World overwhelmingly supports Barack ...

World overwhelmingly supports Barack Obama

There are 4512 comments on the www.newsradio1290wtks.com story from Oct 21, 2008, titled World overwhelmingly supports Barack Obama. In it, www.newsradio1290wtks.com reports that:

Among the 70 countries surveyed 30 percent of the citizens said they would rather see Obama elected, compared with 8 percent for McCain.

Worldwide support for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama over his Republican rival is extensive, a months-long Gallup Poll indicates.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.newsradio1290wtks.com.

First Prev
of 226
Next Last
reeltime

Cedar City, UT

#4824 Jan 13, 2009
Kind of blows it when it is "news" with views. How about just the "news"?
Lisa

United States

#4826 Jan 13, 2009
GovCheese wrote:
Hell I guess so. USA has always been the free ticket to the world with Billions of aid and handouts. They can't wait for a black guy with a Muslim name to jump on board. If you were in a free cheese line...wouldn't you????
Are you a fan of Jim Jones? Your post sounds looney enough.

“Barack who?”

Since: Sep 08

Chicago

#4828 Jan 13, 2009
So is this a new criteria for electing a president?
What a bunch of H.S.
Lisa

United States

#4830 Jan 14, 2009
GovCheese wrote:
Actually, I was trying to emulate Obama. Promise a bunch of handouts, get the vote...then kill'em with back tracking. Come on Lisa....you know the world can't wait for this guy to get into office. When the fu(& has Russia, China, or any of Europe held America in a positve light or come to our aid with anything other than wanting handouts?? Get real and drink the koolaid already.
What handouts? The way I see it Bush has been the one taking the handouts. Do you think we need aid from them? In what form? And I stick to my opinion of your lunacy. I have no idea where this completely irrelevant mention of kool aid comes from but frankly I never have liked the stuff. Judging from your post I think you probably drink something much stronger.
reeltime

Cedar City, UT

#4831 Jan 14, 2009
44 to reverse 43's executive orders

President-elect Barack Obama is expected to move swiftly to reverse executive orders regarding torture of terror suspects, the military prison at Guantanamo Bay and other controversial security policies, sources close to his transition said, in dramatic gestures aimed at reversing President Bush’s accumulation of executive power.

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said he’s been informed that President Obama will support his proposed legislation to make public some opinions from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which issued some of the Bush Administration's most sweeping claims of executive power. Obama also has promised to limit President Bush's practice of using "signing statements" to amend legislation.

"Every day we get indications that they're serious about reversing the abuses of the Constitution," Feingold, a harsh Bush critic, told Politico. Feingold said he thinks Obama is likely to issue executive orders rapidly reversing Bush policies, and others have indicate that those will likely cover the interrogation and detention of terror suspects, and keeping the records of past presidents secret.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/173...

Since: Jun 08

Oak Park, IL

#4832 Jan 14, 2009
reeltime wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/...
During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions.
Major underlying factors to the current situation were, among others, inconsistent and insufficiently coordinated macroeconomic policies, inadequate structural reforms, which led to unsustainable global macroeconomic outcomes. These developments, together, contributed to excesses and ultimately resulted in severe market disruption.
So yes, deregulation directly contributed to the sub-prime meltdown according to this statement.
Many people are blaming republicans and passage of Gramm leach bill for the current problems. It was sponsored by Phil Gramm but signed by Clinton and lobbied for heavily by bob Rubin, Clinton’s former treasury secretary and then head of Citibank. The bill repealed glass steagall which allowed banks to enter new businesses like insurance and investment banking/brokerage. This had nothing to do with directly causing the housing bubble. look at which firms failed- indymac, countrywide, Lehman, aig and bear Stearns. Not a single bank that owned a brokerage firm or vice versa.

Clinton also strengthened the community reinvestment act which penalized banks for not making enough loans to poor people and minorities. When a major bank was charged with violating this law, sharpton, naacp and Jesse Jackson camped out in front of the hq's to protest.

Bush did promote ownership and homeownership but he does not control interest rates, the fed does. Promoting home ownership is a positive but that does not mean that bush expected a person making $40k or with no documentation or verifiable income to get offered and accept a $500k mortgage.
As I stated in a prior post - the banking industry is already one of the most highly regulated industries there is and there are already plenty of laws in place but many were ignored.

credit bubble was caused by greenspan

what you are describing is not dergulation, just poor oversight and enforcement

From the wall street journal editorial

In reality, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were among the principal culprits of the housing crisis, and Mr. Bush wanted to rein them in before things got out of hand.
Rather than a failure of capitalism, the housing meltdown shows what's likely to happen when government grants special privileges to favored private entities that facilitate bad actors and lousy practices.

Since: Jun 08

Oak Park, IL

#4833 Jan 14, 2009
Fannie and Freddie are "government-sponsored enterprises" (GSEs), chartered by Congress. As such, they had an implicit promise of taxpayer backing and could borrow money at rates well below competitors.

Mr. Bush wanted to limit systemic risk by raising the GSEs' capital requirements, compelling preapproval of new activities, and limiting the size of their portfolios. Why should government regulate banks, credit unions and savings and loans, but not GSEs? Mr. Bush wanted the GSEs to be treated just like their private-sector competitors.

But the GSEs fought back. They didn't want to see the Bush reforms enacted, because that would level the playing field for their competitors. Congress finally did pass the Bush reforms, but in 2008, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed.

The largely unreported story is that to fend off regulation, the GSEs engaged in a lobbying frenzy. They hired high-profile Democrats and Republicans and spent $170 million on lobbying over the past decade.

When Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE reform in 2005, Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut successfully threatened a filibuster. Later, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed, Mr. Dodd asked, "Why weren't we doing more?" He then voted for the Bush reforms that he once called "ill-advised."

But Mr. Dodd wasn't the only Democrat to heap abuse on the Bush reforms. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts defended Fannie and Freddie as "fundamentally sound" and labeled the president's proposals as "inane." He later voted for the reforms. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York dismissed Mr. Bush's "safety and soundness concerns" as "a straw man."

Democrats had ready allies among lenders accustomed to GSEs buying their risky mortgages. For example, Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial, complained that "an overly cumbersome regulatory process" would "reduce, or even eliminate, the incentives for the GSEs and their primary market partners."

Since: Jun 08

Oak Park, IL

#4834 Jan 14, 2009
It took Fannie and Freddie over three decades to acquire $2 trillion in mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Together, they held $2.1 trillion in 2000. By 2005, the two GSEs held $4 trillion, up 92% in just five years. By 2008, they'd grown another 24%, to nearly $5 trillion. They held almost half of all American mortgages.
The more the president pushed for reform, the more they bought. Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute and Charles Calomiris of the Columbia Business School suggest $1 trillion of this debt was subprime and "liar loans," almost all bought between 2005 and 2007. This bulk-up in risky paper made it possible for banks to lend imprudently on a massive scale.

interestingly, look at some high profile democratic officials that were officers or on the board of Fannie and Freddie

Jim johnson, Franklin Raines ( who was forced to resign after the discovery of questionable accounting practices resulting in BILLIONS in losses- but he still kept a $90 million bonus) rahm Emmanuel, Jamie gorelick

obama received more donations from Fannie in just 3 years than any other congressman over 20 years except for Chris Dodd, who was in charge of the senate banking oversight committee. Conflict?

He still has not answered questions about a sweetheart loan package he got directly from the CEO of countrywide to refi his property. Conflict?

when Fannie was melting down barney frank was on cnbc virtually every day saying it was fundamentally sound.

You can blame wall street and credit derivatives for possibly exacerbating the problem but when you get right down to it- people got loans they never should have gotten and their failure to pay them while property values peaked is the root cause. Only a handful of wall street banks are actually in the banking business (citi, bofa, chase) and the vast majority of these loans were made by local banks and mortgage banks, not wall street firms so again, misplaced blame.

There are lots of parties to blame but for liberals like lisa who dont care about details, all you want to do is to lay this all at the feet of bush and the republicans. that ignores facts and shows that the person more interested in politics than facts.

Since: Jun 08

Oak Park, IL

#4835 Jan 14, 2009
reeltime wrote:
44 to reverse 43's executive orders
President-elect Barack Obama is expected to move swiftly to reverse executive orders regarding torture of terror suspects, the military prison at Guantanamo Bay and other controversial security policies, sources close to his transition said, in dramatic gestures aimed at reversing President Bush’s accumulation of executive power.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said he’s been informed that President Obama will support his proposed legislation to make public some opinions from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which issued some of the Bush Administration's most sweeping claims of executive power. Obama also has promised to limit President Bush's practice of using "signing statements" to amend legislation.
"Every day we get indications that they're serious about reversing the abuses of the Constitution," Feingold, a harsh Bush critic, told Politico. Feingold said he thinks Obama is likely to issue executive orders rapidly reversing Bush policies, and others have indicate that those will likely cover the interrogation and detention of terror suspects, and keeping the records of past presidents secret.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/173...
Why do so many liberals love to claim how bush has shredded the constitution. He is not the first to have taken extraordianry measures in difficult times.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war

FDR illegally rounded up and placed tens of thousands of japanese americans in detention camps during ww2

Hoover(fbi one not the prez) kept extensive files on american citizens violating numerous rights to obtain them

Questions

1- Harry reid and pelosi were BOTH briefed on the torture and waterboarding but did not speak out against it. That makes them complicit so why is no one labeling them as war criminals.

2- a total of 3 detainess were waterboarded and only immediately after they were detained in order to gain critical info. Why is this so wrong if it prevented another plane hijacking

3-why has no citizen come forward to clsim they have been violated by FISA. It does not spy on conversations within the US between US citizens. It only applies to conversations between someone in the US and a counterparty OUTSIDE the US who is suspected of involvement in terrorism

4-Even the nominee for attorney general is on recoed from a cnn interview stating that al queida members do not fall under the geneva convention so they do not have the same rights as those who do.

5-The definition of torture is subjective-sleep deprivation is not exactly the same as having your fingernails ripped out.

6- There is no evidence that bush did any of this for personal gain or power-(not withstanding the oil/halliburton/iraq conspiracy contingent)and believed that he was doing the right thing to keep the country safe. Why is that so hard to accept?
sungoddess

United States

#4837 Jan 17, 2009
All I have to say is brace yourselves....we are in for a ride!!
Lisa

United States

#4838 Jan 17, 2009
sungoddess wrote:
All I have to say is brace yourselves....we are in for a ride!!
This coming Wednesday there will be a showing of a documentary on the Sundance channel you should watch. It is 10:30 am so you may have to record but it is so worth it. It might even open YOUR eyes. It is not an attack on Bush but on Secrets in general. It does show how some secrets need protecting but how some are protected when the system is misused, and Bush is very guilty of that. Check out this website:

http://www.secrecyfilm.com/index.html
arty Art Swenson

Wells, NY

#4839 Jul 7, 2011
impeach the Ohbummer

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 226
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Princeton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Princeton North Music Thread (Mar '17) Jan '18 Musikologist 4
News New Jersey to bid farewell to former governor B... Jan '18 Bye Now 1
Were you a child psych student or intern in the... (Oct '15) Nov '17 wideyesbigforehead 4
Looking for birth mom (Apr '17) Oct '17 Family 3
News Church vs. state: More than a battle of Christm... (Nov '16) Aug '17 samt 5
News Princeton researcher explores Southern Ocean pa... (Oct '13) Aug '17 Madison 6
News Changes in the air at two radio stations (Aug '06) Jul '17 Lewis H 1,036

Princeton Jobs

Personal Finance

Princeton Mortgages