smartypnts...you're right. Obama is a fantastic orator. He's charmed the pants off an entire country that is in desperate need of leadership. Unfortunately, his actions don't back up his words. I've never been an Obama backer and I still stand by that. I do however believe his heart is in the right place. I think he's getting the picture that this is way bigger than even he can fathom. There are many "vultures" in Washington D.C. that have their own agendas and aren't real receptive when it comes to change, especially when it affects the self serving, egotistical people in office who are supposed to be there to serve this country but, wind up only serving themselves. Our govt. works much like an ailing body. Prescription meds are only a patch job to the real problem. One drug leads to the need for another. The only way to turn this around is to get down to the cellular level where the problems originate and heal them there!!!

Regarding the article's main point..that the honeymoon is over for Obama. He has a gift for speeches I will give him that. He has dazzled the multitudes but unfortunately his choices from cabinet members and his decision to sign off on those earmarks leave a really sour taste in my mouth. I don't trust him. In fact I think he is downright scary and I worry what will happen to this country under his control. I know it's hard for people to admit they made a mistake in voting for him but I am afraid that he will be a severe disappointment to his minions.

"we can only hope it doesn`t double"
-
Yes, hope and change, but it's the current budget forecast that calls for the almost doubling of the debt by 2019 while trying to halve the deficit in 4 years...nice plan.

kihsohn, in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal of 4/2/08, Lawrence B. Lindsey, former head of the National Economic Council under Mr. Bush said, "Barney Frank is the only politician I know who has argued that we need tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters." He has given speeches going back to at least 2002 stating this on the House floor.

Over 80% of sub-prime mortgages were not given under any CRA authority, they worked with lenders that were still regulated by the government. CRA has been around for almost 30 years, and you can`t make a credible case that they had anything to do with the crisis. That suit resulted in 15,000 loans, even if all went into foreclosure, which they didn`t, that leaves 2,000,000 more foreclosures last year alone, with 2,000,000 more this year!

kinsohn,Franks pushed for rental units from 2002 on, not home ownership for everyone. They did not ask for any "subsidies' for sub-prime or any other mortgages, Mr. Bush did that with $200million a year from the government.Clinton used paygo, no Republicans. Impossible to do it now because of the recession/depression, ask economists and well over half will agree to that. As for Mr.Bush and his declining deficits, $455 billion, $1.3 trillion the last two years of his term, that is not good, and Mr. Obama`s deficits will not be good, but were made necessary by the economy. They are to be cut to under $500 billion by 2012, contrary to your statement. Whether Mr. Obama succeeds at that only time will tell. As for calling for their heads, that is what elections are for, and I`m sure if people are not happy in 2010 they will lose their jobs much like the Republicans just did!

I forgot to post Obama's role:

It was under the imprimatur of the Community Reinvestment Act that a young activist named Obama, working with ACORN, sued Citibank in Chicago in 1994 for not making enough home loans to people who were deemed bad credit risks. It was settled in 1998 and Citibank loans started flowing. It was also in 1998 that HUD Secretary Cuomo (another Democrat)ramped up pressure for home loans to those who otherwise wouldn't qualify, all to be backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Looks like the Kool-aid has gone to someone's head. I asked four questions, and I don't believe I've gotten an answer to any of them:

1. Why were Bush deficits which were declining bad but Obama deficits which are four times the size forever (no exit strategy) good?

The answer as far as I could tell is that Obama plans to increase the deficit to $1.75 trillion and then cut it in half. Gee, thanks!

2. Why is "paygo" a good idea for a Republican President but not a Democratic one? No answer.

3. Why do the same Democrats (Dodd, Frank, Obama) that insisted that government agencies like FreddieMac and FannieMae as well as private banks constantly increase subsidies for sub-prime mortgages now say they "inhereted the mess?"

I guess the answer here was some Republicans were involved too. Which doesn't really answer the question.

4. Why is the media not calling for their heads as they would if such individuals worked in the private sector?

I guess this is the answer: "Derivatives, which I can`t explain, were the main cause of the housing bubble bursting, and they came from de-regulation." Uh, thanks for clearing that up.

Sep 10, 2008 ... "These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Barney Frank, Democratic Chairman of House Banking Committee whose gay lover ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's house without Frank knowing about it (according to Frank).

“To suggest somehow that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] are in trouble is simply not accurate,” Christopher Dodd, July 13, 2008.

Yes, these are the BEST people Democrats could find to be in charge of U.S. banking regulation. It's going to be a long four years.

Retired Air Force, we can only hope it doesn`t double like it did under Mr. Bush, or go up one and a half times like under Mr. Reagan. Let`s try to keep it at a raise of 33% like Mr. Bush Sr. did.

"Mr. Obama`s plan is to halve the deficit by 2012"
-
Yes, the Presidents plan does call for that. It all calls for the national debt to almost double before 2019...so much for those cuts.

kinsohn, the last Bush deficit is $1.3 trillion, hardly declining. Who was the last President to use pay-as-you-go, and a hint, it was not Mr. bush, or Mr. Bush Sr., or Mr. Reagan. Mr. Obama`s plan is to halve the deficit by 2012, whether he can or not is debatable. Fannie and Freddie were losing market share by not pursuing sub-prime loans, they did not start acquiring them until 2006. When the crisis in housing started in 2007, only 14% of mortgages were sub-prime. It was the Bush administration that was pushing home ownership using, as Mr. Bush proudly said, "the mighty muscle of the Federal government!" Most sub-prime loans were not first mortgages, they were re-finances, and they were being pushed by lenders because they made money on each one. the biggest problem was the mortgage industry itself, not government, not borrowers, but predatory lending. The government was aiding them by de-regulating, but that is a Republican issue, not Franks and Dodd. Derivatives, which I can`t explain, were the main cause of the housing bubble bursting, and they came from de-regulation. Mr. Franks, along with Mr. Oxley, tried in 2005 to re-regulate, and actually passed a bill in the House, but it died in the Senate because Mr. Bush promised to veto it. After the Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006, they finally did pass some new regulation in 2007, and Mr. Bush signed it last July.

"As to why I directed the question to you, you answered back with your witty retort. Nothing more, nothing less."
-
Yes, and the witty retort answered your question; you should have read the initial comments further before asking a question already answered.

"Must be nice to have a job or work were you can hover over a computer story all night (Or all day for that matter) cut and pasting. Not everyone has that kind of time. I forgot your better and smarter than the rest of us."
-
It is! For the record, being smarter than you is not a hard accomplishment. To your continued remarks of Royal and Air Force in the same context; if you had read your nations history we had separated from England and it's oppressiveness in the late 1700's, they have the Royal Air Force...now go back to feeding the world.

A few questions:

1. Why were Bush deficits which were declining bad but Obama deficits which are four times the size forever (no exit strategy) good?

2. Why is "paygo" a good idea for a Republican President but not a Democratic one?

3. Why do the same Democrats (Dodd, Frank, Obama) that insisted that government agencies like FreddieMac and FannieMae as well as private banks constantly increase subsidies for sub-prime mortgages now say they "inhereted the mess?"

4. Why is the media not calling for their heads as they would if such individuals worked in the private sector?

I'm sure I'll think of others.

Must be nice to have a job or work were you can hover over a computer story all night (Or all day for that matter) cut and pasting. Not everyone has that kind of time. I forgot your better and smarter than the rest of us.
-As to why I directed the question to you, you answered back with your witty retort. Nothing more, nothing less. Now I must go be productive and do my part to feed the world. Smile royal, its not that bad out there. We have a great president that will get this country going again. HeeHee, I bet that gets the ole blood pressure spiking. Does steam come out your ears when you get mad while your typing. bye

"What's with the teleprompter dig. You didn't answer my question about why using a teleprompter is a negative attribute."
-
If you were lucid enough to read, I am not the one that made the comment. I did comment on your dig about this; the next part of the original posters sentence answered your snide question. Anything else I can help you with?

"Wow, you were up all night ranting. Does it make you feel better that you are smarter thatn the rest of us."
-
Not everyone works during the day. Do come on here an complain of others ranting all day or are you here just to try and make a point to me?

Wow, you were up all night ranting. Does it make you feel better that you are smarter thatn the rest of us. You need to get a life, but before you rip into me, its a free country you can bitch about this all you want. I don't think you'll change anyone's mind.
- Please oh wise and worldly gazette web site oracle could you answer my latest conundrum. What's with the teleprompter dig. You didn't answer my question about why using a teleprompter is a negative attribute. Is it because you don't like people who read? Rip away royal air force.

Why doesn't Obama put forth the hundreds of millions of dollars he bilked people out of with Fannie Mae to help this country he so loves? The news won't give much detail on that deal! Doesn't mean it's not true. Not only that, I'm not republican either, so that theory you can lay to rest as well. I'm not into playing one side of the fence or the other. Somewhere in the middle where the truth can be found is where you'll find me.

"Please tell us what policies Obama voted...caused the same problems"?
-
How about the first three years as a US Senator requesting over 900 million dollars in earmarks for his home state. As I have said; wasteful spending by those in local/state/federal governments have got us to the point we are today. He is no different.

“during his 2 1/2 or so years in Congress,”
-
You mean his 6 years in a state senate seat and his 4 years as a US senator; that makes 12 years. For his past 4 years look here all you want at his record http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.... For the 6 years before that you will need to dig for yourself.

"You would have to give his policies an actual chance to work before you can say you are wrong about them. You've already decided they won't work, in numerous posts. You should be a politician."
-
How long is enough? The market has already lost a vast amount waiting, there is no reason to wait longer to voice oposition.

"Another attempt at reading minds that has failed you. I want to be the first one to say I was wrong about his policies and ideas. I want nothing more than this country to get through this and prosper. "If" his policies do that I will say great job, if not I will voice the opposite."

You would have to give his policies an actual chance to work before you can say you are wrong about them. You've already decided they won't work, in numerous posts. You should be a politician.

Again, you've failed to answer my question to your claim, besides the whole guilt by association thing. Please tell us what policies Obama voted for, during his 2 1/2 or so years in Congress, that, to use your own words, "caused the same problems"?

"Just be honest. Nothing he will ever say or do as President will satisfy you."
-
Another attempt at reading minds that has failed you. I want to be the first one to say I was wrong about his policies and ideas. I want nothing more than this country to get through this and prosper. "If" his policies do that I will say great job, if not I will voice the opposite. Unlike others here I send complaints and thanks my elected representatives of Government, those I supported and opposed. Just because I didn't vote for them does not mean every decision they make is different from my view. And when that is the case I tell them.

"You were one of those people complaining that he didn't have enough experience to be President, and now you're criticizing him for his experience."
-
Hardly. I am criticizing him for lack of action and finger pointing (not my fault, I inherited it); this shows the opposite of experience.

As far as his position/history from his own web page. That statement alone shows he was there in Washingotn (his own words) before the bubble...so try again.

"master at back tracking"
-
When did I say HE CAUSED the housing bubble? Those are your words not mine. If you would read words and not try to interpret meaning you would come off more believable. My words simply stated he did not inherit the problem. To inherit it he would have to have been absent from the system that was the cause; this is not true. You are the one that placed the housing bubble as the sole/only cause, try to keep up.

You are a master at back tracking RAF, I'll give you that. You make a specific claim, then when someone challenge that claim, you begin to generalize.

Please tell us what policies Obama voted for, during his 2 1/2 or so years in Congress, that caused these problems. Is he guilty by association then? You were one of those people complaining that he didn't have enough experience to be President, and now you're criticizing him for his experience. Just be honest. Nothing he will ever say or do as President will satisfy you.

The full quote is: "In the U.S. Senate, Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to increase penalties for mortgage fraud and provide more protections for low-income homebuyers, well before the current subprime crisis began."

Please explain how his bill, which hasn't been enacted, caused the housing problem.

Zoom -- Your contention that the "housing bubble" is the sole/only reason for the current state of fiscal irresponsibility in Washington is disingenuous. Lending practices, monetary supply, SEC rules, consumer debt, business debt, and wasteful government policies and spending from all levels local/state/federal have got us to the point we are today. Our current President has been a part of the system that has created the mess we are in now. Be completely dissolving him of any responsibility with statements like “inherited” displays your condoning of these actions. Just because you choose not to see it, doesn’t mean it is not true.

uh duh..."His own web page credits him; “provide more protections for low-income homebuyers, well before the current subprime crisis began.” That is part of what caused the hosuing bubble...but believe what you want. Mine is not blind hatred, just the same dislike for his policies I have had since the begining of his political life.

RAF, I see you are now trying to back track, by talking about "those in Washington" and "community activists". Obama did not lobby Washington before he got there. The housing bubble was at it's largest when he JOINED the U.S. Senate. If not for the housing bubble, there would be no stimulus for you to complain about! YOU said he voted on policies that "caused the problems". Show us his votes that caused the housing bubble. Show us facts, not just your blind hatred for the man.

Right, he has been there for over 4 years. But just NOW inherited the problems? Time to buy a clue! If those in Washington (all of them) had been doing their job we would not be in this latest crisis. You chose to echo his complaints of inheriting problems when he voted for the same lame stimulus plans he has now decried as the "the previous administrations" socialist actions, when in fact he has done nothing during his previous time in the senate to correct any of the problems he now says is a crisis. He is the same as most politicians, an opportunist; never let a good crisis go to waste. As far as the housing bubble and your lame attempt to say he had no part in it, think again. Community activists (yep, a position he holds high on his resume) for years have lobbied Washington to ease lending rules; the vary thing at the heart of the housing bubble; combined with poor fiscal policy from the fed. His own web page credits him; “provide more protections for low-income homebuyers, well before the current subprime crisis began.” So echoing him on inheriting the issue is devoid of facts.

"He has been in Washington for a large portion of his political life and been part of and voted for policies that caused the same problems---these are not inherited."

RAF, what are you rambling about now? Obama joined Washington in January 2005, at the PEAK of the housing bubble. You know, that thing that burst and caused our economy to crash. Housing bubbles are bad. Obama didn't help create the housing bubble.

actually, they do have public blogs available for others. I'm not too proud to share:
http://chrisbrady.typepad.com/my_weblog/...

andre....my source is exclusive. Not meaning better than anyone else's, but, nonetheless, exclusive. Reason being, most people aren't equipped to handle the truth in this day and age. We don't just hoard the info, we network it into communities. Something most people think they understand but have no clue about. I understand too. I WAS one of them!

andre, you have a reading comprehension problem. I said I don't care what corporate America THINKS about Obama, which relates to the newsweek article, if you read what you actually linked to.

There is no data that says the majority of Americans wants his socialist agenda to succeed, because there IS NO socialist agenda. Keep on creating those straw man arguments though. They're good for a laugh. You obviously have no idea what socialism even means. It doesn't mean rolling back a previous tax cut for the wealthiest 5% of americans, in the form of a whopping 3% marginal tax increase for income over $250k, which isn't even proposed to go into effect until 2011.

"The majority know he inherited this mess, have actually listened to his warning of continuing hard times, and actually want his plans to succeed."
-
The majority know the meaning of "inherited". When you ask for a position, the circumstances around that position are inherited; if you have never been a part of government. He has been in Washington for a large portion of his political life and been part of and voted for policies that caused the same problems---these are not inherited.

But andre, Obama isn't pissing off the majority of tax payers. The majority know he inherited this mess, have actually listened to his warning of continuing hard times, and actually want his plans to succeed.

Re: WSJ article about poll numbers:

Obama's overall approval ratings are about average for a president 50 days into his Presidency. So what? How many Presidents have had to deal with the worst recession since the Great Depression, from day 1 in office? There is a lot of misplaced anger out there. Also, Obama has chosen to push more of his agenda forward in his first 50 days than most Presidents do in a year. He also won the election with 53% of the popular vote. It's only natural that his approval numbers will come back down to earth. This is much todo about nothing.

Re: WSJ article about economist's grades:
From the article:

"Economists were divided over whether the $787 billion economic-stimulus package passed last month is enough. Some 43% said the U.S. will need another stimulus package on the order of nearly $500 billion. Others were skeptical of the need for stimulus at all."

The economists don't even agree on the right strategy! The economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks. Ya think? Geithner doesn't even have a full staff, and 50 days in they are giving him low grades. Where can I go grade the economists?

Re: Newsweek editorial

I agree with a lot of the criticism, but I couldn't give a rats @$$ what Manhattan-based media and corporate America think of Obama.

andre..you're entitled to your opinions. Actually I do have a very credible source. I prefer to have all the "fat" trimmed off my information and get to the issues. The national media isn't exactly geared to get us pure information. If that were the case, there would be no ads on TV and there would be no negative news. You can twist it anyway you like and sit on your couch and claim to be educated, but, the truth is, it won't happen that way.

Unidentified, please enumerate what "off budget" trillions you are talking about. What are they for, where are they coming from? The only money that Obama has actually spent is what has gone out of the stimulus bill. The $410 billion discretionary appropriations bill, plus $689 billion in mandatory spending nobody talks about, are part of the 2008-2009 budget of Mr. Bush, already accounted for when his budget was passed.

pharm: Those same off budget items for Bush hold true for trillions of dollars in bailout money Obama is proposing. Not to mention he gets to spend the other half of Bush's bailout. They laughed at the 700 billion then, but now it's OK to spend trillions. He's been in office a few months and between Obama and congress we're looking at several trillion in new spending. I don't understand why the Republicans and Democrats can't figure out that the more our government gets involved the worse things get.

The Wall Street Journal and FoxNews are writing negative articales about Obama? I'm shocked...shocked!!!

President Obama will be pissing off a lot of folks over the next few years, including insurance companies, teachers unions and Big Oil. That's a sign he's doing what he was elected to do.

The news is the last place I look for the truth Andre! Get real.

wisconsingirl52....sadly, that's what we're up against right there. It goes back to a "be careful what you wish for" thing. People that simply voted for "CHANGE" are finding out that change alone isn't the answer! Along with change comes vision, but, is the vision that's being layed out equipped with the right leaders to pull it off??? Anyone can LEAD, it's just a matter of what are they LEADING!

"Whats with the teleprompter dig? Your void of ideas if all you can bitch about is he reads from a teleprompter. Big deal"
-
Looks like you didn't read the next part of the sentence...looks like you are "void" of facts

You righties are getting shrill but still fun to read. I quit reading the comics because your paranoid rants are hilarious.
-I guess you'd be more happy if he were cutting brush and reading "My pet goat". The best part, your in the minority.
-Whats with the teleprompter dig? Your void of ideas if all you can bitch about is he reads from a teleprompter. Big deal

Obama is an amateur in the White House and in way over his head. He was a great campaigner (and is still doing it) and a great orator (with his teleprompter), but his agenda of socialism is crystal clear and his governing abilities hugely overrated. His lack of experience is showing. The only thing I take solace in these days is that I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM!

It's a classic case of sending a boy in to do a man's work. Obama may have the best intentions and is the master orater in instilling hope in a fading nation, but, actions speak louder than words. This isn't about who is right or wrong at this point...it's about what is right and what is wrong and coming to grips with it so we can move forward in our efforts to restore America!

pharm: and so was limbaugh but you'd never know it the way the media played it up.

Limbaugh is a first class screwball .

Finish the story, after hearing about the planes he retracted what he said. He was talking about Bush`s policies, and he explained that.

"These are not little Limbaughs hoping that Obama fails."
Speaking at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor 11 Sep 01, before the planes crashed into the towers. "I don't care if people like him or not, just so they didn't vote for him and his party. That is all I care about. I hope he doesn't succeed, but I am a partisan democrate." This was given by James Caville. Interesting that this is never brought up when they speak of Limbaugh's comment, which they seem to forget to attach the previous words spoken.
One should never wish for failure of a President but one does have a right to wish for failure of those policies which one believes will do more harm then good.

Unidentified, Mr. Bush doubled the debt from $5.8 trillion to over $11.5 trillion by the time his last budget is done at the end of September, I hardly think Mr. Obama can accomplish that in one year. He proposed a $3.6 trillion budget that includes both wars and disaster relief. Mr. Bush`s last budget was $3.1 trillion, and those items were "off" budget, not shown. We may not agree with some of his ideas, but lets not buy into the rhetoric of the now "conservatives", re-born as they seem to be!

Obama's modus operandi is becoming more and more self evident. He creates a crisis by talking down about a problem and makes full use of his friends in the lap-dog media to make it sound so bad that only he has the correct solution. Then he dances in like the pied piper and says he has the means to make everything right again. He demands we must allow him full and total freedom to raise taxes and add additional regulations. He did this scenario with the TARP money, the money for the bailout of the auto industry, and the latest stimulus bill. And at last I heard there are at least two more bailout/stimulus bills on the table. I guess the phrase Obama uttered "spreading the wealth around" was more prophetic than we realize.

Although I like the man as a person, I think his lack of experience in politics is catching up with him. Although the current problems can’t be blamed on Obama, he has to be careful not to exacerbate them. First off, he with all of his current proposals he could add more debt in the first year than Bush did in eight years. Secondly, he has to back off from criticizing Wall Street. These people control a large portion of America’s wealth. Not every Wall Street financial advisor or corporate executive is a crook. The same holds true for the wealthy. Although I understand the need to add more balance to the economy, I don’t believe people should be penalized for being successful. He must also understand that a majority of this nation’s tax revenues come from the top wage earners. As a result, although his intentions are good and some of his proposals needed, his choice of words is not. He paints with broad brushes when speaking of those with money. He runs the risk of pushing investors and corporations overseas if he continues to criticize those who have positions of financial wealth.

barack "tellaprompter obama", thy cracks in thy armor have caught up with you