Weekly Address from President Elect Barack Obama-- 12-06-08

[IM4given]

Weekly Address from President Elect Barack Obama-- 12-06-08

[tube]zmwYKuTeVto[/tube]

[John81]

My youngest son and wife are both incredibly sick of seeing and hearing about Obama virtually every time we turn on the news.

[IM4given]

I think his address is a bit presumptious - his set even looks like the oval office! Bush is stil our President, isn't he?

[John81]

Obama has been careful to say there is only one president at a time, but his actions clearly indicate he thinks he should be viewed and regarded as president even though he isn't yet.

He puts forth speeches and calls press conferences with the sole intent of effecting current policy and agendas. He even threatens that if what he wants done isn't done now, he'll get it done as soon as he takes office...with the implication that Bush and company will take a historical hit for failing to act.

He's very arrogant and determined to have his way.

[JerryNumbers]

Obama has been careful to say there is only one president at a time, but his actions clearly indicate he thinks he should be viewed and regarded as president even though he isn't yet.

He puts forth speeches and calls press conferences with the sole intent of effecting current policy and agendas. He even threatens that if what he wants done isn't done now, he'll get it done as soon as he takes office...with the implication that Bush and company will take a historical hit for failing to act.

He's very arrogant and determined to have his way.

Yes, he is arrogant, and he ought to keep his mouth shut until January 20. Seems he may be the most arrogant president this country has ever had.

Hope there is just 4 years of it.

[Guest Guest]

Who cares!! :gross:

[pneu-engine]

What I find so amazing and mind-boggling is that he is such a stinking incredible liar that he cannot even see that HE IS PARTLY THE CAUSE OF ALLLLLA THIS RECESSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was way back some time ago that McCain voted against giving so much money thru Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for mortgages to people that cannot pay it back. Obama and Hillary C both pushed for it however. This mess wouldn't even exist if it were not for them and others like them that voted for it.

THE PROOF:::::::::::

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... KSoiNbnQY0

...and exerpt::::::::

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Email | Print | A A A

Commentary by Kevin Hassett

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org

Last Updated: September 22, 2008 00:04 EDT

[JerryNumbers]

And to think, it all came about because of mans greed. But their greed is still there and there is only one fix for that, Jesus Christ.

[HappyChristian]

Yuck. This man should just be quietly going about assembling his administration. His usurpation of the presidency at this point is wrong. But then, he doesn't care. He likes this - he is ready to "rule," in the words of one of his workers.

And, PE - you are right. He is in a big way responsible for this mess. And he's going to clean it up? Yeah, right.

[Guest Guest]

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Yep. Adolph Hitler all over again. :sad

And to think' date=' it all came about because of mans greed. But their greed is still there and there is only one fix for that, Jesus Christ.[/quote']

And not wavering from the REAL truth, might I add.

Ephesians 4:14...That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight (tricks) of men, and cunning craftiness (cleverness), whereby they lie in wait to deceive; KJV 1611 AV.

[IM4given]

They dilliberately staged Obama's speech to give the appearance that he is speaking from the Oval Office

Here is a pic of the REAL Oval Office and the REAL President, for comparison!

[img]http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/8893/illegalimgmay15jweb7ig.jpg[/img]

[kevinmiller]

I'd say he's pretty brilliant, if you ask me. He's working to garner support before entering office and reassuring people he has a plan ready when he gets there. That is especially important since he has such little experience. I'll be watching him and his plans carefully but he might just have some good ideas for this country. He's no dummy. One thing he does do, however, is he gives hope and pride to Americans much more so than Bush ever could.

[HappyChristian]

[quote="kevinmiller"] he gives hope and pride to Americans much more so than Bush ever could.[/quote] Um, no, Kevin, he doesn't. How can he give us any pride? He hasn't done anything yet. And hope? Nope. His history is not about real hope. But we'll see. Good for this country? Nope. He has helped this country get into the mess that it's in, and now he's going to offer hope of getting out? I don't think so. He'll probably be much like FDR - offer programs that actually extend the depression (that is quickly coming) rather than get us out of it.

[quote="IM4given"]They dilliberately staged Obama's speech to give the appearance that he is speaking from the Oval Office
[/quote]

Staging is what he's all about!!! Pomp and Circumstance should be his theme music...

[Guest Guest]

:goodpost: LuAnne. Yep!

[no name joe]

Yes, he is good at staging....so was Reagan.

I find it refreshing that Obama is using the media to keep people informed. It is a nice change from Bush who rarely used the media. Reagan and Clinton both used the media extensively to keep people informed, and I think that is a good thing, and why they were largely popular. Obama is the same way. He is using media, keeping people informed, and will be well liked by many people as a result.

he is not exercising any power that previous presidents have not exercised before they took office...a good strong transition team is needed so that when the official transfer of power happens, there is not a lag.

Like or dislike his policies, his transition team is doing an extraordianry job....or again, perhaps he is just keeping us more informed about the great job they are doing.

No President could have gotten us out of the Depression....the fault of FDR was in not pumping enough into the economy to resucue it. That took a world war....something I do not want....to bring the US out of the depression. Only then could the US government spend unlimited money to revive the economy.