patrick.net

Aphroman says

Strategist says

LeonDurham says

Will you ever admit that you were taken by a snake oil salesman?

I was. By Obama when I voted for him for his 2nd term.

What did he deceive you about? In 2012

1. Economy. Too socialistic. He could not inspire enough confidence among businesses, which was needed to get full recovery for the economy.
2. North Korea. He was a total disaster. They gained nuclear weapons.I was so disgusted.
3. Iran. He kicked the can down the street. Such a wimp.
4. Terrorism. He did not prevent the genocide of Yazidis. Very shameful.
5. He was too nice to be a tough President. "Nice guys finish last"
---------
The reasons why I did not vote for him in 2008 all came true. Yet I voted for him in 2016. I'm such a sucker.

CBOEtrader says

What is your most well-reasoned anti-Trump argument?

Deficit increase due to tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts - acts like a typical boomer needing instant gratification paid for by YUUGE debt.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Tell me what changes Obama made to NAFTA?

More whataboutism from the King. Obama sucked on trade--no doubt. He was way too eager to work with Republicans and do their dirty work.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Not long ago, a Journo who said to their Editor : "I heard it from a guy who says he heard it from another guy" would have been laughed out of the office. But if it's Anti-Trump, it's good to go!

"Accountability Journalism"

And if the unnamed source says there is no Trump/Russia collusion, then TwoScoops and all the other Trumpcucks eat it up no questions asked!

LeonDurham says

OK, read it.

No you didn't

LeonDurham says

More whataboutism from the King. Obama sucked on trade--no doubt. He was way too eager to work with Republicans and do their dirty work.

Funny, I didn't see that Trump needed Senate permission to start renegotiating NAFTA.

Here's Obama on TPP:
www.youtube.com/embed/nt4RBpxp4Tc

There's been so much winning I forgot that Trump buried the Neoliberal/Neocon favorite Trade Agreement, the one that makes Americans compete with enslaved Laotians. Whose tough labor protections include a $1/day minimum wage - which was the absolute poverty line, 30 years ago. Nobody in the world could make that and not eventually starve to death.

BUT Wait, there's MORE:

Obama promises to "Immediately" call the President of Mexico and the PM of Canada to renegotiate NAFTA campaigning in 2008. It never happened:
www.youtube.com/embed/PF9gpvI2UfU

So Obama started his Presidency proclaiming he'd renegotiate NAFTA, ended his Presidency pushing TPP, the greatest Corporate Giveaway and Outsourcing Regime that would have created unelected, unaccountable Courts of Corporate Lawyers to nullify US Laws, down to the local level to the point it could penalize a small town that wanted to limit store hours after midnight to stop drinking/crime in the parking lot.

Again, the President negotiates and THEN the Congress votes. Obama had a Dem Congress anyway in 2009-2010, but he wouldn't have needed one to start renegotiating So the "But Republican Congress" is doubly inapplicable.

Aphroman says

How was Obama too socialistic?

The first thing Obama did was to screw the GM bondholders in favor of the employees. You can't do that and inspire confidence in businesses. Trump made tax changes and just look at the boom that followed.

Aphroman says

Strategist says

Aphroman says

How was Obama too socialistic?

The first thing Obama did was to screw the GM bondholders in favor of the employees. You can't do that and inspire confidence in businesses. Trump made tax changes and just look at the boom that followed.

You said after the 2012 election though

Obama failed to inspire confidence due to his socialistic leanings, which is why we had a stagnating economy instead of a full recovery. A full recovery quickly follows a recession, but not when he was in charge.

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

LeonDurham says

OK, read it.

No you didn't

Yep, sure did. So, how does it relate to me exactly?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Again, the President negotiates and THEN the Congress votes. Obama had a Dem Congress anyway in 2009-2010, but he wouldn't have needed one to start renegotiating So the "But Republican Congress" is doubly inapplicable.

What the hell are you talking about? I said Obama sucked on trade. And that he worked way too much with Republicans to advance their free trade agenda. You're agreeing with me but pretending to disagree.

LeonDurham says

What the hell are you talking about? I said Obama sucked on trade. And that he worked way too much with Republicans to advance their free trade agenda. You're agreeing with me but pretending to disagree.

Obama promised to renegotiate NAFTA.

Promises Made, Promises Broken.

Trade is one of my top 3 issues, I can never trust the Democrats again until I see America First trade deals being made and/or voted in by them.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Obama promised to renegotiate NAFTA.

Promises Made, Promises Broken.

Trade is one of my top 3 issues, I can never trust the Democrats again until I see America First trade deals being made and/or voted in by them.

You should have voted for Bernie like I did.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Obama promised to renegotiate NAFTA.

Promises Made, Promises Broken.

Trump promised to get tough on Wall St. and Big Banks.

Promises Made. Promises Broken.

Reforming Wall St./Big Banks is one of my top 3 issues. I will never vote for Republicans again. period.

LeonDurham says

Trump promised to get tough on Wall St. and Big Banks.

You don't consider big tax breaks getting tough on banks?

https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance/2018/8/12/17680748/tax-cuts-big-banks-jpmorgan

LeonDurham says

Trump promised to get tough on Wall St. and Big Banks.

The big banks already face tough regulation. So tough, that it discourages them from making mortgage loans that don't conform to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac rules. They need to ease off on the banks as it's causing more harm.

Strategist says

The big banks already face tough regulation.

lol--please tell me you're joking

LeonDurham says

Strategist says

The big banks already face tough regulation.

lol--please tell me you're joking

The Obama administration placed tough regulations on the banks after the government was forced to bail them out during the 2008 housing collapse.
Are you saying Obama did nothing to control banks after bailing them out? If so, that would be sheer incompetence on the part of Obama, won't it?

Strategist says

The Obama administration placed tough regulations on the banks after the government was forced to bail them out during the 2008 housing collapse.
Are you saying Obama did nothing to control banks after bailing them out? If so, that would be sheer incompetence on the part of Obama, won't it?

Actually, I'm saying Trump signed the law that reversed the Obama regulations. You didn't know this?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-dodd-frank/trump-signs-bill-easing-u-s-bank-rules-into-law-idUSKCN1IP2WX

LeonDurham says

Actually, I'm saying Trump signed the law that reversed the Obama regulations. You didn't know this?

Needs to ease some more. It's still suffocating housing.

Strategist says

Needs to ease some more. It's still suffocating housing.

Just curious--which regulation specifically do you think is suffocating housing?

LeonDurham says

Strategist says

Needs to ease some more. It's still suffocating housing.

Just curious--which regulation specifically do you think is suffocating housing?

You don't need to know every single law or regulation in detail. That's for nerds and lawyers. I look at results, and what I see is banks arenot lending for housing like they used to, or even close. There are hardly any portfolio loans available today that gave a range of options to potential borrowers for housing loans that were available 20 to 30 years ago.
If more people are able to borrow for homes, more homes would be built, resulting in softer home prices.

Strategist says

You don't need to know every single law or regulation in detail.

If you're going to say regulations are suffocating the housing market, I would think you could at least name 1 regulation.

Strategist says

and what I see is banks arenot lending for housing like they used to, or even close. There are hardly any portfolio loans available today that gave a range of options to potential borrowers for housing loans that were available 20 to 30 years ago.
If more people are able to borrow for homes, more homes would be built, resulting in softer home prices.

Well, I see more types of loans available now than ever before. There is absolutely more choices now than 20-30 years ago.

LeonDurham says

Trump promised to get tough on Wall St. and Big Banks.

If you mean Dodd-Frank, that was a Pastiche of Reform that simply sheltered Big Banks from competition by imposing immense regulatory compliance costs.

Strategist says

I look at results, and what I see is banks arenot lending for housing like they used to, or even close. There are hardly any portfolio loans available today that gave a range of options to potential borrowers for housing loans that were available 20 to 30 years ago.

Maybe you could give some more detail on this then. Do you want to see pick-a-pay come back?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

If you mean Dodd-Frank, that was a Pastiche of Reform that simply sheltered Big Banks from competition by imposing immense regulatory compliance costs.

lol--that's why Big Banks wanted it repealed so badly, right? And why they paid Trump to get it done?

LeonDurham says

Trump promised to get tough on Wall St. and Big Banks.

Promises Made. Promises Broken.

Have banks done something in the last 3 years to be punished for?

You know we need reasons to prison people in the west right?

LeonDurham says

lol--that's why Big Banks wanted it repealed so badly, right? And why they paid Trump to get it done?

How many bankers were prosecuted criminally and went to prison under Obama-Holder?

Not given wristslap fines far less than their take, and designed to headoff and thwart state suits and prosecutions?

If more people are able to borrow for homes, more homes would be built, resulting in softer home prices.

Gotta disagree here. If more people were able to borrow, those extra people would bid up the price of existing homes. Highly qualified people can borrow now, so any expansion of borrowers would be for the less qualified folks. The less qualified type include folks who wish to live outside their means, and do not care about costs if they can squeeze in the monthly payment.

Would you say "If more people who are able to get student loans, more people would be able to go to college, which means more college courses offered, which will soften tuition prices."