How can you expect President Obama to repair in four years what Bush took Eight years to destroy?

Its easy if you are retarded.

Lol.

How could you think president Obama is actually improving anything? From my point of view I see things have only gotten worse.

More crime, less value in my dollar, more debt, more war, more police brutality, more false flags and more sovereignty sacrificed to molest people.

If I can do it in a week obama can do it in four years!

Arrest all the bankers and the 9/11 perps. Create an emergency economic council from the best economic minds in the universities.bring back glass steagal and move to a gold back currency.

Then the road to recovery will be set.

Enough bloody said!

Specifics?

What, specifically, is he trying to fix?

What, specifically, was Bush culpable of?

Housing and mortgage?

Wall street and finance?

War?

Surplus of what?

The budget and spending?

How does that affect the debt?

What budget are they working with currently?

That's why he said we should elect him, because he could fix it. He didn't say he'd try, he said he would. He didn't and now he's going to get fired.

no one expects repair, its the trying that counts. which is was he's not doing.

Even the vaunted Bill Clinton Who Republicans all of a sudden L-O-V-E said that even HE could not repair the damage President Obama inherited in Four years.

Your thoughts?

Please STOP being such a good servant to your masters and get over the LEFT AND RIGHT paradigm. Its embarrassing...

Because He promise he could,Just so he would get elected, that's why.

People only loved Bill Clinton because he gave everyone free money and no one expected any consequences since it was indirect inflation.

Americans have not been dumbed down enough to elect Romney.

Romney says he will create 12 million jobs but the CBO says that 12 million jobs will be created no matter WHO is President.

Romney is a lying Snake oil salesman and a tax dodging liar.

Shall I go on about Romney?

Proof?

You have shown you don't know or it's your age. Yes Bush was handed a surplus. But Bush had to work with democrats in the house. Try researching Dodd frank bill. That caused the housing bubble. In other word's lending money to people who couldn't afford home's. (housing bubble) which caused the crisis. Housing has not recovered under Obama since. Bush also only spent four trillion in eight year's. Obama has spent 5.4 trillion in four year's.

He gave McCain 20 years worth of taxes when he wanted to be his VP but he won't show the American people 10 years worth and he wants to be their President.

Whatever McCain saw made him go with Palin Ha ha ha!!!

LOL, people need to dig a bit deeper than Bush.

Guess who drew up those nice housing regulations that forced

banks to lend to those that did not have the income to repay

outrageous loans?


Guess why we have $4/gallon gas these days? Look up the new

EPA regulations on the oil refinery's and see how many have

closed due to these regulations in the past 2 years.

Yeah, still waiting on your proof...

Do you have anything other than accusations?

Yes

or

No

OP,

This is a good explanation of how this mess came about. Read & Educate yourself

So Obama Inherited a Mess, Did He? From Whom?

For the past three and a half years, we have had to endure the nonstop whining of Barack Obama and his surrogates telling us over and over that he inherited the financial mess that required him to add trillions of dollars to the national debt, to run trillion-dollar-plus deficits for each year that he's been in office.

Now he is telling us that he needs another four years and trillions more in money borrowed from China to complete the clean-up of the mess he inherited.

Well, for once, he nearly has it right. He inherited not simply a financial mess, but a historic financial disaster. Even the most virulent anti-Obama partisans will admit that Barack Obama didn't directly create the 2007-2008 financial meltdown.

But Obama's own claims that it was all the fault of his predecessor, George W. Bush, sounded a little thin the first time he uttered them, while now they appear remarkably transparent. The source of the financial crisis precedes Bush by a number of years, and like many landslides, it starts with a small pebble being dropped that starts the whole thing.

Looking backward through the historical record might help us decide just who provided Barack Obama with the financial legacy he has to cope with if it wasn't Bush.

In 2007-2008, the major financial institutions of Wall Street found themselves holding hundreds of billions of dollars in so-called derivatives. And just what are derivatives? Derivatives are similar to stock, in that they indicate ownership of a share of an underlying asset. Usually, as we know, those shares represent partial ownership of a corporation. The corporation is valued based on attendant physical assets such as land, buildings, inventory, and such as well as intangibles such as patents. Toss in the value of the corporation's receivables (net of liabilities), and bingo! -- you have a value. At least you have a value for a corporate shell, if not a going concern. The value of the going concern, or market value, also reflects the value to investors of the skills of management, the financial strength of the corporation, and the profit that the shareholders expect to get as either dividends or capital appreciation if the market value of the shares of stock increase.

In the case of derivatives, the underlying asset is based on a bundle of mortgages that have been accumulated and collateralized as a unit. Each bundle is assumed to be sound in that there are houses backing up each one as a physical asset, as well as a calculable amount of interest income from each mortgage. Seems fairly simple, and pretty safe as well. Not as flashy an investment as putting money into another Microsoft or Apple might be, but viewed as safe. Stable. Boring.

OK, maybe it didn't turn out to be so boring after all.

During the period preceding the financial meltdown, the rate of growth in new home sales accelerated sharply. The following graph from the U.S. Census Bureau (which admittedly tracks only new home sales by month) shows that the rate of price increases was fairly stable from early 1973 through most of 1996 (green trend line). Yes, prices rose, but at a steady, relatively predictable rate, which appears to be approximately 0.4% per month.

From 1996 through the middle of 2003 (orange trend line), this price appreciation seems to have accelerated to something approaching a rate of price increase of approximately 0.5%.

You might be asking yourself at this point, "0.4% or 0.5%. What's the big deal?" Well, that one-tenth-percentage-point increase in the rate of price increase is about a 20% faster rise in prices when you compare it to the prior period, which lasted 23 years.

Finally, in the period from mid-2003 through the first quarter of 2007 (red trend line), the rate of new house pricing grew at an even faster rate of approximately 0.65% per month. Again, in isolation that doesn't sound like a horrendous number, but if you look at the graph again, it means that the average price of a new home increased nearly $100,000 in only four years. In the final period before the housing bubble burst, the rate of growth in housing prices grew nearly 55% faster than that 23-year period of stable growth.


So what happened? Well, when there is a significant acceleration in the growth of prices, most economists will tell you that there is probably inflation occurring, where too much money is trying to buy too few goods.

That seems like a pretty safe assumption, doesn't it?

But then the next question has to be, "Where did all that extra money come from?"

It was due in large part to the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977. The CRA was amended in 1989 -- and again in 1991, and 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2007, and finally 2008. While much of the CRA is concerned with technical matters, the key component that impacts the housing bubble of 2003-2007 was the relaxation of lending standards that were in turn the result of accusations of "red-lining" certain neighborhoods -- a practice deemed to be de facto racial discrimination.

In 1995, Barack Obama was the lead attorney in an anti-discrimination lawsuit filed against Citibank for alleged "red-lining" practices which the plaintiffs claimed denied equal access to mortgage loans for African-Americans.

Claims of racial discrimination were frequently aimed at banks in the mid-1990s by community activists who, through judicial actions or by producing demonstrations by irate citizens, embarrassed banks into lowering their lending requirements to the point where, in common parlance, banks began issuing "sub-prime" mortgages. In an effort to both protect the financial integrity of local community banks and provide access to enormous amounts of cash for mortgages, Congress instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase such mortgages from the original lender, returning the original lender to his original state of liquidity.

Fannie and Freddie then offered institutions such as Lehman Brothers and other major Wall Street firms a chance to "bundle" these mortgages and sell derivative securities, with their value basis predicated on such bundles.

What everyone in this chain of perhaps well-intentioned decisions overlooked was the impact on housing prices when more and more money was made available to enter the market in search of fewer and fewer houses. Yes, that's right: the housing market began to overheat, and the price of both new and existing homes started to climb.

The sub-prime market allowed people to borrow large sums for their mortgages with little money down, and that is a key factor in what followed. Borrowers were offered adjustable-rate mortgages (ARM) that charged them far lower interest rates for the first few years of their mortgage, to ease their ability to secure the loan in the first place by lowering their monthly payment to be more in line with their actual income. Neither lenders nor borrowers seemed particularly concerned about the two words that would help start the avalanche of collapse -- Adjustable Rate.

As the rate on ARMs was pushed upward (in accordance with the mortgage structure agreed to by each borrower), the mortgage payments for many borrowers rose to a level that they could barely support.

Making matters even worse, property taxes for states, counties, municipalities, school districts, and so on were all being adjusted upward to cash in on the (apparently) endless increases in home values that all that cheap mortgage money was causing. Those taxes were added to the already higher basic mortgage payments, and they made the homeowner stretch his or her paycheck even further to cover all these costs.

But most borrowers felt that since their own homes would increase in value the longer they held onto them, they should keep trying to meet their obligations with a view toward "flipping" the property and making a profit if their ability to make their payments became impossible.

Like most economic bubbles, this belief exacerbated the problem. Instead of selling out and at least walking away unharmed, buyers kept offering their homes at higher prices, assuming that since all housing prices were rising, their houses must be worth more as well.

Well, in late 2006-early 2007, prices started to tumble. Homeowners began to find themselves "underwater," owing more on their mortgages than they could generate from the sale of the property at prevailing market prices. Those who found themselves in this situation faced a binary choice: they could continue to pay the post-adjustment interest rate on their ARM as well as the inflated property taxes that climbed along with rising housing prices or, if they had little or no money invested in their down payment, they could simply walk away and let the bank repossess the property.

Since the foreclosed properties often had market values below the mortgage value, the mortgage itself was not actually "worth" its face value. Therefore, the worth of all sub-prime mortgages became suspect, and the value of derivatives based on bundles of those mortgages became questionable. The financial collapse followed.

The president blames the Bush administration and Republicans for this state of affairs. But as we have seen, George W. Bush surely wasn't president in 1977, when the original CRA was passed.

Bush wasn't president when Obama himself was pushing and suing to get more cash into the hands of marginally qualified purchasers.

Bush wasn't president during the thirty or so years that our public schools failed to educate young people as to the consequences of borrowing more than they could repay.

Bush wasn't president when states, municipalities, and school districts offered unsustainable wages and fringes to public-employee unions, assuming that the increases in real estate taxes would make for an endless stream of revenue.

So whom can Obama blame? Well, some of the most destructive avalanches have begun with the dropping of a tiny pebble that unsettles the slope of a mountain. Barack Obama dropped such a pebble in 1995 when he sued Citibank in Chicago.

So, Mr. President, it might be inferred that the mess you inherited, you actually helped cause yourself.

By Jim Yardley

Read more: [link to www.americanthinker.com]

The housing crisis has its roots in Bill Grahams efforts in the 90's on behalf of Wallstreet. Republicans,Democrats and Wallstreet and the Banks were ALL complicit in it.

It was a scam in the highest order. The greatest daylight Robbery in World History and President Obama inherited an economy that was falling off a cliff, he caught it and pulled it back up on solid ground before the Breadlines and food riots could occur.

Obama's presence and actions restored confidence in the ENTIRE world Market and that was BEFORE he rolled up his sleeves to deal with Bushs car wreck of an economy.

"We believe that when a family can no longer be tricked into
signing a mortgage they can't afford, that family is protected,
but so is the value of other people's homes, and so is the
entire economy.
(APPLAUSE)" President Obama's DNC acceptance speech.

President Obama is IN YOUR FACE and On the up and up.

No one expected him to fix it in four years.

What we did expect, was for him to NOT fuck it up and make it even worse.

Which he did.

Consistently.




Obama destroyed MORE of America in 4 years, than Bush could do in 16 years.



Wake the fuck up, the POTUS is a Communist.

This. Obama has had four years to investigate 9/11, abolish the Patriot Acts and Homeland Security and restore the Constitution. Instead, we get the faked killing of Osama bin Dead Ten Years, more false-flags, NDAA, ramped-up TSA, turning a blind-eye to Fukushima ... ... ...

It's Great that you can cut and paste but it has been proven that Wells Fargo disproportionately sold Mortgages to working class Blacks and Hispanics that were toxic and that they could not afford.

It was a scam perpetrated on the uneducated who wanted to like the American dream. 65% of those who have lost their homes are Black. Not their homes that they were trying to get rich off of by flipping houses, THEIR ONLY HOME.

Do you think those things are on Romney's agenda for his first four years?

You are making shit up you don't have good reason. I would have respected you if you just said you don't like him and ant him out and you don't care if Romney starts WWIII.

How is he a Commie and how did he make it worse.

Does having a party that looks like America make him a communist?

Does you mind control program dictate that Blackness equates to Socialism?

Democrats insisted that they do so

because not doing so was racist

YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

I have really low expectations so something/anything in the a proper direction would help however our current POTUS doesnt make decisions. He usurps authority, demonizes patriots, criminalizes the Constitution, and pushes socialistic utopia on the working class to "lift" the "less fortunate" to a better state of living rather than affording them OPPORTUNITY to grow for themselves.

GRRRRRR stupid ass.......