patrick.net

I would say that Obama can easily be blamed for the continued shenanigans on Wall Street due lack of courage. Why did he not hire some good lawyers for the justice department for the sole purpose of going after the fraudsters that caused the 2008 meltdown? Why am I not seeing indictments?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IViTNksljI0

This sums it up pretty well.

Obama can be blamed for being too conservative in not taking on big finance.

Of course, if I were he I would have taken the same wimpy course. Not that they don't deserve it, but demagoguing the issue doesn't solve anything, and whatever Obama does the Republicans are going to blame him, so if he HAD decided to take Wall Street to task the Republicans would be able to blame the shitty economy on his radical anti-capitalism etc.

Administrations, like fish, rot from the head down. The people the President trusts become the true policy-pushers. Back in college in '85 in a dorm floor bullshitting session the resident conservative admitted Reagan was an addled fool but asked us if it meant anything. We got the answer to that when the Iran-Contra thing broke, and later the S&L crisis.

In Bush's case, along with him entered the same bad actors that profited from the S&L crisis, back in the saddle again, giving us the new & improved mortgage meltdown crisis in just 4-5 short years:

"Regulators appointed by President Bush often have been more sympathetic to industry concerns about red tape than their Clinton administration predecessors. When James Gilleran, a former California banker and bank supervisor, took over the OTS in December 2001, he became known for his deregulatory zeal. At one press event in 2003, several bank regulators held gardening shears to represent their commitment to cut red tape for the industry. Mr. Gilleran brought a chain saw.

"He also early on announced plans to slash expenses to resolve the agency's deficit; 20% of its work force eventually left. ...[H]is successor, Mr. Reich, a former community banker, has reversed many of Mr. Gilleran's cuts. Citing "understaffing," he hired 80 examiners last year and plans to add 40 more this year. ..."

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/03/regulation_of_m.html

The biggest failure is failing to make politics the art of the possible. Kennedy got us to the moon, for good or bad. LBJ gave the elderly Medicare. Gore did in fact take the initiative in facilitating the legal and funding basis of the internet. There are very big, and very important, changes that big government can effect, but it has to come from the top.

The President may be blamed for the following things:

- Foreign policy (as head of state and CiC, specifically)
- Leadership (or lack thereof)
- Quality of judicial appointments
- Response to national disasters

These things can not be blamed on the president:

- Overall government spending. This is congress' responsibility.
- Judicial decisions reached by judges he didn't appoint

Wow, Kevin, you're looking kind of hot to me right now. ;)

I would add that an idiotic buffoon such as GW deserved all of the flack that he got. He and President Cheney were horrible.

Everything!

Presidents get up there make tall claims, unless you expect Presidents to be nothing But out right Liars.
Then they are held accountable for everything that goes against his promises. And even more so to blame, if a promise they made, is rendered even more screwed up. Especially if it was the "Other Parties" fault.
He is the Asshole that pressed the issue after all. Half assed intentions don't count.

Tenouncetrout says

Half assed intentions don’t count.

not much can be added to improve that point.

Kevin is 100% correct too.

I think it all depends - but I just wish someone would tell the current moron-in-chief that "corps" is NOT pronounced "corpse". I think you might need to blame his elementary school teachers for this particular issue....Did he attend public school? He has a long way to go to catch up with Bush - the bar for mangling the English language was set pretty high.

Kevin says

Overall government spending. This is congress’ responsibility.

So the current budget problem isn't Bush's fault - it's the Democrat-led congress? The Clinton Magical Surplus of the 90's had nothing to do with Clinton - it was the Republican-led congress?

wall street bailouts - he sold it to the nation.

not cracking down on wall street crimes - not a single person has been arrested, quite a few just paid large fines to keep on playing. Angelo Mozillo, Lloyd Blankfield, etc...

The health insurance reform bill that is just total politically favored piece of work.

EightBall says

The Clinton Magical Surplus of the 90’s had nothing to do with Clinton - it was the Republican-led congress?

Because Clinton did nothing to screw up or thwart the real growth of his administration. He was to busy setting up our current Healthcare cluster screw job. The new batch just finished his job, of putting the middle class on the hook for the Healthcare corporate profits. Neither Clinton or the guy the purportedly invented the Internet, gave the Tech sector a second glance.

EightBall says

So the current budget problem isn’t Bush’s fault - it’s the Democrat-led congress? The Clinton Magical Surplus of the 90’s had nothing to do with Clinton - it was the Republican-led congress?

Bush was contributory to the current problems thanks to his two wars and the 2001-2003 tax cut that he ran on in 1999-2000. If we didn't have all that we wouldn't have half the problems we have now.

In 1993 the Democratic Congress finally got serious and passed the Clinton tax-rise package, and Clinton defended it repeatedly against the Republicans, 1995-2001.

Once the Republicans took full control in 2001, they showed their true colors and reverted to the irresponsible shits they were & are.

2000 - 2008 trickle down stupidity
2008 - 20?? trickle down corruption

According to the 12 new Republican members of Congress, NOTHING! HE ISN'T EVEN PRESIDENT!

These folks will not listen to the Weeper of the House who says the issue is settled, nor will they LISTEN TO REASON!

According to the birthers, NONE of us can prove we are American citizens either!

So, I blame Obama for being a black man in a white man's government. He should know better.

Kevin says

The President may be blamed for the following things:
- Foreign policy (as head of state and CiC, specifically)
- Leadership (or lack thereof)
- Quality of judicial appointments
- Response to national disasters
These things can not be blamed on the president:
- Overall government spending. This is congress’ responsibility.
- Judicial decisions reached by judges he didn’t appoint

Cant a president veto a budget?...which, I would assume leads to his desk for a ceremonial signing of some sort thereby holding him accountable right?

SoCal Renter says

So, I blame Obama for being a black man in a white man’s government. He should know better.

I actually dont think he is being judged by the color of his skin any longer, but the content of his descisions. He ran on the basis that he would shake things up in Washington, which I assume would include reform of NAFTA, GATT, HEALTHCARE, WALLSTREET, EDUCATION, etc.

But once he got in office I think he realized that CONGRESS and SENATE would dictate what he could accomplish and how far he could take his measures. At this point, it is just a SPIN game in which he needs to manage his perception better than the REPUBLICANS can destroy it.

He knows that he didnt lower healthcare costs, but he had to get something else he would be perceived as a failure.

EightBall says

So the current budget problem isn’t Bush’s fault - it’s the Democrat-led congress? The Clinton Magical Surplus of the 90’s had nothing to do with Clinton - it was the Republican-led congress?

The current budget is mostly the fault of a bad economy (and partly the fault of congressional inaction, both Republican and Democrat, for the last 10 years).

The 90s surplus was almost entirely owed to the excellent economy.

Financially speaking, Bush certainly deserves the blame for 8 years of military spending. Feel free to blame Obama for the last two though.

The president doesn't deserve all blame for military spending, of course -- mostly just the wars. Plenty of "military" spending is just a pork barrel jobs program, like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052705614.html

Because, you know, $100M fighter jets are useful when flushing terrorists out of caves in the desert.

I remember once reading (not on Patrick.net but probably on Yahoo) someone defending GW Bush. He said the stock market was up since Bush had become president, etc. Someone else pointed out that the stock market was actually down since Bush had become president (which was true). Then the original commenter said soon after that president doesn't have much to do with the price of the stock market! Brilliant argument style...not. LOL!

He bailed out the banks in a very unintelligent way. It's not the fact that he bailed them out, it's the fact that he gave all the executives their golden parachutes where some got around 500million (this was in the article on bloomberg businessweek).

He did sign the bill into the law that artificially kept on subsidizing the real estate industry with first time home buyer credits.

He created healthcare legislation that so far is only going to increase prices for healthcare.

He signed a bill to subsidize real estate even further with the bail outs.

ChrisLosAngeles says

He created healthcare legislation that so far is only going to increase prices for healthcare.

you're entirely incorrect on this assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Effective_at_enactment

Troy says

ChrisLosAngeles says

He created healthcare legislation that so far is only going to increase prices for healthcare.

you’re entirely incorrect on this assertion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Effective_at_enactment

Troy I know the numbers, my wife does the numbers in/for the industry. Costs are going to go up regardless of what any politician says. Only way they can reduce costs if they start addressing the way hospitals/doctors bill for their services. Trend (minimum) increase is 12% a year, it's never less.

The only way prices were going to stop going up is when people would not pay them. But ObamaCare law puts a financial penalty on anyone who will not pay, and created a ton of loopholes in it. So if you are poor you can simply not pay and be a burden to the middle class. It's really a stupid system.

Wikipedia article is not addressing that fact at all.

Tenouncetrout says

Everything!
Presidents get up there make tall claims, unless you expect Presidents to be nothing But out right Liars.
Then they are held accountable for everything that goes against his promises. And even more so to blame, if a promise they made, is rendered even more screwed up. Especially if it was the “Other Parties” fault.
He is the Asshole that pressed the issue after all. Half assed intentions don’t count.

elliemae says

I would add that an idiotic buffoon such as GW deserved all of the flack that he got. He and President Cheney were horrible.

They're not held accountable at all. He deserved more, he and Cheney. By their own admission they Promoted and supported torture and extrajudicial killing, which makes them criminals under U.S and international laws. If they got what they deserved in this 'country of laws' they'd be in jail right now.

And of course, Obama continues it...

Really, "blame" at that level is apparently little more than a media farce in this country.

2¢

ChrisLosAngeles says

The only way prices were going to stop going up is when people would not pay them. But ObamaCare law puts a financial penalty on anyone who will not pay, and created a ton of loopholes in it. So if you are poor you can simply not pay and be a burden to the middle class. It’s really a stupid system.

? While I agree that the change is pushing user costs up, I disagreed with your assertion that that's *all* it has done.

We're going to get hit with a more people in the risk pool thanks to the mandate and rescission changes, along with removing all the pre-existing condition differentials. I'm OK with that. Beats the previous status quo of ignoring the difficulty that tens of millions of people had with the previous system.

According to current law, the "poor" -- and middle class -- will have their insurance outgo capped at 10% of gross income thanks to the subsidies that will be available on the state exchanges.

So it's not the middle class that's going to be hit, it's the upper-middle class and above that will be theoretically paying the subsidies, since those who pay the bulk of income taxes won't qualify for any insurance subsidies.

Now, all this might in fact end up like NCLB -- bunch of Federal rules without any Federal funding. If so, then it will be a complete disaster. But we're not there yet.

Troy says

AIG’s trading group did threaten that if they didn’t get their massive bonuses they’d walk and leave everything in ruins.

I don't remember that, I remember that the president of AIG said the bonuses were contractual and we are paying them no matter what. There was lots breast beating from congress critters, but no one challenged this. I don't understand how this translates as Obama giving golden parachutes. Obama is the president, he doesn't give anything. Congress writes laws, including the bailouts.

I believe your are talking about AIG financial services in London by the way. They wrote all the swaps that brought down AIG. AIG trading group is in Stanford CT.

^ yes, that is a more accurate rendering of what happened

I had a client complain about Obamacare driving up his Medicare premiums. He was pissed when I told him that the part B premium hasn't increased for current beneficiaries for several years - and that Obamacare has nothing to do with it either way.

People will blame the president no matter what, especially if they are assholes.

I just had an actual thought ... If a Prez (or any leader for that matter) cant be blamed for what is going wrong, then he can't take credit for what is going right.

I would just like to see consistant framework set up that people can agree on what the president is or is not responsible for regardless of party. Maybe this is asking too much.