If he really is listening to other ppl that are supposed to be experts, he needs to fire them. They have been giving him bad info for at least 2.5 years now. We should have been out of the Bush recession at a minimum 1.5 years after he left office.
Look, if you can't be objective about this there's no point in talking about it. Why wouldn't the President of the United States hire the most qualified people in the field into his cabinet? It doesn't matter if he is Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or whatever, you always bring in the most qualified person for that position. If you're suggesting that Obama did not, then there really isn't anything to discuss further...
Did i ever say Obama wasn't well intentioned? Did i say he surrounded himself with stupid people? But can you disagree the man is an egotist? Do you think he brings people around him he considers his intellectual equals or "GASP" superiors?
The fact is, government has no business telling Bank of America, a private company, whom to do business with. How do you presume that people not directly involved in the financial markets can tell a private company what an acceptable amount of risk is? Do you think the banks dont know what an acceptable risk level is? The whole bubble started because banks were told money was easy, they could loosen their requirements.....and look where it got us. Unless you want government owned and run banks, theres no good reason the government should be involved in private financial transactions between banks and customers unless some wrongdoing has occured. Theres nothing wrong with a minimum set of standards and you know it.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
For me it's proof positive Obama and company are totally out of ideas, and are resorting to the same bad ideas from before.
"Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
Another source:The US Depression You've Never Heard Of
The 1920-21 depression in the United States was as sharp as it was short. In just three years, production shrunk by a third before rebounding smartly. The drop was almost as savage as that of the Great Depression. Yet the policy response was totally different.
The government of Woodrow Wilson, followed by Warren Harding, cut spending and then cut it some more. The Federal Reserve raised interest rates right up to 1920. This is precisely the opposite of the policy prescriptions recommended today by most economists – which is to spend more and cut rates.
So were Wilson and Harding right, or lucky? And do the early 1920s hold any lessons for today?
During World War I, US government spending ballooned, financed by borrowing and by a compliant Federal Reserve. During the war, the Fed was, in the words of New York Federal Reserve Governor Benjamin Strong: “[the Treasury’s] agent and servant”.
By 1919, the war was over, but inflation had surged to an annual rate of 27%. In response, the Wilson administration slashed spending. By November 1919, the federal budget was balanced, with federal spending down an astonishing - by 2012 standards - 75% from its peak.
The Fed had only been established in 1913, so the post-war inflation of 1919-20 was the first test of the new system. Under Governor William P Harding, they set about their inflation-busting task with vigour. The various Federal Reserve banks raised interest rates by 244 basis points over the course of eight months, with rates peaking at 7% in June 1920.
The Fed’s aggressive tightening seems to have yanked the economy to a halt. Output peaked in January 1920 when the Fed raised rates by 1.25% - still the sharpest single rise in the entire history of the system. Employment and output fell slowly at first, then collapsed in the summer after the final rate rise in June 1920.
The word collapse is overused – but it’s entirely appropriate in this case. Production dropped by a third in just over a year. Wholesale prices more than halved. Indeed, the price collapse was probably the biggest the US has seen in its entire history. And the fall in output was second only to the Great Depression.
This severe deflation, combined with high nominal interest rates, meant that real (adjusted for inflation) interest rates were exceptionally high. This led to widespread bankruptcies - farmers who’d borrowed to expand their output in response to high food prices during the war and the inflation which followed found they could no longer keep up with interest payments, as high real rates combined with falling prices for their output made the debts unbearable.
Yet the terrible years of 1920-21 aren’t burned into folk memory in the way that the Great Depression is. Why not? The reason that the 1920-21 depression wasn’t 'Great', with a capital 'G', is that it was short. The economy went from sickening free-fall to rampant roaring ‘20s growth without pausing at the bottom.
“I’m somewhat disappointed that more African Americans don’t think for themselves and just go with whatever they’re supposed to say and think."
- Dr. Benjamin Carson
Speaking of brainwashing techniques ...
Whether a President is an independent-thinking man, or dutifully serves a "higher" powers, is his choice. A President could even be a member of a super-secret organization and, and, once elected, choose to do what he thinks is best for the country against the wishes of the supposed organization.
If the President is not the one making the decisions then it's a conscious choice he made somewhere in his political career.
Whether any of us are independent-thinkers, or brainwashed to believe everything is a conspiracy, is also a personal choice ... for those strong enough to resist the brainwashing.