Obama's worst quality is his ineffectiveness. GWB, for all of his faults, was extremely effective. A true leader.

Yes, led down the wrong way of a one way street blindfolded and lit on fire, but led nonetheless.

Obama has been outwitted by his Republican opponents at every turn, which is unfortunate for many of those in the middle because he seems like he'd be a much better President than the rest of the nitwits running against him.

I agree that a populist candidate will be more likely to win this year than one espousing tired, disproven supply-side and trickle-down ideology. But saying pretty words and taking meaningful action are two different things.

Everybody understands that Obama's been blocked at every effort with a disloyal, obstructionist opposition. But if he's going to take a big-idea, New Deal, populist position, he needs to have a plan for achieving his goals w/o a single Republican vote, or he's making promises he reasonably knows he can't keep.

Notabunny: I agree that a populist candidate will be more likely to win this year than one espousing tired, disproven supply-side and trickle-down ideology. But saying pretty words and taking meaningful action are two different things.

Everybody understands that Obama's been blocked at every effort with a disloyal, obstructionist opposition. But if he's going to take a big-idea, New Deal, populist position, he needs to have a plan for achieving his goals w/o a single Republican vote, or he's making promises he reasonably knows he can't keep.

I thought the policies he proposed in the SOTU speach were a good start. This was basically his "Good news guys, I've found my veto pen and spine, now work with my or get the fark out of my way" speach.

WaitWhatWhy: Notabunny: I agree that a populist candidate will be more likely to win this year than one espousing tired, disproven supply-side and trickle-down ideology. But saying pretty words and taking meaningful action are two different things.

Everybody understands that Obama's been blocked at every effort with a disloyal, obstructionist opposition. But if he's going to take a big-idea, New Deal, populist position, he needs to have a plan for achieving his goals w/o a single Republican vote, or he's making promises he reasonably knows he can't keep.

I thought the policies he proposed in the SOTU speach were a good start. This was basically his "Good news guys, I've found my veto pen and spine, now work with my or get the fark out of my way" speach.

I hope you're right. He'd be more successful, would get more support from his base, and would help the Democratic candidate win in 2016 by not opposing the Republicans rather than trying to work with them.

AverageAmericanGuy: Obama's worst quality is his ineffectiveness.

Ask Somalian pirates about his ineffectiveness.


AverageAmericanGuy: Obama has been outwitted by his Republican opponents at every turn

This comment is so funny I voted twice.

I thought the policies he proposed in the SOTU speach were a good start. This was basically his "Good news guys, I've found my veto pen and spine, now work with my or get the fark out of my way" speach.

It was all bluster to jump start his campaign. It's things he's said in 2008, ignored it for 3 1/2 years, and now is saying it again.

And the policies put forth are mostly nonsense populism with no substance.

"Buffett Rule" - So you can make $990,000 in only dividends and pay 15% but if you happen to make $1,010,000 your rate goes up to a flat 30%? That's "fair".


"extension of mandatory school attendance age" - A 17 year old can't work to feed his family if say his single mom is disabled?


"Creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit" - It's like the war on drugs, but instead it's the war on magnetbox

"Establishment of Financial Crimes Unit " - Ummm what year is it? After you (and others) bail them out over and over, 4 years later you'll form a unit to investigate. Sounds like quite a plan.

"Creation of prosecutorial unit to protect homeowners from abusive lending" - This is a good proposal, once he gets his time machine ready and sets it for 2004.

"Proposal to help homeowners save on their mortgages" How many programs do we need to 'save' people from their mortgages. If you can't afford your mortgage or you're underwater, just leave the house. Bank handout disguised as helping people. It's been 4 years to adjust to the new realities of the real estate market.

"Push for increase in student aid" - Great, let's inflate tuition rates more and more.


These are all things that sounds great, but don't really make any sense in 2012.

AverageAmericanGuy: Obama has been outwitted by his Republican opponents at every turn, which is unfortunate for many of those in the middle because he seems like he'd be a much better President than the rest of the nitwits running against him.

Outwitted? Definitely.

The Republicans took him to school on the debt ceiling debate, where Obama got everything he wanted in return for nothing.
Obama also totally failed in the unemployment extension debate, where he got everything he wanted in return for something he wanted.

Yes. Outwitted.

MugzyBrown: I thought the policies he proposed in the SOTU speach were a good start. This was basically his "Good news guys, I've found my veto pen and spine, now work with my or get the fark out of my way" speach.

It was all bluster to jump start his campaign. It's things he's said in 2008, ignored it for 3 1/2 years, and now is saying it again.

And the policies put forth are mostly nonsense populism with no substance.

"Buffett Rule" - So you can make $990,000 in only dividends and pay 15% but if you happen to make $1,010,000 your rate goes up to a flat 30%? That's "fair".


"extension of mandatory school attendance age" - A 17 year old can't work to feed his family if say his single mom is disabled?


"Creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit" - It's like the war on drugs, but instead it's the war on magnetbox

"Establishment of Financial Crimes Unit " - Ummm what year is it? After you (and others) bail them out over and over, 4 years later you'll form a unit to investigate. Sounds like quite a plan.

"Creation of prosecutorial unit to protect homeowners from abusive lending" - This is a good proposal, once he gets his time machine ready and sets it for 2004.

"Proposal to help homeowners save on their mortgages" How many programs do we need to 'save' people from their mortgages. If you can't afford your mortgage or you're underwater, just leave the house. Bank handout disguised as helping people. It's been 4 years to adjust to the new realities of the real estate market.

"Push for increase in student aid" - Great, let's inflate tuition rates more and more.


These are all things that sounds great, but don't really make any sense in 2012.

If that's all it is, it's a heck of a start (new window). Your objections to his proposals read like the Cliff notes for a Sean Hannity show (that's a bad thing, in case you're confused). I do think that this is more then empty words, I expect a pretty major push on most of these issues because 1. there's broad public support for them, and 2. the GOP will likely oppose them, hurting the Republican chances at the POTUS and Congress, all while exposing the fact that they've abandoned their traditional platform in favor of "Oppose anything the ni....BOING president does"

WaitWhatWhy: If that's all it is, it's a heck of a start (new window). Your objections to his proposals read like the Cliff notes for a Sean Hannity show (that's a bad thing, in case you're confused). I do think that this is more then empty words, I expect a pretty major push on most of these issues because 1. there's broad public support for them, and 2. the GOP will likely oppose them, hurting the Republican chances at the POTUS and Congress, all while exposing the fact that they've abandoned their traditional platform in favor of "Oppose anything the ni....BOING president does" It's an election year, he wants to keep his job and he's been a middling president at best so far so he has reason to be concerned about his reelection prospects.


FTFY

And MugzyBrown brings up some valid points, your ad hominem on him notwithstanding.

In particular I'd like to point out how silly the "Establishment of Financial Crimes Unit" is. We already have plenty of enforcement powers in that area... the problem is that many of the irresponsible/shiatty things the big financial institutions did was perfectly legal and the things that weren't the DOJ doesn't seem to be at all interested in investigating and prosecuting. Most likely because the prosecutions would be hard (complex activities, ungodly wealthy potential defendants who can afford the very best legal teams) and because they would likely piss off Senators who are friends with (and recipients of contributions from) the people who they'd be investigating.

mongbiohazard: WaitWhatWhy: If that's all it is, it's a heck of a start (new window). Your objections to his proposals read like the Cliff notes for a Sean Hannity show (that's a bad thing, in case you're confused). I do think that this is more then empty words, I expect a pretty major push on most of these issues because 1. there's broad public support for them, and 2. the GOP will likely oppose them, hurting the Republican chances at the POTUS and Congress, all while exposing the fact that they've abandoned their traditional platform in favor of "Oppose anything the ni....BOING president does" It's an election year, he wants to keep his job and he's been a middling president at best so far so he has reason to be concerned about his reelection prospects.


FTFY

And MugzyBrown brings up some valid points, your ad hominem on him notwithstanding.

In particular I'd like to point out how silly the "Establishment of Financial Crimes Unit" is. We already have plenty of enforcement powers in that area... the problem is that many of the irresponsible/shiatty things the big financial institutions did was perfectly legal and the things that weren't the DOJ doesn't seem to be at all interested in investigating and prosecuting. Most likely because the prosecutions would be hard (complex activities, ungodly wealthy potential defendants who can afford the very best legal teams) and because they would likely piss off Senators who are friends with (and recipients of contributions from) the people who they'd be investigating.

No, we largely do not. We have the largely understaffed and underfunded SEC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/budget-cuts-to-sec-reduce- i ts-effectiveness.html?pagewanted=all

51%

Why does he need 51%?

He only needs 22% if he plays the electoral college correctly. (new window)

Robespierre: No, we largely do not. We have the largely understaffed and underfunded SEC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/budget-cuts-to-sec-reduce- i ts-effectiveness.html?pagewanted=all


Guess you must have forgotten about the DOJ.

The SEC just sues bad actors in federal court, it's the DOJ who actually brings the criminal charges and they have both the ability and the jurisdiction to do so in the case of the big Wall Street financial institutions.... but they regularly refuse to do so. Even in cases where it would be relatively easy to prove misconduct, for instance see: Countrywide Financial. (which just happens to be the organization which was connected to Chris Dodd before he left the Senate - no coincidence, they certainly had other senators in the pocket as well)

They're happy to go after a sacrificial lamb here and there - a worker bee here, a worker bee there - but they pretty blatantly avoid going after any of the actual decision makers in most cases.

mongbiohazard: Robespierre: No, we largely do not. We have the largely understaffed and underfunded SEC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/budget-cuts-to-sec-reduce- i ts-effectiveness.html?pagewanted=all


Guess you must have forgotten about the DOJ.

The SEC just sues bad actors in federal court, it's the DOJ who actually brings the criminal charges and they have both the ability and the jurisdiction to do so in the case of the big Wall Street financial institutions.... but they regularly refuse to do so. Even in cases where it would be relatively easy to prove misconduct, for instance see: Countrywide Financial. (which just happens to be the organization which was connected to Chris Dodd before he left the Senate - no coincidence, they certainly had other senators in the pocket as well)

They're happy to go after a sacrificial lamb here and there - a worker bee here, a worker bee there - but they pretty blatantly avoid going after any of the actual decision makers in most cases.

The SEC is required to actually investigate these companies, the DOJ is ill equipped to prosecute these kinds of crimes. Its the niche that obama is trying to fill.

http://www.propublica.org/article/why-no-financial-crisis-prosecution s -official-says-its-just-too-hard/single

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020408320457708079235696 1 440.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

MugzyBrown: I thought the policies he proposed in the SOTU speach were a good start. This was basically his "Good news guys, I've found my veto pen and spine, now work with my or get the fark out of my way" speach.

It was all bluster to jump start his campaign. It's things he's said in 2008, ignored it for 3 1/2 years, and now is saying it again.

And the policies put forth are mostly nonsense populism with no substance.

"Buffett Rule" - So you can make $990,000 in only dividends and pay 15% but if you happen to make $1,010,000 your rate goes up to a flat 30%? That's "fair".

Yeah, that's just populism that will never go anywhere. Plus it ignores the fact that the dividend tax is an incremental tax on top of corporate income taxes. Actual top tax rate for dividends is approx 45% (35% off the top at the corporate level, then 15% of distributions - corporations don't get deductions for dividends). But it makes sense politically to bring it up now, with the GOP nominiation fight going on. Anything to weaken romney and extend the fight is good for Obama.

"extension of mandatory school attendance age" - A 17 year old can't work to feed his family if say his single mom is disabled?

Yeah, I don't see why 17 year olds shouldn't have to go to school until they graduate HS or turn 18. But any kid who wants to leave at 17 isn't really going to benefit from another year, IMO. They're already a lost cause.


"Creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit" - It's like the war on drugs, but instead it's the war on magnetbox

"Establishment of Financial Crimes Unit " - Ummm what year is it? After you (and others) bail them out over and over, 4 years later you'll form a unit to investigate. Sounds like quite a plan.

"Creation of prosecutorial unit to protect homeowners from abusive lending" - This is a good proposal, once he gets his time machine ready and sets it for 2004.

We already have the SEC and other regulatory bodies who should handle this shiat. If there really is a problem, why not get their asses in gear to deal with it, instead of creating more agencies that might be equally ineffective or worse, an hindrance.

"Proposal to help homeowners save on their mortgages" How many programs do we need to 'save' people from their mortgages. If you can't afford your mortgage or you're underwater, just leave the house. Bank handout disguised as helping people. It's been 4 years to adjust to the new realities of the real estate market.

We still need help getting over the real estate bubble, which was the underlying cause of the financial crisis. Nobody likes giving handouts to these irresponsible borrowers who made their own beds and should lie in them, but some sort of assistance is beneficial to the economy as a whole.

"Push for increase in student aid" - Great, let's inflate tuition rates more and more.

Totally agree. Every dollar in increased student aid just goes to increased tuition at this point. Time to start cost controls on colleges in exchange for participation in student aid programs.

Robespierre: mongbiohazard: Robespierre: No, we largely do not. We have the largely understaffed and underfunded SEC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/budget-cuts-to-sec-reduce- i ts-effectiveness.html?pagewanted=all


Guess you must have forgotten about the DOJ.

The SEC just sues bad actors in federal court, it's the DOJ who actually brings the criminal charges and they have both the ability and the jurisdiction to do so in the case of the big Wall Street financial institutions.... but they regularly refuse to do so. Even in cases where it would be relatively easy to prove misconduct, for instance see: Countrywide Financial. (which just happens to be the organization which was connected to Chris Dodd before he left the Senate - no coincidence, they certainly had other senators in the pocket as well)

They're happy to go after a sacrificial lamb here and there - a worker bee here, a worker bee there - but they pretty blatantly avoid going after any of the actual decision makers in most cases.

The SEC is required to actually investigate these companies, the DOJ is ill equipped to prosecute these kinds of crimes. Its the niche that obama is trying to fill.

http://www.propublica.org/article/why-no-financial-crisis-prosecution s -official-says-its-just-too-hard/single

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020408320457708079235696 1 440.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

I dont agree that the DOJ couldnt do it, but even assuming I did agree - if we think the DOJ is not well equipped to deal with those cases then the answer is to fix that, not add to government bloat. That kind of thinking got us the DHS.

MugzyBrown: It was all bluster to jump start his campaign. It's things he's said in 2008, ignored it for 3 1/2 years, and now is saying it again.

And the policies put forth are mostly nonsense populism with no substance.

"Buffett Rule" - So you can make $990,000 in only dividends and pay 15% but if you happen to make $1,010,000 your rate goes up to a flat 30%? That's "fair".


"extension of mandatory school attendance age" - A 17 year old can't work to feed his family if say his single mom is disabled?


"Creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit" - It's like the war on drugs, but instead it's the war on magnetbox

"Establishment of Financial Crimes Unit " - Ummm what year is it? After you (and others) bail them out over and over, 4 years later you'll form a unit to investigate. Sounds like quite a plan.

"Creation of prosecutorial unit to protect homeowners from abusive lending" - This is a good proposal, once he gets his time machine ready and sets it for 2004.

"Proposal to help homeowners save on their mortgages" How many programs do we need to 'save' people from their mortgages. If you can't afford your mortgage or you're underwater, just leave the house. Bank handout disguised as helping people. It's been 4 years to adjust to the new realities of the real estate market.

"Push for increase in student aid" - Great, let's inflate tuition rates more and more.


1) Tax brackets, how do they work?

2) Replace 17 with 15 and it's the same pointless argument.

3) Yes, that's it... a war on trade

4) So we shouldn't ever go after them? That'll make sure this never happens again.

5) see above

6) You're an idiot. There are a ton of people out there that could and would stay in their houses if they could refinance from 5-6% down to the current 3% mortgage rates. However, they can't because they're technically under water on their mortgages. Telling them too bad, just let the bank foreclose is bad for literally everyone.

7) Hence the part of the SOTU about keeping tuition rates down. Did you even listen to the speech?

You're either a troll or a gigantic idiot.

ohknaks: 1) Tax brackets, how do they work?

This would not be applicable. What he said that people making over $1mm should pay 30%, not that the marginal rate would be increased to 30%. " If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes"

ohknaks: 2) Replace 17 with 15 and it's the same pointless argument.

Not really, currently states can determine this. Probably more rural states where kids may be needed to help on farms has a lower age. A state could also lower it to 15 or 12.

ohknaks: So we shouldn't ever go after them? That'll make sure this never happens again.

Why is he just proposing that we go after them now, 4 years later? Why didn't they go after them in January of '09? It's just fluff.

ohknaks: There are a ton of people out there that could and would stay in their houses if they could refinance from 5-6% down to the current 3% mortgage rates. However, they can't because they're technically under water on their mortgages.

If you're underwater, lowering your interest rate doesn't help. You're still underwater. If you're more than 5-10% underwater, you should leave the key and go. You're wasting your money.

If you can't afford to pay your mortgage at 6%, saving $250 on a $200,000 home per month isn't going to make or break you.

It's the bank's loss if they don't renegotiate with the lender more than the lender's, because if they can't refi, it's because they're underwater. The bank loaned out $200k for a house now worth $150k, that they can only get $130k on a short sale.

AverageAmericanGuy: Obama's worst quality is his ineffectiveness. GWB, for all of his faults, was extremely effective. A true leader.

Yes, led down the wrong way of a one way street blindfolded and lit on fire, but led nonetheless.

Obama has been outwitted by his Republican opponents at every turn, which is unfortunate for many of those in the middle because he seems like he'd be a much better President than the rest of the nitwits running against him.

This lie needs to be countered every time it comes up because it is nothing more than an excuse for the failures in Obama's policies.

It simply does not hold up to the slightest scrutiny.

/sorry but when even NPR thinks you're not blaming Obama enough maybe it's time to step back and re-examine.

MugzyBrown: Why is he just proposing that we go after them now, 4 years later? Why didn't they go after them in January of '09? It's just fluff.

Better late than never, as you're proposing.

MugzyBrown: If you're underwater, lowering your interest rate doesn't help. You're still underwater. If you're more than 5-10% underwater, you should leave the key and go. You're wasting your money.

If you can't afford to pay your mortgage at 6%, saving $250 on a $200,000 home per month isn't going to make or break you.

It's the bank's loss if they don't renegotiate with the lender more than the lender's, because if they can't refi, it's because they're underwater. The bank loaned out $200k for a house now worth $150k, that they can only get $130k on a short sale.

Property values can rise and fall. If you're under water, letting your house to to foreclosure and ruining your credit isn't the greatest option. It destroys families, it destroys neighborhoods. As you mention, that $150k house only gets $130k on a short sale, which means everyone else's houses are dragged down to $130k, thus putting more people underwater.

What matters is if people can actually afford their mortgages, not the specific value of the house at this very second. $250/mo is a huge difference on a $200k mortgage. That can be (and is) the difference between foreclosure and a house for a lot of people. Meanwhile you deride this as a pointless endeavor that in reality will help quite a few people.

MugzyBrown: Not really, currently states can determine this. Probably more rural states where kids may be needed to help on farms has a lower age. A state could also lower it to 15 or 12.

Your argument was a pointless strawman. That's what I was pointing out. Heaven forbid we try to get kids to actually graduate high school.

MugzyBrown: This would not be applicable. What he said that people making over $1mm should pay 30%, not that the marginal rate would be increased to 30%. " If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes"

Actually, he didn't really get into the specific details. I'd love for capital gains to be considered regular income. It'd be far more fair to everyone in the nation. And yes, someone making $1 million+ should pay 30%+ in taxes.