Game over rethuglicans

Turning a corner to avoid an inevitable progressive dead end makes sense. Timing is off though. The original course was set an inexperienced ideologue who did not have adults advising him in the first place. But then again it's all Bush's fault, anyway.

I like this quote from another source. It's so true about how politicians manipulate the gullible electorate.

"Looking back to the presidential campaign, please remember Obama's campaign pledge was "change you can believe in". Obama never promised "change you could actually see."

Game over rethuglicans

Mid term elections depend heavily on the President's approval ratings. His election team did an amazing job with one candidate, it will be interesting to see what they can do with every senator or senate candidate as well as every house seat.

If they don't pass healthcare a lot of Democrats are going to stay home as well.

The "change" will be less democrats in the House and Senate. Hard to believe they could shoot themselves in the foot this way. Independents rule!!!

I also noticed that he's brought back the blame bush mantra.

translation: we are going to lie even more.

If they don't pass healthcare a lot of Democrats are going to stay home as well.

If they don't pass health reform, Democrats in Congress might as well start packing now and beat the rush out of town. There's no way Dems will accept them passing the bill in both houses and then giving up on it because of one Senate loss.

Obama has been campaigning for how many years now?
Perhaps if he spent less time reading to the people and more time actually working on real solutions,he wouldn't be in the mess he is in. He needs to shed the teleprompter and really talk to the American people, if that is even possible. He needs to stop pushing his transformation of America in his desired image and actually work on boosting the economy and job market.

That would be because his Messiac era is at an end.

1-20-2013 END OF AN ERROR

I also noticed that he's brought back the blame bush mantra.

#6 | Posted by JaySherman

They've never stopped beating that dead horse.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2010-01-24 10:32 AM |

Healthcare is about fourth on the list according to a recent NBC poll. Watched both Axlerod and Jarrett spew the exact same rhetoric which lost them elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and now Massachusetts. They continue to blame repubs and Bush, they continue the backwards thinking that things could have been worse is an answer. Jarrett came out and claimed Obama's number one priority in 2009 was jobs. She was asked point blank, "What does Obama have planned to create jobs this year?" No surprise, she had nothing.

The apology tour will continue as long as his teleprompters are working.
Voters who supported barry obama should be ashamed of their ignorance.

1-20-2013
END OF AN ERROR

Healthcare is about fourth on the list according to a recent NBC poll

Right but its probably #1 to the far left base of the DNC. If they don't get it, I'd bet on them staying home and the Democrats losing big time. I wouldn't be surprised either if a legitimate third party leftist candidate emerged in 2012. The far left is pretty pissed off right now, so much so that I wonder if the damage is already done for the midterms.

The president's leading pollster, Joel Benenson, will be among those conducting research for Mr. Plouffe, aides said, along with others who will divide the country by regions.

By all means keep this guy out there. So far he and Obama are two for two in New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Someone should tell him his election is over. It is time for action not words. He has averaged over one election speech a day since he took office. It is time to stop the campaign.

"He needs to stop pushing his transformation of America in his desired image...."

Yes...like Clinton did in 1994. However, I don't think THIS guy is capable of doing that. Just look at his history and the people he has selected to surround himself. I would be very surprised to see any REAL moderation in his politics.

Jes, you are right. He has surrounded himself with radical lefties and commies.

He really does need to stop trying to bring health care reform to America, he needs to stop trying to re-regulate the financial industry, he needs to stop trying to preserve and create jobs, he needs to stop doing anything at all which isn't supported by the right wingers who cheered on the creation of our debts, the outsourcing of our jobs, tax cuts for the rich, 16% of GDP for health care and all the other things for which they should be so proud. Why would any president try to go against the will of all the geniuses who have brought America to where it is today?
In today's political climate it isn't ideas that matter but emotional talking points that evoke rugged individualist feelings, conveniently brought to you by corporate honchos who create astro turf organizations that allow people struggling to make ends meet feel that they are defending a way of life that doesn't really even exist.

He's never stopped campaigning. That's been his problem.

Did he mistakenly send out a reunion invitation to Major Hasan?

Just being political won't do it anymore---it's simple, if the economy isn't better in 2012, the usual rhetoric will be old.

Can anyone say HELP.

Harry Reid will be next to "benefit from Obama's magic. LOL

Its Not that we Haven't heard what this president has said or that we don't understand how he wants to 'fundamentally transform" this country.

It's that we have heard and we have seen and we do understand. And we reject it as a path we want to continue on or the kind of nation BO's policies will hand over to our children and grandchildren.

Obama has been campaigning for how many years now?
Perhaps if he spent less time reading to the people and more time actually working on real solutions,he wouldn't be in the mess he is in.

#9 | Posted by KBM at 2010-01-24 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

YEAH!!

I mean Bush was a true man of action when he was told "The nation is under attack" while reading to kids.

7 whole minutes of NOTHING. Not a single question as to the nature of the attack, severity...etc.....all while surrounding himself with kids. FUCKING DISGUSTING!

He potentially endangered the lives of those children by not getting away from them as soon as he was told, but NOPE, "The Decider" decided to do nothing.

Posted by COMMON DENSE

A whole 7 minutes, huh....wow. BS award.

omg, not more hope and change we can believe in, when he did that last he grew government by a bizillion and spent more than like the last 5 presidents combined. but somehow its bushes fault, or at least thats the lie the libtards will keep selling.

Please obama, no more hope or change, we just can afford it..

#26 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-01-25 04:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

It really is getting old listening to Democrats whining about former President Bush. The worst part about it is you guys spent eight long years criticizing Republicans every-single-time they brought up former President Clinton.

So let's try something new.

Let's acknowledge the past. Let's learn from mistakes and successes. Let's move the fuck on. Jesus mother fucking christ you god damn whiney bitches are so fucking annoying with your Bush did this Cheney did that Clinton fucked an intern bullshit.

If this country is falling apart at the seams, it has very, very little to do with the current administration and very much to do with the fact that you worthless fucks can't manage to pull your heads out of your asses.

So as to be expected , Obama feels his current dire straits should be addressed with a
" PR MAKEOVER"

How clueless.

Does the embarassment ever end for you Obama libs ???

I mean Bush was a true man of action when he was told "The nation is under attack" while reading to kids.

#26 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

There should be a dump policy..... for fantastically far reaching attempts to make insanely remote issues relevant to Obama's failings.

what a turd that attempt was... to redirect toward Bush.

I mean it's just a crazy joke, that you tried that, right?????

Obama's election team = quicker-than-the-eye magicians. Are you entertained yet kids? Eat your heart out David Blaine!

7 whole minutes of NOTHING. Not a single question as to the nature of the attack, severity...etc.....all while surrounding himself with kids. FUCKING DISGUSTING!

#26 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

little o acted so swiftly responding to the panty bomber. 72 hours!!!

Bringing BACK the election team? When did the Obama campaign ever stop?

Here's an even better question. When will candidate Obama actually become President Obama?

Dude, quit complaining and obfuscating! It's time now for you to LEAD! No more fucking happy talk. We want to see the jobs!

(pssst! this should be fun to watch as CONSERVATIVE ideas are used to finally rescue the economy...heheheh!

-CONSERVATIVE ideas are used to finally rescue the economy...heheheh!

Of course,. it was "conservative" ideas like preemptive wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, and financial deregulation that screwed the economy.

Of course,. it was "conservative" ideas like preemptive wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, and financial deregulation that screwed the economy.

#35 | Posted by Corky

Nope; it was the threat of Government sanctions against the banks they regulated had they failed to grant loans..

...to folks that COULD NOT AFFORD THEM.

It was the Federal Government, with Barney Frank at the helm, that did this.

Frank and others promoted bad bank behavior. And they did it under the threat of law.

#36

Still cognitively dissonant after all these years.

Those loans were bad enough, but not disastrous until Rethugs deregulated financials so that physicists were hired to package them as salable products.

No wonder people who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.

it was the threat of Government sanctions against the banks they regulated had they failed to grant loans..."

If that were true, all banks would have been involved. the fact they weren't belies your point.

"It was the Federal Government, with Barney Frank at the helm, that did this. Frank and others promoted bad bank behavior. And they did it under the threat of law."

Really? What did they do, legally, to the banks that didn't get involved in leveraging sub-prime loans against each other? And who, specifically wrote the law, seeing as how the Dems haven't had a financial bill written and passed in a generation?

#19 | Posted by danni at 2010-01-24 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wrong ,the issue is he is ignoring the unemployment situation and pushing health care 'reform' that most don't believe will reform health care.

He is pushing change that few believe in.

"Those loans were bad enough, but not disastrous until Rethugs deregulated financials so that physicists were hired to package them as salable products."

How did this cause consumers to buy homes they couldn't afford and get further and further into credit debt? What does the packaging and selling of loans have anything to do with the consumers? Other than the defaults when they over extended?

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-25 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ouch...

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2010-01-25 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hate to confuse Corky with facts....

"Ouch..."

Gee, an opinion from one person?

Feel free to show what laws the Dems wrote, or what legal ramifications were felt by banks that avoided the sub-prime mess.

In the meantime...Ouch:

-What does the packaging and selling of loans have anything to do with the consumers?

That's what brought down the banks, dumbass; making small marginal loans into huge disastrous ones.

The areas of NYc with the highest amount of foreclosures are all working class minority neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens. Perhaps they should have done some research befor ebuying an ARM.

"How did this cause consumers to buy homes they couldn't afford and get further and further into credit debt? "

If you haven't noticed, it's called loan approval, and it's all done via a formula the banks like keeping secret. And whomever is putting up the money, and getting the rewards, should also shoulder the risks. Presumably, at least one of the signatures on the deal is from someone who graduated business school and passed classes on acceptable risk.

#42

The article is about the small marginal loans, not about the Repunk deregulation that turned them into a major disaster.

"Perhaps they should have done some research befor ebuying an ARM."

Research the lenders didn't have to do?!? Banks have been able to loan to people who couldn't pay back for centuries. Why did they recently change their policies?

What good is research when the sellers out and lie about the product being "insured"?

"That's what brought down the banks, dumbass; making small marginal loans into huge disastrous ones."

No shit? They became disastrous when the consumers defaulted. That was after the consumers decision to over extend. Right Sparky? Read the question again. What did it have to do with the consumer "choosing" to buy homes they couldn't afford? Had they not bought them or had the Government not eased the guidelines, would the banks have been brought down? Or would they have sold or serviced the performing loans at a profit?

Presumably, at least one of the signatures on the deal is from someone who graduated business school and passed classes on acceptable risk.

#46 | Posted by Danforth

You are kidding me. Mortgage Brokers are not business school graduates. The only requirement is the ability to close sales on the phone. Perhaps if you ever bought a mortgage you would know this

Had the loans not been packaged by physicists into huge monstrosities that no one really understood and sold as insured when they were not, the impact of mortgage defaults would not have been on the scale that it was.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-25 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Gee, an opinion from one person?

One person? I counted 4 or 5 direct quotes from people directly involved in the negotiations. Also multiple references to the congressional record.

Your response shows you for what you are.

Carry on sheeple. But don't stray too far from your shepard. You might get lost.

"Perhaps they should have done some research befor ebuying an ARM."

Research the lenders didn't have to do?!? Banks have been able to loan to people who couldn't pay back for centuries. Why did they recently change their policies?

#48 | Posted by Danforth

Son banks were bailed out and are doing fine. The borrowers lost their homes and destroyed their credit. They will not be able to get another mortgage for at least 7 years. Who lost? Who won ?
The fact is that people who bought ARMS were stupid and are paying rent once again

"If you haven't noticed, it's called loan approval, and it's all done via a formula the banks like keeping secret."

Fannie/Freddie write the guidelines for what they will guarantee. They are all done via electronic underwriting. A lender puts in the information and the system determines the qualifications and pricing. Almost all home loans are based on what Fannie/Freddie say is sellable.

"Son banks were bailed out and are doing fine. The borrowers lost their homes and destroyed their credit. They will not be able to get another mortgage for at least 7 years. Who lost? Who won ?"

So bankers fucked over a lot of people and came out smelling like a rose, and therefore it's the borrowers' fault...is that your point?!?

See, according to Timbecile, people who sold said products were liars and cheats and crooks and should be rewarded as true American capitalist heroes.

Don't you get it?

Almost all home loans are based on what Fannie/Freddie say is sellable.

And when did they endorse "liar's loans", 125% LTV loans, or reset loans...?

"Your response shows you for what you are."

So I'm guessing that means you don't have a single example of what legal steps were taken against banks which didn't get involved in the sub-prime mess, or one financial rule a Dem wrote and got signed into law.

Thanks for playing.

So bankers fucked over a lot of people and came out smelling like a rose, and therefore it's the borrowers' fault...is that your point?!?

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-25 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Stupid is as stupid does.

"You mean I don't have to pay for 'dat' for six months?

"The article is about the small marginal loans, not about the Repunk deregulation that turned them into a major disaster."

Both parties are responsible and it has been building for decades. Fanny and Freddie never made loans. They purchased packages of loans that were made by regular lenders which provided the lenders with more money to loan. They purchased the loans at a "discount" and that's why the lenders charged "discount points" at closing. They knew how much the discount was going to be because they had a commitment from Fannie or Freddie for a certain time period. The lenders' main profit came from "origination fees," typically 1% or 1.5%, charged at closing.
They would then sell the package of loans to Fannie or Freddie to get cash to "originate" more loans and they might continue to service the loan for a small fee. There was a requirement that loans be "conforming" loans in order to be packaged and sold to Fannie or Freddie and THAT'S where the problem came in.
In 1977, the CRA was passed and required lenders to to make 5% of their loans to "risky" buyers and they could be included with the "conforming" loans in packages for Fannie and Freddie. Up until then, lenders kept any non-conforming loans in their own portfolios. Usually, those were very large loans above the Fannie and Freddie standard. Five percent was very easy to absorb, but every administration after Carter INCREASED the percentage of "risky" loans until I believe it became 50% during Clinton's administration and I believe 56% during Bush's. All this, coupled with lower qualifications, "no-doc" loans and such, finally led to the crash. I think people were getting loans with a credit rating as low as 520. I understand that it is back up now to 720 or 740.
My whole point is that it's foolish to blame a particular president or administration for this. They are all complicit to some extent and they did it to buy votes...PERIOD. It may have started out to benefit some part of the population, but you can see how it ended up.

So bankers fucked over a lot of people and came out smelling like a rose, and therefore it's the borrowers' fault...is that your point?!?

For over a year we have all heard how it was the buyer's fault. Again the right wing ding victim mentality... it is always someone else's fault.

The buyer's were at fault yes. But the mortgage lenders who offered loans to these people without verifying job, income or assets are more culpable. The industry was in the business of making the loans and did so in a reckless and negligent manner. But what did the bankers care? They would get a fat bonus based on the income earned from writing the loan. The bank didn't care because it would be carved up, repackaged and sold to a third party.

But in the wing ding reality it is solely the borrowers fault.

Reality and the right do not mix.

#60 | Posted by midtowncowboy

... it is always someone else's fault.

Posted by 726

Bush's? LOL

"In 1977, the CRA was passed"

And somehow, somehow it worked fine for 30 years, and then was the reason for the meltdown.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Any theories that would actually pass Econ 101 muster?

"every administration after Carter INCREASED the percentage of "risky" loans until I believe it became 50% during Clinton's administration and I believe 56% during Bush's."

Link?

But in the wing ding reality it is solely the borrowers fault.

#62 | Posted by 726 at 2010-01-25 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

So when those getting the loans, signed the promissory note, they were tricked? Or were just too giddy to care? Or were just frauds?

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-25 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag

I wasn't arguing that point. I showing you links to interviews and references to congressional records that shows the previous two administrations did not want to regulate the instruments being used to finance these crappy loans. They both feared regulation would create a meltdown. Which eventually occurred.

So when those getting the loans, signed the promissory note, they were tricked? Or were just too giddy to care? Or were just frauds?

#66 | Posted by midtowncowboy

Of course they were! Why do you think the Closing Attorney has that bowl of candy on their desk!!!lol

"But the mortgage lenders who offered loans to these people without verifying job, income or assets are more culpable. The industry was in the business of making the loans and did so in a reckless and negligent manner. But what did the bankers care?"

In the beginning, as I said before, loans had to be "conforming" in order to sell off in the secondary market. Despite warnings from Congress, the Clinton administration pushed lenders to lower qualifications and lenders were given a "CRA rating" in 1992 in order to grade the "diversity" of the lenders. Fannie and Freddie were then permitted to buy those loans. That all opened up the "subprime" market to lenders and they went wild. After all, they just originated the loans, collected the origination fees and sold them off to Fannie and Freddie. It was the investors with Fannie and Freddie who took it in the shorts, along with the government (taxpayers) who had guaranteed or insured those loans. Of course, the lenders income dried up when they were stuck with the loans they had made and weren't getting that stream of money from Fannie and Freddie any more.
I believe youcan find a pretty history of all this at Investors.com or a number of other sites. Avoid those that are just trying to fix BLAME on a particular individual or administration.

"They both feared regulation would create a meltdown. Which eventually occurred."

But the meltdown had nothing to do with the CRA. CRA loans actually had a lower rate of default.

The "multicultural housing policy" the editorial refers to is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which encouraged the extension of credit to poor people and minorities. Conservativeslike the writers of the IBD editorialsay the CRA "led to a reckless surge in mortgage lending that has pushed our financial system to the brink of chaos." But the vast majority of subprime loans were made by institutions that were not subject to the CRA, and studies have shown that the act has actually increased the amount of responsible lending to poor families.

"So when those offering the loans signed the promissory note, they were tricked?"

FTFY.

So bankers fucked over a lot of people and came out smelling like a rose, and therefore it's the borrowers' fault...is that your point?!?

It is absolutely the borrowers fault. They freely signed a mortgage with an adjustable rate. Perhaps if they were not so greedy, they would have got a 30 year fixed mortgage instead. THe mortgage broker was going to get a commission and move on. He is merely an employee. The borrower has more skin in the game. Just like women who receive abortions should be sent to prison, people who default on mortgager and are under 40 should be arrested and sent to serve no less than 4 years in the US Army. Yhose under 40 should be forced to forfeit their medicare benefits and social security to pay off the mortgage.

"Stupid is as stupid does. "You mean I don't have to pay for 'dat' for six months?""

You mean the lender actually thought he'd be able to afford a reset in 18 months, or was the lender's plan just to have resold it often enough for it not to effect his bottom line?

"It is absolutely the borrowers fault. They freely signed a mortgage with an adjustable rate."

And whose fault is it some banks took stupid risks? Oh...that's right...that's the borrowers' fault, too.

"Perhaps if they were not so greedy, they would have got a 30 year fixed mortgage instead."

Another who never heard the phrase loan approval. Remember, it's the b-school braniacs who are supposed to tell the great unwashed what they can and cannot afford. After all, they're the ones putting up the money, right? Oh, wait...that would now be the taxpayers.

"The borrower has more skin in the game. "

Well, yeah, if the bankers get bailed out for their mistakes. How would bankers have reacted if failed loans came out of their pockets...you know, like the "free market" they champion when they're making money?

"Just like women who receive abortions should be sent to prison..."

Thanks for that clarification. I wasn't sure exactly what level of idiot I was dealing with.

"Link?"

Here you go, Dan, from the Washington Post.

"Indeed, in a June 10 article, The Washington Post reported that in 2004, "President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent."

"And whose fault is it some banks took stupid risks? Oh...that's right...that's the borrowers' fault, too."

Do you think for one minute that the lenders would have made those loans if they didn't have guarantees from the government? The government wrote the rules and the lenders took advantage. Most of those borrowers who ended up in default just weren't necessarily very up on what was going on, but some were able to figure it out...I could get a mortgage with very little or no money down, seller paying closing costs, move in and NEVER make a payment. it might take the lender a year to finally foreclose and get me out of the house. Not a bad deal for housing for a year....
Most of those who were foreclosed were victims of a sort, told by real estae salesmen and mortgage bankers that they could handle the payments easily...and then, after a few years, the interest rate blossomed.

"President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent."

That's affordable housing, not CRA lending.

BTW, thanks for the meadiamatters link you provided. It underscores all of my points, and none of yours.

"Do you think for one minute that the lenders would have made those loans if they didn't have guarantees from the government?"

Maybe we've identified the problem.

"The government wrote the rules and the lenders took advantage."

I'd agree if all banks did this. Only folks who were willing to trade basic business common sense for market share decided leveraging, say, liar's loans against 125% LTVs at 50-1 was a worthwhile gamble.

"Most of those who were foreclosed were victims of a sort, told by real estae salesmen and mortgage bankers that they could handle the payments easily...and then, after a few years, the interest rate blossomed."

I knew better. You knew better. How is it they didn't?

".I could get a mortgage with very little or no money down, seller paying closing costs, move in and NEVER make a payment. it might take the lender a year to finally foreclose and get me out of the house. Not a bad deal for housing for a year...."

And you're willing to do that, lose any money down, move twice, and screw your borrowing abilities for the next decade or so...just to pay less for housing for a year?

I'd call that a bad deal.

"I knew better. You knew better. How is it they didn't?"

I guarantee you a good number of them didn't know how much taxes they were paying, What FICA is, where the sun comes up or who is the vice president. They were led by the hand through the whole process by the real estate agents and mortgage lenders I mentioned before.

"I'd call that a bad deal."

So would I, but some don't.

"They were led by the hand through the whole process by the real estate agents and mortgage lenders I mentioned before."

The folks who chose profit over truth, when others' futures were at stake?

Yeah...I agree.

My father was in real estate for about 35 years, and I can't count how many times I walked by his home office and heard him tell someone they just couldn't afford that house. I'm sure he could have done much better financially had his scruples been for sale.

It is fun to see the excuse artists trying to affix the blame entirely on the buyer.

Hey dipshits, there are two sides to a contract. Perhaps you should have paid attention in school.

Or are you gonna tell us next that the buyers FORCED the bank loan officers to approve them for a loan the bank knew they could not afford? So how did they do it? Did they threaten the bankers?

The buyers got fucked over three times. Once when they were approved for a loan they could not afford, once when they lost their house and any equity they had and again when the bankers were bailed out and then proceeded to pay themselves nice fat bonuses.

If you loan someone $20 that you know cannot afford to pay you back, you act like it is not your fault in any way when you don't get paid.

It is fun to see the excuse artists trying to affix the blame entirely on the buyer.

There is not a person selling a product or service who will refuse someone's money. That's why caveat emptor should be the first consideration of anyone parting with their money.

There is not a person selling a product or service who will refuse someone's money.

You just made my arguement. Thank you. The banks had the money and had the (supposedly) educated personnell in place to know when a loan was a bad risk or a good risk. They failed.

But of course all the blame lies at the feet of the borrowers. Those poor poor poor bankers were taken advantage of.

You just made my arguement.

So you believe, as I stated, in caveat emptor?

DONT WORRY DEMS

the goddamn dems are finding ways to keep up the assult on the constitution and your freedoms and liberty....
cant get 60 votes in senate??
SHIT..thats easy to take care of....
same way they want to take care of rush and beck and conservatives...
change the rules

Hey Barrack,

Time to stop with the PR and start with making useful change.

ditto

and he hasnt STOPPED campaigning..

surely even the lowest and most radical liberal here sees that this is a sure sign of desperation??

OF COURSE ,maybe he needs someone to tell him how stupid he looks standing in a room with children with a teleprompter there whether he used it with the kids or not...

and to tell him that blaming bush period is well over and for dumbshits like axelrod to not say stupid shit like he did yesterday on tv

"the people will never know whats in the bill, until we pass it."....

Go Obama go! Please don't stop, please don't change, don't give in. You are right, so power to you. Everything you touch is golden and so just keep on task with your agenda. It would be a disaster to move to the center for you, and might even put your legacy in jeopardy if you do. You are the most popular president ever and everyone loves your agenda, or will some day. Good Lord keep going and never quit or change. Go campaign with all the dems to help them out, they need your Midas touch, so make sure to campaign in person with every dem up in November. Make sure you are seen on tv with the candidate, then speak your agenda. Please, please, please Obama. Go Obama! Never quite, never give in, never give up (especially on health care, cap and trade, global warming, and stimulus packages).

The light skinned Negro knows how to do nothing but campaign he is soooooooooo fucking smart he needs a teleprompter in front of kids, I guess even the kids would know he would sound like a major dumbass without it.

read the fucking small print, buyer beware, if it's to good to be true,tattoo that on your arm and save yourself a lot of heartache.

We will now get the new and improved Obama 7. No bugs this time, like stimulus, tarp, cap-n-trade, or health care. He'll boot faster and will have a flashy, user-friendly interface. Security issues, though, will probably continue.

"That's why caveat emptor should be the first consideration of anyone parting with their money."

Except, it seems, with the lenders, who got their mistakes covered by the taxpayers.