Obama will fail. - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

daddio · #16 (**permalink**) 08-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commodore

Just wait until next year when states like New York have to make a budget without porkulous funds.

I'm glad I don't drink soda.

porkulus was a two year deal I believe.

TheLastBoyScout · #17 (**permalink**) 08-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by mabus

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/he...s.html?_r=1&hp

I did not open this thread to discuss health care. This thread is rather about the Obama presidency as a whole.

When I read the NYT article above, I began reflecting Barack Obama's leadership style and his archievements so far. And it became obvious to me that a man who is willing to let compromisses destroy each and every of his most valuable convictions will not prevail in any context in the end.

Obama pussyfooted on torture.
Obama pussyfooted on the financial crisis.
Obama pussyfooted on renewal energy.
Obama pussyfooted on health care.
Obama pussyfooted on Iraq.
Obama pussyfooted on making Capital Hill more transparent.

While I'm aware of that many on this board aren't exactly unhappy about that, I guess everyone here agrees that this proves Obama will choose the weakest, lousiest compromise over taking the gloves off and fighting for his beliefs anytime it gets tough. Barack Obama is not a leader. I doubt that he will archieve anything that will be worth mentioning in a history book. Maybe beside tricking the mass of people into believing he was willing to change something in a very effective manner.

I know it sounds weird, but Barack Obama and our Chancellor Merkel have much in common. Both rule by making the deadlock look like progress. By pissing off neither side and appeasing even the most ruthless interests, both of them calculate that when the ballot box is set up, nobody has a reason to vote against them.

Merkel's calculation is likely to bear fruit next September.

I hope Obama's won't.

It sure looked like Obama had carte blanche......that he could steamroll just about any initiative he wanted through congress with dominant control of the house and 60 senate seats. Basically, if the Dems and the president can't get what they want out of this situation, they just aren't going to get what they want.

Obviously healthcare reform is a key litmus test. It doesn't look like they are going to stick to their convictions. First they ruled out single payer, now they seem to be ready do discard any public option altogether.

If Obama and crew have to compromise severely to get something passed, all the administration is going to be is a series of half-assed, ineffective policies. Having said that, Obama's presidency is still just 7 months in....and the economy is still not back on it's feet yet (which skews all public opinion) so there is time....and there will be chances yet to come.

EagleTed · #18 (**permalink**) 08-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddio

I hear Chicago is closed today as well.

Frank Raines may not have been able to stop this real estate thing totally but he sure could have made it far less severe had he just said 'no' to bad paper he knew was bad.

Raines was too busy cooking the books to make his bonuses.

One reason for "mission creep" is that Raines has promised Fannie's shareholders 15-percent earnings growth a year. That's a bold prediction for any company. (Billionaire investor Warren Buffett sold his Fannie stock in response.) It's even more audacious because mortgages are expected to grow at only half that rate, and Fannie and Freddie already own or guarantee most of the nation's middle-class home loans.

Publicly, Raines claims that the monopoly fears are hogwash. He says you can tattoo it on his forehead that Fannie will never try to lend to consumers directly; he adds that the mortgage market will grow fast enough to keep Fannie busy for years. More important, he says, while middle-class whites already own homes, many other Americans don't; by targeting those underserved borrowers, Fannie can be a positive social force while improving its bottom line.

August, 2002 article

More to point:

But there's more. Ofheo found that Fannie also "tolerated" lax internal controls, deferred expenses to achieve bonus compensation targets, and "maintained a corporate culture that emphasized stable earnings at the expense of accurate financial disclosures." Fannie has long touted the superiority of an executive compensation plan that ties most cash bonuses and other pay to meeting annual earnings-per-share targets.

We'll defend corporate incentives with the best of them, but not when they involve rigged earnings. Fannie is legendary for its sumptuous pay packages, and CEO Franklin Raines took home about $12 million dollars in "performance shares" last year. We also note that Anne Mulcahy, CEO of Xerox, resigned from Fannie's board on Monday. She was head of the compensation committee.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...523225802.html

daddio · #19 (**permalink**) 08-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleTed

Raines was too busy cooking the books to make his bonuses.

One reason for "mission creep" is that Raines has promised Fannie's shareholders 15-percent earnings growth a year. That's a bold prediction for any company. (Billionaire investor Warren Buffett sold his Fannie stock in response.) It's even more audacious because mortgages are expected to grow at only half that rate, and Fannie and Freddie already own or guarantee most of the nation's middle-class home loans.

Publicly, Raines claims that the monopoly fears are hogwash. He says you can tattoo it on his forehead that Fannie will never try to lend to consumers directly; he adds that the mortgage market will grow fast enough to keep Fannie busy for years. More important, he says, while middle-class whites already own homes, many other Americans don't; by targeting those underserved borrowers, Fannie can be a positive social force while improving its bottom line.

August, 2002 article

More to point:

But there's more. Ofheo found that Fannie also "tolerated" lax internal controls, deferred expenses to achieve bonus compensation targets, and "maintained a corporate culture that emphasized stable earnings at the expense of accurate financial disclosures." Fannie has long touted the superiority of an executive compensation plan that ties most cash bonuses and other pay to meeting annual earnings-per-share targets.

We'll defend corporate incentives with the best of them, but not when they involve rigged earnings. Fannie is legendary for its sumptuous pay packages, and CEO Franklin Raines took home about $12 million dollars in "performance shares" last year. We also note that Anne Mulcahy, CEO of Xerox, resigned from Fannie's board on Monday. She was head of the compensation committee.

Fannie Uncovered - WSJ.com

couple that with BHO coming right out the gate in his senate career defendng and protecting Raines and its easy to see why he shot up to number 2 on the Fannie political contributions list.

mabus · #20 (**permalink**) 08-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by California Girl

For the record, anyone who thinks the recession was caused by Bush is an absolute ass who clearly knows fuck all about economics.

Anyone who thinks that Obama has turned it around knows fuck all about economics.

I don't think it's Bush's fault because of economic reasons. I think it's Bush fault because it happened on his watch. There are free documentaries on the net, dating back to mid-2006, citing the upcoming crisis. I first read about the financial crisis we are experiencing in 1999. It might be true that both parties have an equal share of guilt, but it was Bush's watch and he had it coming.

Just for the record, if "Obama fixes it", that won't be a great deal for me, either. Printing money isn't exactly what I consider to be leadership skills.

MattInFla · #21 (**permalink**) 08-17-2009

So, Mabus, you were as I recall a big Obama supporter last fall. Feeling used yet?

Matt

mabus · #22 (**permalink**) 08-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

So, Mabus, you were as I recall a big Obama supporter last fall. Feeling used yet?

Matt

You already asked me once, and I said that I didn't expect much and Obama managed to dissapoint me, anyway.

Now, I'm starting to get pissed. I hate Merkel and her politics, seeing Obama doing the same spineless politics creating worthless compromisses makes me sick. I consider the republicans to be a bunch of bastards, but at least they had their game running and their point was straight and clear. Now we have a bunch of spineless wanna-be's who even don't know what THEY want, let alone what their people wants or what their people needs.

Kinda reminds me of the situation here in our state Hessen. It currently is ruled by our most ruthless, reckless, corrupt and vile son of a b*tch. And he perfectly deserves it. Because what the other parties offer are a bunch of lousy f*ggots with no ideas or leadership skills at all. They mangled themselves and naturally, the one guy who's capable of running the show is back in business, no matter what kind of sick son-of-a he might be. We will see that in 2012, I have no doubt. If the crisis gets worse, Obama will not be re-elected. Someone with leadership skills will replace him. No matter in what direction this man wants to go.

TheLastBoyScout · #23 (**permalink**) 08-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

So, Mabus, you were as I recall a big Obama supporter last fall. Feeling used yet?

Matt

Followup Question, Mabus:

Do you think McCain and Palin would be running the show more to your liking if they had won?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode