Poll: Obama 'worst president' since World War II

[MMMariah]

Republican policies allowed predatory lending to sell a cheap mortgage and then resell them in bundles known as "Mortgage-Backed Securities" which is essentially gambling but with a government guarantee in case they fail. So Freddie and Fannie were used by mortgage lenders to disguise a reasonable-seaming loan with no money down to people who couldn't afford it when the value of the home tanked.


First, a bank or mortgage company makes a home loan. The bank then sells that loan to an investment bank or a quasi-governmental agency like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae. They bundle a lot of loans with similar interest rates. They then sell a security that delivers the same payments that the bundle of loans do. That's the MBS, which is a security backed by the mortgage. The MBS is sold to institutional, corporate or individual investors on the secondary market.

The MBSs sold by the governmental agencies were particularly attractive, because the returns were guaranteed by these agencies, who were themselves backed by the Federal government. Therefore, those who bought a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac MBS knew they would get something in return for their investment. Ginnie Mae absolutely guaranteed that investors would receive their payments making predatory lending VERY attractive and lucrative. This wasn't a democrat program fucko, this was a REPUBLICAN program signed by your buddy W. The program was created in 1968 but under W and his deregulation it was actually implemented on a large scale for the first time.

And Eventually........

The invention of mortgage-backed securities completely revolutionized the housing, banking and mortgage business. At first, mortgage-backed securities allowed more people to buy homes. During the real estate boom, many less careful banks and mortgage companies made loans with no money down, thus allowing people to get into mortgages they really couldn't afford. The lenders didn't care as much, because they knew they could sell the loans, and not pay the consequences when and if the borrowers defaulted. This created an asset bubble, which then burst in 2006 with the subprime mortgage crisis. Since so many investors, pension funds and financial institutions owned mortgage-backed securities, everyone took losses, creating the 2008 financial crisis.

The intent was to allow banks to sell off mortgages, thus freeing up funds to lend to more homeowners. The founders didn't anticipate that this would also remove an important discipline for good lending practices. Banks soon realized that they wouldn't be around to take the loss if the borrower didn't pay off the loan. The banks got paid for making the loan, but didn't get hurt if the loan went bad. Therefore, they weren't as careful about the credit-worthiness of the borrower.Second, mortgage-backed securities allowed financial institutions other than banks to enter the mortgage business. Before MBSs, only banks had large enough deposits to make long-term loans. They had the deep pockets to wait patiently until these loans were repaid 15 or 30 years later. The invention of MBSs meant that lenders got their cash back right away from investors on the secondary market. Mortgage lenders sprang up everywhere, and they also weren't too careful about who they lent to. This created additional competition for traditional banks, who had to lower their standards to keep the loan volume up.Third, MBSs were not regulated. Traditionally, banks had been highly regulated by governmental agencies to make sure their borrowers were protected. MBSs, and mortgage brokers, were not.

 

[mikexmoran]

Republican policies allowed predatory lending to sell a cheap mortgage and then resell them in bundles known as "Mortgage-Backed Securities" which is essentially gambling but with a government guarantee in case they fail. So Freddie and Fannie were used by mortgage lenders to disguise a reasonable-seaming loan with no money down to people who couldn't afford it when the value of the home tanked.


First, a bank or mortgage company makes a home loan. The bank then sells that loan to an investment bank or a quasi-governmental agency like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae. They bundle a lot of loans with similar interest rates. They then sell a security that delivers the same payments that the bundle of loans do. That's the MBS, which is a security backed by the mortgage. The MBS is sold to institutional, corporate or individual investors on the secondary market.

The MBSs sold by the governmental agencies were particularly attractive, because the returns were guaranteed by these agencies, who were themselves backed by the Federal government. Therefore, those who bought a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac MBS knew they would get something in return for their investment. Ginnie Mae absolutely guaranteed that investors would receive their payments making predatory lending VERY attractive and lucrative. This wasn't a democrat program fucko, this was a REPUBLICAN program signed by your buddy W. The program was created in 1968 but under W and his deregulation it was actually implemented on a large scale for the first time.

And Eventually........

The invention of mortgage-backed securities completely revolutionized the housing, banking and mortgage business. At first, mortgage-backed securities allowed more people to buy homes. During the real estate boom, many less careful banks and mortgage companies made loans with no money down, thus allowing people to get into mortgages they really couldn't afford. The lenders didn't care as much, because they knew they could sell the loans, and not pay the consequences when and if the borrowers defaulted. This created an asset bubble, which then burst in 2006 with the subprime mortgage crisis. Since so many investors, pension funds and financial institutions owned mortgage-backed securities, everyone took losses, creating the 2008 financial crisis.

The intent was to allow banks to sell off mortgages, thus freeing up funds to lend to more homeowners. The founders didn't anticipate that this would also remove an important discipline for good lending practices. Banks soon realized that they wouldn't be around to take the loss if the borrower didn't pay off the loan. The banks got paid for making the loan, but didn't get hurt if the loan went bad. Therefore, they weren't as careful about the credit-worthiness of the borrower.Second, mortgage-backed securities allowed financial institutions other than banks to enter the mortgage business. Before MBSs, only banks had large enough deposits to make long-term loans. They had the deep pockets to wait patiently until these loans were repaid 15 or 30 years later. The invention of MBSs meant that lenders got their cash back right away from investors on the secondary market. Mortgage lenders sprang up everywhere, and they also weren't too careful about who they lent to. This created additional competition for traditional banks, who had to lower their standards to keep the loan volume up.Third, MBSs were not regulated. Traditionally, banks had been highly regulated by governmental agencies to make sure their borrowers were protected. MBSs, and mortgage brokers, were not.

You seem to direct this at someone specific. Did you or was this just a general posting?

 

[MMMariah]

Democrats controlled congress from 2007-2011. Democrat policies over many years lead to subprime lending mess and economic crisis. Repubs took over congress in 2010 and now the senate. Things are now improving. Things are looking up. It is happening in spite of Obama. 37 republican governors creating jobs contributes to the rebound. Obama sits on the sidelines and watches the adults make a difference. Thanks Obama!

So what happened to those governors when we were losing 780k jobs a month in 2008?

SO you are giving all of the credit to the congress? the senate has been under their control for less than 4 months yet you credit them?????? hmmmm pretty convenient.

Here's the facts. The republicans vowed to say no to every single obama idea that came their way. no president has EVER had such a hard time getting things done. the things he did get done have worked. the economy says so. Fuck the republican'ts. They are a bunch of bible beating hypocrites that are outdated and delusional.

 

[mikexmoran]

So what happened to those governors when we were losing 780k jobs a month in 2008?

SO you are giving all of the credit to the congress? the senate has been under their control for less than 4 months yet you credit them?????? hmmmm pretty convenient.

Here's the facts. The republicans vowed to say no to every single obama idea that came their way. no president has EVER had such a hard time getting things done. the things he did get done have worked. the economy says so. Fuck the republican'ts. They are a bunch of bible beating hypocrites that are outdated and delusional.

Anyone who blames either party exclusively is partisan. The facts show that both parties contributed the 2008 financial crisis. Not directing this at you, Blue, but in general, anything other than that is spin.
There is some major reform to our government that needs to be made. Term limits, killing corporate, union, special interest and any non-individual citizen control of our election process. Otherwise, if you keep doing what you've done, you'll keep getting what you get.

Sorry to tell you it aint the Republicans or the Democrats - It is the Republicans AND Democrats...and us.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

I don't discuss internal affairs; if he did good or bad is up to you Americans who live there to tell. But Obama's foreign policy is the most disgraceful thing ever after Nazi Germany. He failed under any circumstances, he has brought war in many countries, he has mined the alliance with the ONLY democratic country in the middle east, he has brought islamic terrorism in the hearth of europe, he has weakened many european economies with the russian embargo (with the complicity of those countries short-sighted comunist governments, of course), he has armed isis first in Siria, then crazy Iran to fight isis and now he is showing the muscles to russia, sticking his nose where it shouldn't belong and risking to cause a new global war. Yes, Americans don't feel like that's the case...too far away from ukraine and europe to understand what's going on here and too ignorant about history to sense the danger. But a lot of european people, if not the majority, start turning into anti americans thanks to the obama foreign policy. This guy is as a joke as the peace nobel prize he received. Not as funny of a joke, though.

 

[mikexmoran]

I don't discuss internal affairs; if he did good or bad is up to you Americans who live there to tell. But Obama's foreign policy is the most disgraceful thing ever after Nazi Germany. He failed under any circumstances, he has brought war in many countries, he has mined the alliance with the ONLY democratic country in the middle east, he has brought islamic terrorism in the hearth of europe, he has weakened many european economies with the russian embargo (with the complicity of those countries short-sighted comunist governments, of course), he has armed isis first in Siria, then crazy Iran to fight isis and now he is showing the muscles to russia, sticking his nose where it shouldn't belong and risking to cause a new global war. Yes, Americans don't feel like that's the case...too far away from ukraine and europe to understand what's going on here and too ignorant about history to sense the danger. But a lot of european people, if not the majority, start turning into anti americans thanks to the obama foreign policy. This guy is as a joke as the peace nobel prize he received. Not as funny of a joke, though.

I tend to agree with your statement. I know that will make some people automatically think I'm a GWB supporter.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

I tend to agree with your statement. I know that will make some people automatically think I'm a GWB supporter.

I know. I'm not a GWB supporter; never been. Still Obama will be remembered as the first US black president who got a peace nobel prize based on nothing and for his despicable foreign policy. If Obama supporters feel better thinking that if you don't like Obama you are a fan of Bush or a racist or a fascist...well...who gives a flying fuck.

 

[xfire]

This is from a year ago but it sums up Obama's foreign policy "failure".

http://time.com/76868/obama-foreign-policy-cynicism/

Obama’s Foreign Policy Failures Are Proving His Critics Right

The President once promised to tackle "cynicism" about the what can be achieved through diplomacy. That hasn't been working out lately.

In a rough month of a rough year of a rough second term for Barack Obama’s foreign policy, Thursday was a particularly rough day.

What Obama Could Learn About Negotiating With Iran From My $2,000 Used CarObama Slows Troop Drawdown in AfghanistanWho Was the Co-Pilot Behind Alps Tragedy? NBC NewsSaudi Masses 150,000 Troops to Support Yemen Strikes NBC NewsCo-Pilot Apparently Had 'Desire to Destroy' Plane, Officials Say NBC News

It began with dour news from the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that he won’t negotiate with a unified Palestinian government that includes both moderate Fatah and radical Gaza-based Hamas. Shorter version: the already-gasping Middle East peace process is likely dead for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

The day ended with Secretary of State John Kerry’s angry speech accusing Russia of violating the diplomatic agreement Kerry co-signed a week ago in Geneva, supposedly stabilizing the crisis in eastern Ukraine. But things seem to be getting worse in Ukraine, more U.S. sanctions against Moscow appear likely, and Vladimir Putin may be gearing up for military action.

President Obama was in Japan as these things happened — part of his effort to sell the “pivot to Asia.” It was good news, of a sort, that Obama finally managed to visit the region after two prior cancelled trips. Yet problems elsewhere felt more urgent. At a press conference in Tokyo, Obama found himself talking about Kiev and Moscow and Damascus. And on one of his key goals — striking a new trade agreement with Japan — he would leave the country empty-handed.

While there is some good news this week, in the form of surprising progress in the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, a new gremlin lurks under the stairs. In a little-noted development, the Syrian regime stands accused of killing more people with chemical weapons in recent weeks. The State Department is investigating reports of chlorine gas attacks against civilians which — though less lethal than the sarin gas attacks that nearly provoked U.S. military action last fall — have nonetheless allegedly killed at least two people and sickened dozens more. Such an event, a State Department spokeswoman said this week, would violate the international agreement that forestalled Obama’s planned airstrikes against Syria. Which raises the prospect of a renewed threat of American military force.

It would be simplistic to blame Obama for all these problems. At the same time, the recent disappointments in his foreign policy are part of a larger failure — a failure of political vision.

When Obama first ran for president he promised to take on “conventional thinking in Washington” about foreign policy, and in particular “cynicism” about what can be achieved through diplomacy. “It’s easy to be cynical,” Obama said in an October 2007 speech. “When it comes to our foreign policy, you get it from all sides.” The next year he told an audience of Jewish-Americans that “one of the enemies we have to fight [is] not just terrorists, it’s not just Hezbollah, it’s not just Hamas — it’s also cynicism.”

Six years later, the cynics must be feeling vindicated. They snickered at John Kerry’s bid for Middle East peace, calling it doomed to fail. They seem to have been right. They have also chortled at Kerry’s long meetings with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, calling diplomacy with Vladimir Putin a fool’s errand. The impending collapse of the Ukraine deal struck in Geneva last night would seem to affirm that view.

The cynics also doubting Obama’s Asia pivot, seeing it as a futile attempt to dodge harder problems elsewhere. Obama’s distracted trip this week is at least a point in their favor.

And they argue that Obama’s aversion to getting involved in Syria is not only a humanitarian tragedy but will cause deeper problems for the U.S. in the long run. A new chemical weapons crisis would be a good example.

It’s obviously too simplistic to blame Obama’s for all these problems. Among other things, he inherited severe foreign policy problems from George W. Bush; in multiple ways Obama is still harvesting the bitter fruit of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Still, Obama promised things would be different — that he would upend Washington thinking and find a new way of solving problems. That he prove those cynics wrong. The cynics, being cynics, said it couldn’t be done. At the moment, they seem to have the better of the argument.

 

[MMMariah]

Obama has not done nearly what I wished he would do but the worst? hardly. W was the worst. He is responsible for ISIS because if Iraq were not invaded and then occupied, there would be no ISIS. Obama didn't help, but he didn't start it either.

 

[mikexmoran]

This is from a year ago but it sums up Obama's foreign policy "failure".

http://time.com/76868/obama-foreign-policy-cynicism/

ok.

Btw, Obama won his Nobel Prize for something, it was for not being George W. Bush.

 

[xfire]

ok.

Btw, Obama won his Nobel Prize for something, it was for not being George W. Bush.

Articulate what you believe to be Obama's biggest foreign policy failure, how he fucked it up, and what you would have done differently.

The war monger, George W. Bush won the Nobel Prize for Obama, and the fact that another chicken hawk wasn't elected president. The shift in tone is what most of the foreign policy critics accuse Obama of failing at, but it's what won him the Nobel Prize, so either he didn't deserve the Nobel Prize, which I have no problem saying he didn't, or his foreign policy is so similar to the previous administration that the criticisms aren't valid, merely attacks used to score partisan points by right wingers. Either way, just so much bluster.

Final thought on this post is a challenge really, name a period in American History, a Presidential Administration as it were, that conducted effective and "successful" foreign policy. Yeah, think long and hard about that then juxtapose it against the current administration, not very savory. Could it be that American foreign policy over the years has been a failure?

 

[mikexmoran]

Articulate what you believe to be Obama's biggest foreign policy failure, how he fucked it up, and what you would have done differently.

The war monger, George W. Bush won the Nobel Prize for Obama, and the fact that another chicken hawk wasn't elected president. The shift in tone is what most of the foreign policy critics accuse Obama of failing at, but it's what won him the Nobel Prize, so either he didn't deserve the Nobel Prize, which I have no problem saying he didn't, or his foreign policy is so similar to the previous administration that the criticisms aren't valid, merely attacks used to score partisan points by right wingers. Either way, just so much bluster.

Final thought on this post is a challenge really, name a period in American History, a Presidential Administration as it were, that conducted effective and "successful" foreign policy. Yeah, think long and hard about that then juxtapose it against the current administration, not very savory. Could it be that American foreign policy over the years has been a failure?

I see Bush's problem as being one of hubris thinking he could create a foothold in the region. The resulting loss of life and cost is staggering. Obama, while saddled with this, shifted policies as he promised, and created a vacuum. To your point though, every president is saddled with what has come before them.

Your very challenge is interesting. I don't recall trying to defend any president (Other than 2 and 26, which I enjoy doing). I'll see what responses you get.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

 

[SabrinaDeep]

Articulate what you believe to be Obama's biggest foreign policy failure, how he fucked it up, and what you would have done differently.

The war monger, George W. Bush won the Nobel Prize for Obama, and the fact that another chicken hawk wasn't elected president. The shift in tone is what most of the foreign policy critics accuse Obama of failing at, but it's what won him the Nobel Prize, so either he didn't deserve the Nobel Prize, which I have no problem saying he didn't, or his foreign policy is so similar to the previous administration that the criticisms aren't valid, merely attacks used to score partisan points by right wingers. Either way, just so much bluster.

Final thought on this post is a challenge really, name a period in American History, a Presidential Administration as it were, that conducted effective and "successful" foreign policy. Yeah, think long and hard about that then juxtapose it against the current administration, not very savory. Could it be that American foreign policy over the years has been a failure?

I told you where he failed. How more you want us to articulate that? Would you like to share the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants entering europe from Libya every day among whom, rest assured, there are a lot of terrorists? I've heard Texas is big and surely you wouldn't mind to accommodate a few thousands daily at taxpayers expenses. Or maybe you wouldn't mind to go bankrupt and lose your job because you can't sell to your main client anymore; or to have the Russians moving their army and womd by the border. As i said before, you are too far away to understand what's going on over here. People are fed up and you would be surprised that the person they are pissed at is neither Putin not GWB.

 

[xfire]

http://i.imgur.com/9ZNRBpl.jpg

^ Baseless ad hominem's. You realize this is the sort of shit that torpedoes your credibility, right?

I told you where he failed. How more you want us to articulate that? Would you like to share the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants entering europe from Libya every day among whom, rest assured, there are a lot of terrorists? I've heard Texas is big and surely you wouldn't mind to accommodate a few thousands daily at taxpayers expenses. Or maybe you wouldn't mind to go bankrupt and lose your job because you can't sell to your main client anymore; or to have the Russians moving their army and womd by the border. As i said before, you are too far away to understand what's going on over here. People are fed up and you would be surprised that the person they are pissed at is neither Putin not GWB.

Sure, you threw a ton of criticism, but you didn't articulate how he fucked it up or what you would have done differently, and you certainly didn't offer up a shining example of a presidential administration that conducted "successful" foreign policy. Perhaps the point was too subtle, I'll be more direct, foreign policy isn't an isolated series of events, rather it's an accumulated effort that spans more than a single presidential administration. As I stated, perhaps American foreign policy over the years has been a failure, there's certainly a case to be made, but this president isn't solely responsible for it, hasn't really been all that different from his immediate predecessor, and other than an initial optimistic tone in regards to diplomacy hasn't deviated from the narrative that's been in place for decades. Partisan attacks disguised as criticism are readily transparent to anyone paying attention.

 

[MMMariah]

Jimmy Carter was not a good president but he did well on foreign policy.

 

[mikexmoran]

^ Baseless ad hominem's. You realize this is the sort of shit that torpedoes your credibility, right?



Sure, you threw a ton of criticism, but you didn't articulate how he fucked it up or what you would have done differently, and you certainly didn't offer up a shining example of a presidential administration that conducted "successful" foreign policy. Perhaps the point was too subtle, I'll be more direct, foreign policy isn't an isolated series of events, rather it's an accumulated effort that spans more than a single presidential administration. As I stated, perhaps American foreign policy over the years has been a failure, there's certainly a case to be made, but this president isn't solely responsible for it, hasn't really been all that different from his immediate predecessor, and other than an initial optimistic tone in regards to diplomacy hasn't deviated from the narrative that's been in place for decades. Partisan attacks disguised as criticism are readily transparent to anyone paying attention.

Hypothetically if I was to say (which I already did), his exit of troops caused a vacuum which lead to ISIS. I would think you would logically say that well, the troops shouldn't have been there, that was Bush's fault and we needed to exit them, so the vacuum isn't Obama's fuckup. The problem with that is that we would be arguing two different things. I'm not defending any president. This is his watch. He wanted it. I don't accept 8 years of "Bush".

I'm sorry I don't think Obama is flawless. I think he is often naive and stubborn.

Not that it mattered (because I'm from NY), but I voted for Bush in his first term, not second. Because of Iraq. I know he was "saddled" with active terrorism against the US and there was ample opportunity to wipe that threat out, but the beat goes on...

- - - Updated - - -

Jimmy Carter was not a good president but he did well on foreign policy.

Good man that he was.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

^ Baseless ad hominem's. You realize this is the sort of shit that torpedoes your credibility, right?

How's that? He has done all those things and worse.

 

[xfire]

Hypothetically if I was to say (which I already did), his exit of troops caused a vacuum which lead to ISIS. I would think you would logically say that well, the troops shouldn't have been there, that was Bush's fault and we needed to exit them, so the vacuum isn't Obama's fuckup. The problem with that is that we would be arguing two different things. I'm not defending any president. This is his watch. He wanted it. I don't accept 8 years of "Bush".

The Middle East is a problem that predates both Bush and Obama, I don't fault Bush for doing what he thought was right whether I agree with it or not. It wouldn't matter what action we take anywhere or anytime because there will always be factors out of our control that we "should" have anticipated. Foreign Policy is a tricky motherfucker, it always has been, there isn't a single president that's performed flawlessly in that regard. Segueing into...

I'm sorry I don't think Obama is flawless.

I'm sorry if you think I do. I don't, but I'm not foolish enough to look at foreign policy as a series of isolated incidents.

I think he is often naive and stubborn.

That's probably true, and could be said of any president. It was the epitome of naivety and stubbornness to think that Iraq would be a quick victory and nothing exemplified the extent of that naivety and stubbornness than the whole "Mission Accomplished" air craft carrier blunder. To the point, Obama isn't particularly remarkable in that regards.

Not that it mattered (because I'm from NY), but I voted for Bush in his first term, not second. Because of Iraq. I know he was "saddled" with active terrorism against the US and there was ample opportunity to wipe that threat out, but the beat goes on...

That brings it full circle, has U.S. foreign policy been a failure? Hard to say, as bad as it may be currently perceived, one zig or zag in the other direction in any number of crisis situations and who's to say how fucked up the situation would be.

 

[mikexmoran]

The Middle East is a problem that predates both Bush and Obama, I don't fault Bush for doing what he thought was right whether I agree with it or not. It wouldn't matter what action we take anywhere or anytime because there will always be factors out of our control that we "should" have anticipated. Foreign Policy is a tricky motherfucker, it always has been, there isn't a single president that's performed flawlessly in that regard. Segueing into...



I'm sorry if you think I do. I don't, but I'm not foolish enough to look at foreign policy as a series of isolated incidents.



That's probably true, and could be said of any president. It was the epitome of naivety and stubbornness to think that Iraq would be a quick victory and nothing exemplified the extent of that naivety and stubbornness than the whole "Mission Accomplished" air craft carrier blunder. To the point, Obama isn't particularly remarkable in that regards.



That brings it full circle, has U.S. foreign policy been a failure? Hard to say, as bad as it may be currently perceived, one zig or zag in the other direction in any number of crisis situations and who's to say how fucked up the situation would be.

History marches on. We're in agreement - this isn't a simple "This one guy f'ed up". As I read, we attack it from two different approaches, but I don't think we're that far off....although on some days it is more fun to argue.