Why I Cry For America

[WhatMoney]

Obama's actions are exactly as was expected by those who bothered to research his past. The truth was there. He has never accomplished anything except be elected and often that was via dirty Chicago style politics (ask Jack Ryan).

The election is over - the conservatives lost. Get over the past.

Here are 500 promises Obama has made for his Presidency as compiled by PolitiFact. PolitiFact is keeping score. So can you, right here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

The Obameter Scorecard

* Promise Kept 91
* Compromise 33
* Promise Broken 15
* Stalled 87
* In the Works 275
* Not yet rated 2

No other President in history has taken on so many difficult goals in his first year. If you don't want any enemies - just promise nothing and do nothing - this is the Republican party's platform of "NO", or is it the "I Want American To Fail As Long As Obama Is In Office" platform of Rush Limburgher and his right wing radio listeners?

It's normal to blame the President for everything - especially your own troubles. A great American tradition. This is only Year One for Obama. It will not be easy to pass anything with a 100% hostile Republican minority and without a Democrat supermajority (60) in the Senate. He now has only 58 Democrats, with a few renegades, and of course Lieberman the smarmy traitor doesn't count for anything but the Israeli neo-con insurance company representative.

BTW, FDR had a strong Democrat majority in the Senate when he passed Social Security in 1935. LBJ had a 67 Democrat Senate supermajority when Medicare/Medicaid was passed in 1965. And the right wing Republican conservatives were fighting both social programs all the way. Should we ask the American public if they would like to give up Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid for retirees and the disabled? Many of you would/will be living on the streets someday without these programs.

[sofarsogood2]

It's a complete contradiction to claim "registered Independent" and then long for an "awesome progressive candidate". If you are a true independent you would probably clamor for an awesome independent candidate.

Ah, Ohio, I knew you would reply. As an Independent, I look for a progressive option right now because, in my opinion, the country and it's policies have swung way too far to the right. I have no allegiance to any party- I prefer to vote for what I think the country needs. Both parties, at this time, have ignored the well being of the American public. Do you really think either party gives a rats a$$ about you and yours?

I am not a Progressive overall, but feel having some in Congress would help balance out policies being enacted (health care, Wall Street Regs.) as Progressive policies lean towards the public good. I am for the good of all Americans- call it what you will- socialist, liberal, "wacked out far left"-whatever- the label doesn't matter- it's the philosophy that counts. Less labeling of ideas and options would probably be a great start towards "bi-partisanship"- what I would call representing the interests of your constituents.

Th Rs in Congress right now would love to take away your right to BK and a fresh start- they certainly made it more difficult in 2005. I find it ironic that someone who couldn't "pull themselves up by their own boot straps" advocates that very philosophy of extreme personal responsibility, capitalism running amok, and no consumer protections/ government intervention in business.

Don't expect me to pick up the tab for his irresponsible decision to buy a house he couldn't afford.

Do you think your filing has no cost to society? Do you not think everyone has, in an indirect way, "picked up the tab" for your discharged debt? If you truly believe in personal responsibilty and going it alone without Government/ Societal help, why are you filing? Ah, you needed help, and recieved the protection of what was, at the time of it's writing, a very uncoventional set of statutes. Debtors prisons was the norm. I would say the BK laws, if proposed now, would be considered socialism and "wacked out liberal" policy- and yet - in your time of need- you embraced it. Things that make you go HMMM.

Obama's actions are exactly as was expected by those who bothered to research his past. The truth was there. He has never accomplished anything except be elected and often that was via dirty Chicago style politics (ask Jack Ryan).

As far as my Obama vote goes, yes, I am disappointed. However, it was a choice between the lesser of 2 evils. A crazy old man and former beauty queen...what was the RNC thinking?

Scott Brown was swept into office by an electorate demanding change.

The Scott Brown win was due to several reasons:

1. MA has it's own Health Insurance Bill.
2. Disenchanted voters stayed home.
3. A really lousy Dem candidate.
4. He avoided identifying himself as an R. I believe he called himself an Independent.

However, wish as you might, it was not a referendum to move the coutry more to the right.

Buy gold? LOL- your kidding?!- gold is at it's peak right now.

America is helping Haiti because Haiti is in dire need of help. When Americans are in similar straits our government and our citizens jump in (i.e. hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes). America is and will always be a most generous country, unlike ANY other country in the world.

Katrina victims would beg to differ. If our politicians had the good of those citizens on their mind, they would have fixed the levys in the first place. I also don't recall sending in private planes and government planes to quickly evacuate injured people, as we are doing in Haiti. Our citizens are indeed generous when it comes to helping out during large scale disasters. But I do think some politicians would like to ignore the plight of individual poor Americans. Hence the fight over health insurance reform.

BTW, I love my country- just hate greedy, manipulative people who are parasites on the backs of good, hardworking Americans.

Don't bother to respond.

I will not convince you, and you will not convince me. We are worlds apart on this.

I'm going to agree to disagree- you have a right to your opinion and so do I.

* Please note, I am mature enough to not label you or call you any names. I would appreciate the same courtesy in the future.

[backtoschool]

Sofarsogood2, I agree with a lot of what you posted, but disagree with some of what you posted as well.

Just as many Democrats wanted to reform bankruptcy laws and make bankruptcy difficult as Republicans. It is not about party affiliation as much as it is about taking a lot of money from banking lobbies. Both parties do this. But I agree with you that Bankruptcy is as much of a bail out as a mortgage principal reduction would be and to be for one and against the other is inconsistent.

I agree with you in regards to Scott Brown, but I would add that he also got a lot of media attention because he is VERY good looking, and this helped his campaign. I am usually pretty jaded when it comes to reacting to someone's looks, especially a politician's, and I am a die-hard unapologetic progressive liberal, but even I couldn't stop staring at him when he came on the television.

I actually volunteered on Obama's campaign and I am very disappointed in what he has accomplished. But I do not think that anyone that was available to us at the time would have done any better. Our economy was truly in a melt down. The banks were ALL insolvent at the time. Lending had stopped completely. Obama got distracted by health care and the war in Afghanistan and did a stimulus that was too small to truly jolt the economy. Hopefully now he is scared enough to get back on track.

Clearly now is not a good time to buy gold. Buying gold at its peak out of fear will not protect you from hyper-inflation anyway. You will still have to buy that $200 loaf of bread. There were many people that bought gold at it's peak during the Carter years only to take a bath when the gold bubble burst and prices came tumbling down. Speculation is always risky. And individual investors do not have the tools to compete with the institutional commodities traders and will hurt themselves financially if they speculate based on fear.

Of course we must step in and help Haiti. Should we have had a better response to the victims of Katrina? Absolutely. We always should help those in need. Period.

[banca rotta]

No other President in history has taken on so many difficult goals in his first year. If you don't want any enemies - just promise nothing and do nothing - this is the Republican party's platform of "NO", or is it the "I Want American To Fail As Long As Obama Is In Office" platform of Rush Limburgher and his right wing radio listeners?

.

You are funny!

Where are these "right wing listeners"?

I wish we had right wing people as you say we do.

If so you would find people, businesses and banks rising and falling on their own merits.

Taxes and govt would be lower and smaller and the country would be thriving.

I promise you there are no right wingers at least in high places any more. Perhaps some say they are but no they aren't.

You can relax and let the left take us down the tank as they are doing. The left consist of dems and republicans.

[WhatMoney]

Just as many Democrats wanted to reform bankruptcy laws and make bankruptcy difficult as Republicans. It is not about party affiliation as much as it is about taking a lot of money from banking lobbies.

Small point here, but 55 Repubs (ALL of them) and only 18 Demos voted for the BK reform act. There were 25 nay votes, as listed below, the "good guys" as I call them (w/ the exception of Lieberman of course). I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, which is unusual considering this board is dominated by far right conservatives and seditionists.

S. 256 [109th]: Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (Vote On Passage) Senate Vote #44 --- Mar 10, 2005

Ayes: 74
Nays: 25
No Vote: 1

Ayes by Party: 18 Democrats and 55 Republicans and 1 Independent
Nays by Party: 24 Democrats and 0 Republicans and 1 Independent

ALL Republicans senators voted for the 2005 BK Reform Act.
A Minority of Democrat senators voted for the 2005 BK Reform Act.

The 25 Nay votes for the 2005 BK Reform Act were:
CA Barbara Boxer (D)
CA Dianne Feinstein (D)
CT Christopher Dodd (D)
CT Joseph Lieberman (I)
HI Daniel Akaka (D)
IL Richard Durbin (D)
IL Barack Obama (D)
IA Thomas Harkin (D)
MD Barbara Mikulski (D)
MD Paul Sarbanes (D)
MA Edward Kennedy (D)
MA John Kerry (D)
MI Carl Levin (D)
MN Mark Dayton (D)
NJ Jon Corzine (D)
NJ Frank Lautenberg (D)
NY Charles Schumer (D)
NY Hillary Clinton (D) no vote
ND Byron Dorgan (D)
OR Ron Wyden (D)
RI John Reed (D)
VT Patrick Leahy (D)
WA Maria Cantwell (D)
WA Patty Murray (D)
WV John Rockefeller (D)
WI Russel Feingold (D)

All Democrats (including Obama), and NO republicans on the Nay list.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2005-44

[banca rotta]

Do you think your filing has no cost to society? Do you not think everyone has, in an indirect way, "picked up the tab" for your discharged debt? If you truly believe in personal responsibilty and going it alone without Government/ Societal help, why are you filing? Ah, you needed help, and recieved the protection of what was, at the time of it's writing, a very uncoventional set of statutes. Debtors prisons was the norm. I would say the BK laws, if proposed now, would be considered socialism and "wacked out liberal" policy- and yet - in your time of need- you embraced it. Things that make you go HMMM.

I don't agree with your example. There is a HUGE difference between BK and bailouts. BK is not a govt bailout program, hence it doesn't cost taxpayers anything.

Lenders are taking risks and they take much bigger risks knowing that the dems and republicans will bail them out with the end result being either higher taxes or higher inflation on the rest of us.

If bank executives knew they would fail with all these risks you wouldn't have seen the credit bubble you just witnessed.

BK is also no harder to file today since most will pass the means test either through high unemployment or higher inflation. Maybe in 2005/2006 it was but not now.

[backtoschool]

I don't agree with you example. There is a HUGE difference between BK and bailouts. BK is not a govt bailout program, hence it doesn't cost taxpayers anything.

Lenders are taking risks and they take much bigger risks knowing that the dems and republicans will bail them out with the end result being either higher taxes or higher inflation on the rest of us.

If bank executives knew they would fail with all these risks you wouldn't have seen the credit bubble you just witnessed.

Bankruptcy costs all consumers money in extra fees and higher rates. The creditors pass their costs onto everyone. I agree with you though that we saw the bubble because the profits for the banks were guaranteed.

[banca rotta]

Bankruptcy costs all consumers money in extra fees and higher rates. The creditors pass their costs onto everyone. I agree with you though that we saw the bubble because the profits for the banks were guaranteed.

I know before all the recent bankruptcy filings all fees and cost were very low. Now it's much higher due to filings. Banks never ever charged 29.99% until all the filings.

Please!

[backtoschool]

I know before all the recent bankruptcy filings all fees and cost were very low. Now it's much higher due to filings. Banks never ever charged 29.99% until all the filings.

Please!

It is naive to think that the banks will not recoup their losses. Some of those losses are insured and some of those losses are recouped through higher fees, etc...

It is also naive to believe that bankruptcy protection is not a bail out of a sort. Being relieved of obligations or being given money to help with obligations is the very definition of "bail out". The difference between when I say "bail out" and when a conservative reactionary type says "bail out" is that I do not mean the word negatively. I will happily take any and all bail outs given to me.

Conservatives who file for bankruptcy protection have to reconcile their free maket values with the fact that they are not honoring their free market contracts. They are instead letting "Big Government" step in and "bail them out", and help them cancel those free market contracts.

[banca rotta]

It is naive to think that the banks will not recoup their losses. Some of those losses are insured and some of those losses are recouped through higher fees, etc...

It is also naive to believe that bankruptcy protection is not a bail out of a sort. Being relieved of obligations or being given money to help with obligations is the very definition of "bail out". The difference between when I say "bail out" and when a conservative reactionary type says "bail out" is that I do not mean the word negatively. I will happily take any and all bail outs given to me.

Conservatives who file for bankruptcy protection have to reconcile their free maket values with the fact that they are not honoring their free market contracts. They are instead letting "Big Government" step in and "bail them out", and help them cancel those free market contracts.

I don't look at bk as a liberal or conservative issue. I always felt that bk or failure in general is an option in the free markets.

It gives each party (borrow & lender) the opportunity to learn from it and bounce back stronger and better.

If other "honest" folks that pay their bills on time still get ripped off they can simply not use the product and that will drive costs down.

If taxpayers fund bailouts then that hurts everyone and shouldn't be allowed.

Our society seems like it's on the decline because no one likes failure. Children in some schools no longer fail tests, some little league games no longer keep score so it's hard to tell the winners from the losers and businesses as well as those that bought more home then they could afford are not allowed to fail.

This is why you can rest assure we are in for a lost decade (or longer) unless this trend changes.

[sofarsogood2]

Thank you backtoschool.

"Conservatives who file for bankruptcy protection have to reconcile their free maket values with the fact that they are not honoring their free market contracts. They are instead letting "Big Government" step in and "bail them out", and help them cancel those free market contracts."

To say BK is not a bail out and that "stupid people who bought more house than they could afford" should take a hike doesn't make sense, esp. on this forum. Many on this forum have stripped a 2nd- how is that so different from a principle reduction?

People on this board have all made some financial mistakes- be it buying too much house, charging too many flat screens, buying that fancy car, not having enough insurance to cover their illnesses. Whatever- no error in judgement is "better" than another. We were all caught unaware and unprepared in some way.

For some people, who have erased their debt or reduced it thru BK, to think they are better than someone who can't keep up with house payments is hypocritical.

As far as Haiti is concerned, I didn't mean to give the impression that I don't think we should help- of course we should. I have friends who are down there right now doing just that.

I was trying to point out that we have our own crisis here and can't seem to get our Congress and President to take the necessary steps to help middle/lower class Americans. That is why I believe our government has moved too far to the right.

American people, children, are sleeping in cars, don't have enough to eat, no money for shoes, clothes or school supplies. We are a wealthy, powerful nation and I am ashamed that this is allowed to happen. It contradicts everything America stands for IMO.

[banca rotta]

Thank you backtoschool.

To say BK is not a bail out and that "stupid people who bought more house than they could afford" should take a hike doesn't make sense, esp. on this forum. Many on this forum have stripped a 2nd- how is that so different from a principle reduction?

Did I miss something??? Who said this???

Not me.

I do feel that if you bought more house then you can afford you should NOT get a govt bailout of any kind.

You should stop making payments, use the mortgage money to save up for an apartment and when the bank finally kicks you out you will have some savings built up (assuming you have income) to pay the rent and security deposit.

This might not be easy losing your home but who's going to subsidize this? I sure as hell don't want to. I think most agree with this but are pretty silent.

A landlord may not like a low credit score but flash money in front of him and he will take it and shut up.

[banca rotta]

Clearly now is not a good time to buy gold. Buying gold at its peak out of fear will not protect you from hyper-inflation anyway. You will still have to buy that $200 loaf of bread. There were many people that bought gold at it's peak during the Carter years only to take a bath when the gold bubble burst and prices came tumbling down. Speculation is always risky. And individual investors do not have the tools to compete with the institutional commodities traders and will hurt themselves financially if they speculate based on fear.

I don't know what the future holds for gold as you are correct to say it's only speculation.

I will say however that these are not the Jimmy Carter days. America had less then 100 b in debt, lower entitlement liabilities and factories that actually made things.

Today the factories are pretty much gone (at least the high paying ones are). The govt alone has over 12 trillion in debt and close to 100 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilites.

The fed raised interest rates 21.5% to combat inflation and the gold bubble burst while the economy returned to normal back then.

If we combat inflation that way today with the above debts and liabilities do the math on what 20 plus % interest will cost the taxpayer.

[backtoschool]

I don't know what the future holds for gold as you are correct to say it's only speculation.

I will say however that these are not the Jimmy Carter days. America had less then 100 b in debt, lower entitlement liabilities and factories that actually made things.

Today the factories are pretty much gone (at least the high paying ones are). The govt alone has over 12 trillion in debt and close to 100 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilites.

The fed raised interest rates 21.5% to combat inflation and the gold bubble burst while the economy returned to normal back then.

If we combat inflation that way today with the above debts and liabilities do the math on what 20 plus % interest will cost the taxpayer.

I agree that we have too much debt and too many liabilities to be able to raise interest rates to what they were in the Carter era. We also cannot lower them below the zero they are essentially at now, so we cannot shrink our way out of this recession, nor can we grow our way out of it....

[backtoschool]

Thank you backtoschool.

"Conservatives who file for bankruptcy protection have to reconcile their free maket values with the fact that they are not honoring their free market contracts. They are instead letting "Big Government" step in and "bail them out", and help them cancel those free market contracts."

To say BK is not a bail out and that "stupid people who bought more house than they could afford" should take a hike doesn't make sense, esp. on this forum. Many on this forum have stripped a 2nd- how is that so different from a principle reduction?

People on this board have all made some financial mistakes- be it buying too much house, charging too many flat screens, buying that fancy car, not having enough insurance to cover their illnesses. Whatever- no error in judgement is "better" than another. We were all caught unaware and unprepared in some way.

For some people, who have erased their debt or reduced it thru BK, to think they are better than someone who can't keep up with house payments is hypocritical.

As far as Haiti is concerned, I didn't mean to give the impression that I don't think we should help- of course we should. I have friends who are down there right now doing just that.

I was trying to point out that we have our own crisis here and can't seem to get our Congress and President to take the necessary steps to help middle/lower class Americans. That is why I believe our government has moved too far to the right.

American people, children, are sleeping in cars, don't have enough to eat, no money for shoes, clothes or school supplies. We are a wealthy, powerful nation and I am ashamed that this is allowed to happen. It contradicts everything America stands for IMO.

I agree with you that we have to take care of those at home that are in need of our help.

I also agree with you that there is no "better" type of insolvency. If someone can afford their mortgage because they have eliminated all of their credit card debt through bankruptcy, that is the same thing as someone who lowers their mortgage, but continues to pay on their credit card debt. Both are a breaking of the original contracts and a readjustment of amounts owed .