't let facts get in the way. Lets just keep pointing at our european brethren as role models. Role models with some of the worst healthcare imaginable and the global significance of a soap dish, but role models nonetheless.

Ducky's here said...

Yes highball, McCain did get up and showboat on the Senate floor AFTER the oversight report was released on the accounting problems at Fannie. He initiated nothing.

That's all he did and that's why we should all be glad that he has been consigned to a life of listening to that shrew he's married to complain that she could have been first lady.

Ducky's here said...

highball, did Reagan get the jobs back or did the action of Carter appointee Paul Volcker at the Fed get them back?

Reagan didn't do much but run up huge deficits, something the far right is complaining about right now.

Anyway, it's a complicated problem. I say Volcker was the catalyst but I'm sure we'll get a level headed non doctrinaire response.

highboy said...

To answer your question, it was Reagan. You can keep ignoring the debacles of the Carter administration with his dem controlled congress all you want, but history proves you wrong. Its not complicated at all, but I understand liberals have to do mental gymnastics for their ideals to make any sense. The fact that you gloss over the blatant hypocrisy (and lie) of the democratic party in blaming the Republicans for deregulation that they themselves voted for just shows you're not interested in truth at all. Face it: your boys got what they wanted, and dems are in control. Yet for all their power they still can't pass anything, public support for all of their policies is pretty much nil, and it took them less than a year to lose the American people.

Ducky's here said...

highball, again, the Carter appointee Paul Volcker.

Any discussion of the period economics which does not include Paul Volcker is foolish.

Now was it Volckers monetary policy or Reagan's deficit spending? And which might have been responsible for the serious recession in Raygun's second term?

highboy said...

"Now was it Volckers monetary policy or Reagan's deficit spending? And which might have been responsible for the serious recession in Raygun's second term?"

Its questions like that which makes being an American in this day and age so frustrating. Try learning how your economy actually works. You are absolutely clueless if you think that a recession can happen at such break-neck speed. The economy doesn't shift gears that fast. If it did, we wouldn't be told by the new administration that the stimulus will take years to see an effect. A president doesn't just right a bill and see results in six months. You can keep throwing Volcker's name out there until you're blue in the face, the point is still the same. Spending money we didn't have is what led us here. Spending even more money we don't have won't get us out.

beamish said...

Ducky,

Know what, I've got the right figured out. They like to whine. They don't care about policy, they just want to whine.

The left's chance to shine, and you're on defense.

Sit down and watch how the pros destroy presidents, chump changer.

The Vegas Art Guy said...

It was Regan's tax cuts that jump started the enconomy in the 80's Duckling. Yes he did raise the deficits, something he was shrinking when he left office. Of course the dems controlled congress so they get the blame as well. And in the senate for the first few years of his (Bush) administration the Democrats had a majority in the Senate which would explain why they could not get the bill out of committee. And even if they could have gotten out of committee it would have been a moot point since the democrats would have filibustered the bill until it died. Often the threat of a filibuster is enough to kill a bill.

And the reason that when Fannie and Freddie were able to implode the market by themselves is that they had the lion's share of the mortgages.

And Duckling you need to check your math. Between 1998 and 2008 McCain didn't even rank in the top 25. In fact 7 of the top 10 were democrats and the highest the GOP could do is #6.