# Our 44th President, Barack Hussein Obama **URL:** \ **Category:** PittSpeed Off Topic\ **Created:** [November 4, 2008, 8:42pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520 "2008-11-04T20:42:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![ShalerPunk](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/shalerpunk/32/5976_2.png) [@ShalerPunk](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/ShalerPunk)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:20pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/181 "2008-11-06T19:20:33Z")
> [@FS: Garmin c320 GPS](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/fs-garmin-c320-gps/37851/17): > > lets make a bunch of meanless laws that _“meanless?”_ ---
**Author:** ![BooSSted\_SS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5f9b8f/32.png) [@BooSSted\_SS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BooSSted_SS)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:23pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/182 "2008-11-06T19:23:52Z")
> [@11/17/07 IMPORTFEST](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/11-17-07-importfest/38547/20): > > Also here’s an article Published in the New York Times back in 1999… > > Published: September 30, 1999 > > In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. > > The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets – including the New York metropolitan region – will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. > > Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. > > In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates – anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans. > > ‘‘Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,’’ said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ‘‘Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.’’ > > Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market. > > In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s. > > ‘‘From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,’’ said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ‘‘If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.’’ > > Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 – a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped. > > Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings. > > Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites. > > Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990’s. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent. > > In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent. > > Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings. > > In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups. > > The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants. by the way I think it’s amazing how dead on the person who wrote this article was! 9 years ago and he hit the nail on the friggin head! In short Clinton left us a ticking time bomb!!! ---
**Author:** ![ShalerPunk](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/shalerpunk/32/5976_2.png) [@ShalerPunk](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/ShalerPunk)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:25pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/183 "2008-11-06T19:25:55Z")
> [@SOLD](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/sold/38567/13): > > by the way I think it’s amazing how dead on the person who wrote this article was! 9 years ago and he hit the nail on the friggin head! In short Clinton left us a ticking time bomb!!! Barry Bonds doesn’t knock them all out of the park. ---
**Author:** ![BooSSted\_SS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5f9b8f/32.png) [@BooSSted\_SS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BooSSted_SS)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:29pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/184 "2008-11-06T19:29:57Z")
LOL this article sheds light on the ROOT cause of the current economic disaster we’re in and you’re like “eh \*\*\*\* it it’s still bush’s fault” when it clearly states that Clinton pushed for this. This was printed in the NY Times one of the most liberal publications out there so don’t even try and say it’s bias! ---
**Author:** ![tksmr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@tksmr2](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/tksmr2)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:30pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/185 "2008-11-06T19:30:02Z")
> [@Samuel Adams Utopia](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/samuel-adams-utopia/38562/35): > > Bursting Bubbles: Why the Economy Will Go From Bad to Worse > > By Dean Baker > > May 9, 2003, In These Times > > See article on original website > > Where is the best place to go for good advice about the stock market and the economy? The Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Fortune? If it is late 1999 and the stock market is soaring to record highs, the correct answer is In These Times. In December 1999, when the economic and political establishment was singing the praises of the “new economy” and promising an era of unparalleled prosperity, In These Times ran “After the Fall,” a cover story by Dean Baker, which explained that a stock market crash was inevitable. Baker also warned of some of the consequences of the crash—downsized 401(k) retirement plans, a funding crisis for defined-benefit pension plans, shriveling endowments for universities and foundations, and a recession pushing the unemployment rate up past 6 percent. > > During the ’90s boom, Baker was one of the few economists who clearly identified the stock market bubble. But no one in a position of power was willing to listen, even though the main thrust of the argument rested on basic arithmetic. Remarkably, the same “experts” who led the nation into the bubble are still dominating public debate on the economy. > > So In These Times is willing to break with the conventional wisdom again. In the first of a special two-part series on the economy, Baker explains how related bubbles in the property and currency markets have yet to burst, and how that prospect could severely hamper our quality of life for years to come. > > In 2000, President Clinton could legitimately boast of the “best economy in 30 years.” Unemployment was low, wages were rising at all income levels, and the poverty rate was headed downward at a rapid pace. But after President Bush took office in 2001, the economy fell into recession, shedding jobs and causing real wage growth to slow and eventually stop altogether. > > A convenient story explains this sharp economic reversal. According to the script, Clinton eliminated the deficit through progressive tax increases and spending restraint. This deficit reduction lowered interest rates and spurred an investment boom, which was the basis for the extraordinary growth of the late ’90s. Then Bush came into office and quickly squandered the surplus with his tax cuts to the rich and military build-up. As a result, the deficit skyrocketed and the economy tanked. > > It’s a good story, but the reality is quite different. The Clinton boom was built on three unsustainable bubbles. One of them, the stock bubble, has already burst. The other two bubbles—the dollar bubble and the housing bubble—are still with us. The dollar bubble is starting to deflate, and the housing bubble is perhaps just now reaching its peak. These bubbles created the basis for the 2001 recession and the economy’s continuing period of stagnation. > > The basic facts of the economy’s rapid deterioration over the last two years are widely known. After creating an average of more than 3 million jobs a year from 1996 to 2000, the economy has lost more than 2 million jobs since March 2001. This reversal has been associated with a rise in the unemployment rate from an average of 4 percent in 2000 to 6 percent today. The increase among African-Americans has been even larger, rising from 7.6 percent in 2000 to 10.9 percent in April, and larger yet for African-American teens, with the unemployment rate rising from just over 24 percent in 2000 to peaks as high as 35 percent in March. While real wages were growing at close to a 2 percent annual pace in 2000, wage growth has recently fallen to zero for most workers. > > The economy’s reversal was associated with a plunge in the stock market. The S&P 500 fell from a peak of more than 1,500 in March 2000, to lows of less than 800 in the past year. The tech-heavy Nasdaq took an even sharper plunge, falling from a peak of more than 5,000 in March 2000 to under 1,200 last summer. Adding to this picture is the reversal in the budget situation. The surplus of $236 billion in 2000 has given way to a deficit that may reach $500 billion in 2003. > > Of course, the stock market downturn should not be included among the economic failings of the last two and a half years. That downturn really was just a healthy return to reality. The long stretch of new peaks that the market hit in the ’90s should have been a warning of bad times ahead to anyone paying attention. Instead the boom was widely celebrated as evidence of a new era of unbounded prosperity. The failure by the Federal Reserve Board or the Clinton administration to take actions to stem the growth of the stock bubble laid the grounds for a train wreck; the only question up in the air was when it would hit. > > While the day-to-day, or even month-to-month, movements of the market are erratic and unpredictable, there is an underlying relationship between the stock market and the economy. In principle, the stock market is putting a price on the future profits of corporate America. While no one can know the future with certainty, economists can plausibly forecast how high profits can go over a long horizon—say 10 to 15 years. > > When the market was hitting its peaks in 2000, the ratio of stock prices to corporate earnings exceeded 30-to-1, more than twice its historic average. No plausible explanation could ever have justified this sort of valuation. In order for the stock market peaks of 2000 to have made sense, it would have been necessary for profits to grow at close to twice their historic pace. > > In short, any serious economic analyst should have been able to recognize the stock bubble of the late ’90s. The fact that those in positions of responsibility either failed to recognize the bubble or chose to ignore it was a mistake with enormous consequences. > > The stock market bubble added more than $8 trillion of paper wealth to the economy. This stimulated the economy in two ways. First, when families see the value of their stock portfolios rise, they spend more, since they feel less need to put money aside for retirement or their kids’ education. Just as the textbooks would predict, consumption boomed and savings fell through the floor in the late ’90s and 2000. > > The stock bubble also stimulated the economy through its effect on investment. Contrary to myth, firms rarely finance new investment by issuing shares of stock. However, the ’90s boom was an exception to this rule. With Internet start-ups able to raise billions of dollars by selling shares on the Nasdaq, companies were using stock to finance new investment in a big way. Soaring stock prices fed directly into an investment boom concentrated in telecommunications and other high-tech sectors. Investment in equipment and software rose by more than $300 billion between 1996 and 2000, an increase of more than 45 percent. > > The bursting of the bubble threw this process into reverse. This was seen most clearly with investment, which in both 2001 and 2002 was down by more than $140 billion from its peak in 2000. As we now know, much of the tech investment of the boom years was wasted on wild schemes that will never prove profitable. The tech sectors continue to have vast amounts of overcapacity, which will depress investment in semiconductors, telecommunications, and related sectors for years to come. > > Consumption has fallen back somewhat, but not as much as might have been expected, given the loss of more than $8 trillion in paper wealth in the stock market. Consumption has stayed strong in the post-crash world because of a second asset bubble. As was the case in Japan in the ’80s, the stock market bubble of the late ’90s was accompanied by a housing bubble. The rise in home prices since 1995 has outpaced the overall rate of inflation by more than 30 percentage points. This sort of run-up in home prices has no precedent in the post-war era. The surge in home prices has created more than $3 trillion in new housing wealth, as compared to a situation in which home prices had just kept pace with inflation. > > Like stock wealth, housing wealth also spurs consumption. Families see the rising value of their homes as a source of wealth that they can draw upon to meet their needs. They have been drawing on this wealth with a vengeance in the past two years, as plunging interest rates have led to an unprecedented surge in mortgage borrowing. As a result, the ratio of mortgage debt to home equity is at near-record highs. > > This situation is frightening for two reasons. First, as a short-run matter, if housing prices fall sharply in some of the areas where the effects of the bubble are largest (for example the Boston, New York, Washington, and San Francisco areas), new home buyers (and those who recently refinanced their mortgages and took money out) could find they have negative equity in their homes. If someone borrows $270,000 to buy a $300,000 home, and the price falls by one-third, this leaves them owing $70,000 more than the home is worth. When this happens, there is a huge incentive to just let the mortgage holder foreclose on the home. If this were to happen on a large scale, the survival of many banks and financial institutions would be at risk. > > The current high levels of mortgage debt are a problem for another reason. The population is aging, and many families are getting near retirement. With the front end of the baby boomers approaching 60, many homeowners should be near to paying off their mortgage. The demographics indicate that mortgage debt should be lower than it has been in prior decades. But on the contrary, many baby boomers are likely to hit retirement––after having just lost much of the wealth in their 401(k)s due to the stock market crash––and discover that their homes are worth much less than they had expected. These older baby boomers really need to be saving to ensure themselves a sufficient income in retirement, but the illusory wealth created by the housing bubble is preventing them from recognizing this fact. > > While the housing bubble has its own logic, it is an outgrowth of the stock bubble. It began as a result of people using their newly created stock wealth to purchase better homes. This started home prices on an upward path, leading people to buy homes in anticipation of continually rising prices. The bubble will persist as long as people expect home prices to rise. When they lose this expectation, housing prices will fall back to more normal levels. > > The ’90s stock bubble is also partially responsible for other recent problems. One is the switch from surpluses to deficits at both the federal and state levels. The federal government collected almost $120 billion in capital gains tax revenue at the peak of the stock bubble in 2000, most of which came from gains on stock sales. When stock prices plunged, capital gains revenue did also. It is now projected at $51 billion in 2003. Many states, especially California, were similarly affected by the stock crash. > > The wave of corporate accounting scandals was also an outgrowth of the bubble. In an era in which corporations were routinely putting out profit projections that defied common sense, it was virtually inevitable that some executives would take the additional step to outright fraud. This was entirely predictable, since every prior speculative bubble has also been accompanied by large-scale financial fraud. > > To make matters worse, a third bubble from the ’90s is also still with us––the dollar bubble. The Clinton administration deliberately pursued a “strong dollar” policy. This had the desirable short-term effect of restraining inflation and raising domestic living standards by making imports cheaper for people in the United States. (An undesirable short-term effect was the devastation of U.S. manufacturing.) However, in the long-term, the strong dollar policy is unsustainable. As a result of its massive bill for imports, the United States is currently borrowing more than $550 billion a year from abroad (approximately 5.3 percent of GDP), since it is buying much more from abroad than it is selling. This borrowing is paid for by selling off U.S. assets. If the trade deficit remains at its current level, within a decade foreigners will own the entire stock market, much of the government debt and many of our homes. > > At some point, the dollar will have to fall significantly to bring the deficit down to a sustainable level. When this happens, the resulting rise in import prices will contribute to a rise in the inflation rate and a deterioration in domestic living standards. If the Federal Reserve Board raises interest rates to prevent an increase in the inflation rate, then the impact of the falling dollar will be especially painful, as higher unemployment, which accompanies higher interest rates, will be an inevitable result. > > The triple bubble economy of the late ’90s presents the most difficult set of economic problems since the Great Depression. The solutions are neither simple nor painless, but—just as was the case with the New Deal—big problems can open the door to big solutions. Thanks… since I"m not well versed in the stock market (shame on me)… I will post someone’s comment to the reactions of this article back in 2003. A likely explanation, but it fails to take into account that the economy is emotionally-driven and its health is very much dependent not only on fiscal policy, but future outlook. With the dawn of the failed Bush Administration, I think the nation sank into an emotional depression. Everyone I spoke to expressed a sense of dread and many suggested, early on, that we might not even survive this mess. Indeed the attacks of September 11th, predicated primarily on Bush’s big mouth, underscored the dangers. The subsequent rise in unemployment, a further increase in an already well-entrenched trend, was not just a result of the attacks - it was a happening thing. For historyís sake, one need only look at the first Failed Bush Administration, where unemployment rose as did the deficit. Perhaps many of us felt a little more at ease than we do now. It seems, in retrospect, that at least we had someone with a brain in charge, as opposed to the current joke. I think stories and analysis of economic outlook should take into account the emotional health of the nation (and the world). This is critical in understanding how things became the way they are and, more importantly, where theyíre going. Remember ñ Roosevelt did many good things for Americanís suffering during the depression ñ but one of the most important is often overlooked. He gave them hope. Mark Richards Boston Posted by Mark Richards on May 11, 2003 at 6:59 PM also: Great article, but I would have liked to see more discussion of how we got to this point - and the fact that the policies that got us here are continuing. And what about a fourth bubble: debt? “When a flood of new inventions gives opportunity to make more than the current rate of interest there is always a tendency to go into debt, in order to make money out of inventions, and to the ordinary investor this comes in the form of investing in common stocks. At such time, the rate of interest should be high, embracing as it does the opportunity to invest for a high rate of return over cost. If there is a great discrepancy between the rate to be realised to the investor from his investment, and the rate of interest on which he can borrow, he will be inclined to borrow all the more.” Paul Warburg The Theory of Interest, New York 1930 Interest rates have been forced down, liquidity pushed up and people have “borrowed all the more”. First for stocks, now for real estate. And the government is certainly leading by example. Look at these deficits! Debt, Debt and more debt. Posted by Karin Deming on May 12, 2003 at 8:05 PM and: Baker’s article excellently describes the current economic turmoil we are facing the United States, and does an admirable job explaining how we got here. However, I think a more nuanced critique of dollar policy is needed. The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that the Bush Administration has aggressivley pursued the decline int the dollar’s value, letting it slide 17% as it has a stimulative effect on the U.S economy, something especially important considering the slump we are in and considering that the fed has little room to move. While a strong dollar may be buoyant for particular segments of the econony, as Baker noted, it has devastated manufacturing, which continues to contract. Mind you this isn’t praise of the return to Voodoo Economics (absent James Baker’s obsessive quest for the strong dollar), nor any kind of defense of the Bush team’s economic vision. Instead, it really is a twofold query: 1. what would prompt the fed to raise rates at any time in the near future, except political suicide, especially as we near another presidential electoral cycle? 2. If the Fed at some point does feel constrained to slam on the brakes, raising rates while the dollar continues to lose value, where will the economic solution come from that will keep the economy from suffering a total meltdown? Posted by Geoff Miller on May 13, 2003 at 6:42 AM ---
**Author:** ![BooSSted\_SS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5f9b8f/32.png) [@BooSSted\_SS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BooSSted_SS)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:36pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/186 "2008-11-06T19:36:44Z")
to me it sounds like a few “arm chair QB’s” throwing their opinions out there. ---
**Author:** ![JettaDriverX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f4b2a3/32.png) [@JettaDriverX](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JettaDriverX)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:37pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/187 "2008-11-06T19:37:45Z")
Though I didn’t spend the time reading every post, I read many and the one thing most seem to forget is that all this change doesn’t just come from the president. It has to make it through Congress. Despite the fact that Congress is going to be a majority of Democrats, it will always be the basics of politics: Who will fill their pockets? This is just a group of money hungry vultures and they will do what ever gets them re-elected so they can drive thier Benz. Bottom line. People will “predict” the future for some time, but this is just a panic because the big change is that a half black guy won the presidency. He may be the best thing to happen to this country, or he might suck, but only time will tell. Try to have a little faith that we still have the most bad ass country in the world. Vote Chuck Norris in 2012! ---
**Author:** ![ShalerPunk](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/shalerpunk/32/5976_2.png) [@ShalerPunk](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/ShalerPunk)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:38pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/188 "2008-11-06T19:38:35Z")
> [@Dunnville 11/11/07](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/dunnville-11-11-07/38577/31): > > to me it sounds like a few “arm chair QB’s” throwing their opinions out there. i would imagine that we all qualify as armchair QBs. ---
**Author:** ![BooSSted\_SS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5f9b8f/32.png) [@BooSSted\_SS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BooSSted_SS)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:42pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/189 "2008-11-06T19:42:39Z")
All I’m saying is that they seem to give responses based on emotion rather than provide facts to back up their accusations. The author provided facts to back up his point… ---
**Author:** ![ShalerPunk](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/shalerpunk/32/5976_2.png) [@ShalerPunk](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/ShalerPunk)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:51pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/190 "2008-11-06T19:51:33Z")
> [@SOLD](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/sold/38567/16): > > All I’m saying is that they seem to give responses based on emotion rather than provide facts to back up their accusations. The author provided facts to back up his point… i’m just too lazy to type more than two sentences. See? ---
**Author:** ![BooSSted\_SS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5f9b8f/32.png) [@BooSSted\_SS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BooSSted_SS)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:56pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/191 "2008-11-06T19:56:20Z")
More food for thought. This is the kind of “honesty” and “change” we have to look forward to… More NAFTA Nonsense March 3, 2008 An Obama mailer uses dubious, disputed statistics about how much the trade deal hurt Ohio workers. Summary Barack Obama’s campaign is distributing a mailer in Ohio that plays upon anti-NAFTA feelings in the Buckeye State. But the flyer is misleading: ``` * Obama is quoted as saying that "one million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio." But those figures are highly questionable and from an anti-NAFTA source. Other economic studies have concluded the trade deal resulted in much smaller job losses or even a small net gain. * The mailer quotes Hillary Clinton as saying "NAFTA has been good for New York and America." That quote, however, is taken out of context. She also said in that same news conference that NAFTA was flawed and old trade deals needed to be revisited. ``` Analysis Opposition to NAFTA plays well among Democratic, blue collar voters in Ohio. But the latest salvo from Barack Obama’s campaign, a glossy, four-page mailer, uses dubious statistics and an out-of-context quote from Hillary Clinton to appeal to the electorate. Obama mailer imageOne Million Lost? The mailer claims that “one million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 … in Ohio,” but those numbers are from a disputed estimate by a liberal think tank with ties to labor unions that opposed the trade deal. We first wrote about the figure in August, when John Edwards used it in a Democratic debate. The Economic Policy Institute’s Robert Scott, an economist, wrote in a Sept. 2006 report that “[e]xport growth since 1994 [when NAFTA went into effect] supported an additional 1 million U.S. jobs, while imports displaced domestic production that would support 2 million jobs.” That’s a net “displacement,” not an actual “loss,” of 1 million jobs. Scott refers to this as 1 million lost “opportunities” as distinct from existing jobs. Scott’s figures also have been questioned by other economists. Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, which has connections to the corporate world, criticized Scott’s report for assuming that NAFTA was the cause for the total growth in the trade deficit between the U.S. and both Canada and Mexico. They said that assumption ignored other factors. Another earlier study included an estimate of job loss that was half as high as Scott’s figure, and it also said NAFTA may have resulted in a net gain in employment when offsetting job gains are taken into account. In 2004, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said 525,000 workers had lost their jobs because of NAFTA, according to the NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance program, a U.S. government program that gives assistance to those affected by the trade agreement. (Our fact-checking colleague at the Washington Post, Michael Dobbs, pointed to this study last fall.) The report said those jobs “were likely offset by other jobs gained,” while noting that “the impact on losers is an economic and political concern.” The report also said that there had been “widely diverging estimates” on job loss by both proponents and critics of the trade agreement, adding that such estimates “have been unpersuasive.” It concluded that the impact from NAFTA on U.S. employment had been minor: ``` Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: NAFTA’s net effect on jobs in the United States has been minuscule, given the size of the U.S. economy and the importance of other trading partners. The best models to date suggest that NAFTA has caused either no net change in employment or a very small net gain of jobs. ``` Also in 2004, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service evaluated four studies on the subject, including the Carnegie Endowment’s, and said that “NAFTA had little or no impact on aggregate employment.” It also concluded, contrary to Scott’s report, that “NAFTA did not cause the widening U.S. trade deficit with Mexico.” NAFTA critics often point to the loss of manufacturing jobs, which have declined by 3.1 million between Jan. 1994, when NAFTA was implemented, and January of this year. But total nonfarm employment, meanwhile, has increased by 25.6 million in the same time period. Whatever effect NAFTA may have had on U.S. jobs, however, Obama is relying on a statistic that has been criticized, questioned and contradicted by other researchers. An Incomplete Quote Obama’s mailer goes on to ask, “Is Hillary Clinton running away from her own record on trade deals that have cost Ohio nearly 50,000 jobs?” It then lists various quotes from Clinton on NAFTA, the most recent of which is a truncated version of the senator’s remarks. The mailer quotes Clinton saying in Jan. 2004, “I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America.” As we said previously, the full context of those remarks, made in response to questions in a news teleconference, shows that Clinton advocated revisiting and renegotiating trade agreements. In that teleconference, she said she “always thought” that old trade agreements should be revisited and that environmental, health and labor standards should be added. “I think that we need a re-thinking of our trade policies,” she said. The Clinton campaign has sent out its own misleading mailer on NAFTA, trying to convince Ohio voters that Obama has praised the trade agreement in the past. Campaign rhetoric aside, the two candidates’ positions on NAFTA are virtually the same. – by Lori Robertson ---
**Author:** ![turdteg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ab992/32.png) [@turdteg](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/turdteg)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:56pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/192 "2008-11-06T19:56:37Z")
WOW just WOW!! This is how its going to be in 4 years. Everyone pointing fingers at everybody. My fingers for the time being are just crossed! ---
**Author:** ![BooSSted\_SS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5f9b8f/32.png) [@BooSSted\_SS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BooSSted_SS)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 8:01pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/193 "2008-11-06T20:01:14Z")
More Obama “straight talk”… Posted: February 26, 2008 9:31 pm Eastern © 2008 WorldNetDaily Sen. Barack Obama (WND photo) WASHINGTON – Leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has blasted rival Hillary Rodham Clinton for flip-flopping on NAFTA, but, according to the public record, he has also switch positions. Obama has turned trade into a centerpiece of his campaign in Ohio, where trade agreements are particularly unpopular as domestic manufacturing jobs disappear. Texas and Ohio hold nominating contests March 4, and Obama has criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement at campaign stops in both states. “What the world should interpret is my consistent position, which is I believe in trade,” he said after meeting with workers at a manufacturing plant in Ohio. “I just want to make sure that the rules of the road apply to everybody and they are fair and that they reflect the interests of workers and not just corporate profits.” Just last October, however, Obama announced he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement that would expand NAFTA into that country. In fact, he was the first presidential candidate to declare support for the NAFTA expansion. He was also the keynote speaker at a luncheon of the Hamilton Project – a Wall Street group working to drive a wedge between Democrats and organized labor on globalization issues. More… February 26, 2008 NAFTA Nonsense By Rich Lowry For Barack Obama, hope can triumph over anything, except for open trade with a neighboring country with an economy 1/20th the size of ours. Then, all is despair. Obama’s culprit is Mexico, our third-largest trading partner. It is trade deals like NAFTA – the 1993 accord eliminating tariffs among the U.S., Mexico, and Canada – that “ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with teenagers for minimum wage at Wal-Mart,” Obama intones. Feel inspired yet? The big picture doesn’t justify this Dickensian evocation of gloom. Since 1993, the U.S. economy has grown by 54 percent. The jobless rate has dropped from 6.9 percent in 1993 to 4.9 percent today. Manufacturing output has increased by 63 percent. Canada and Mexico are our first- and second-largest export markets, and U.S. merchandise exports to them have increased at a slightly faster clip than exports to the rest of the world. NAFTA has clearly been a (small) benefit to the economy of both the U.S. and Mexico. Critics focus on the large U.S. trade deficit that opened up with Mexico shortly after the adoption of NAFTA, but that had more to do with the decline of the peso and a steep Mexican recession that dampened demand for our exports. Since 2001, our manufactured-goods deficit with NAFTA countries has been stable, making the agreement an implausible villain in the hollowing out of America. Obama’s complaint, ultimately, is with the long-term liberalization of the Mexican economy. Beginning in the mid-1980s, Mexico joined the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, lowered its tariff rates, reduced restrictions on foreign investment and deregulated state industries. As a result, both U.S. exports to and imports from Mexico grew rapidly prior to NAFTA. Because of this dynamic, the Congressional Budget Office estimates almost all of the increased trade between the U.S. and Mexico would have happened without NAFTA. The effect of the agreement itself – rather than the broad trend of liberalization – was marginal. “Relative to the size of the economy,” the CBO writes, “the increases in exports never exceeded 0.12 percent of U.S. GDP, and the increases in imports never exceeded 0.11 percent of U.S. GDP.” To blame NAFTA for the long-standing trajectory of U.S. manufacturing – the sector has been losing jobs since 1979 – is the politics of scapegoating. What is Obama going to do if elected? Browbeat Mexican President Felipe Calderón to return his country to the statist and autarkic policies of the 1970s? Bizarrely, Obama lately has directed more barbs toward Mexico than Iran, whose offense is only killing American servicemen and pursuing an illicit nuclear program rather than sending us imports and welcoming our investment. In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama maintains a studied ambivalence about NAFTA. He didn’t emphasize populist broadsides against the deal until it became imperative for him to win down-scale white voters in states like Wisconsin and Ohio. On the merits, it’s an odd time to demonize NAFTA. U.S. manufacturing went through a deep recession from 2000 to 2003, shedding 3 million jobs. It has recovered since, and 2006 was “a record year for output, revenues, profits, profit rates and return on investment,” Daniel Ikenson of the Cato Institute writes. As Frank Vargo of the National Association of Manufacturers points out, when manufacturing jobs drastically declined from 2000 to 2003, manufactured-goods imports essentially were stagnant. Trade affected the manufacturing recession not through an increase in imports, but a decline in exports. That, coupled with a decline in domestic consumption of manufactured goods coinciding with the U.S. recession, accounted for the large job losses. Obama always says that politicians should tell voters what they need – not what they want – to hear. But no one in the Democratic party will emphatically say that trade is a net benefit to the U.S., even if it brings painful – and ultimately unavoidable – dislocations. Hillary Clinton always was lukewarm about NAFTA, and even Bill is skittering away from his legacy. On trade, Barack Obama’s opportunistic fear-mongering defines the new Democratic orthodoxy. ---
**Author:** ![Quik83Z](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/quik83z/32/6042_2.png) [@Quik83Z](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Quik83Z)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:10am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/194 "2008-11-07T02:10:10Z")
Looks like Wall Street investors are really pleased with the election of O-BUM-A since the stock market tanked over 900 points since Tuesday… Better update your W4’s soon so you can avoid having to pay the IRS a large lump sum next year after the Bush tax cuts are repealed… What a bunch of stupid faggots we have here in this country…all you assholes who drank the kool-aid and voted for “change”…well you’re sure gonna get it…the next four years are going to make the Jimmy Carter era look like an economic boom! Welcome to the USSA… ---
**Author:** ![Shaggy](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/shaggy/32/5945_2.png) [@Shaggy](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Shaggy)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 3:58am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/195 "2008-11-07T03:58:03Z")
BooSSted\_SS Quit copy/ paste we don’t give a f uck ---
**Author:** ![Jeff95TA](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/jeff95ta/32/5935_2.png) [@Jeff95TA](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Jeff95TA)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 4:17am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/196 "2008-11-07T04:17:14Z")
> [@hit a deer at 80kph coming back from Dunnville - S13 fuxxored](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/hit-a-deer-at-80kph-coming-back-from-dunnville-s13-fuxxored/38556/38): > > I know there is a awful lot of wasted effort, and low-productivity in a lot of US corporation, that could easily be fixed. Yep. Where I work we have performance reviews and accountability. Try saying that to a union. And maybe we could get rid of some unneccesary government functions if the country wasn’t so afraid, or unaware, of a third party. I did my part this year. ---
**Author:** ![77rednecktruck](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/77rednecktruck/32/5966_2.png) [@77rednecktruck](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/77rednecktruck)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 4:35am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/197 "2008-11-07T04:35:23Z")
> [@how much interest in NYSpeed track days?](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/how-much-interest-in-nyspeed-track-days/38394/56): > > Welcome to the USSA… x2 all you people that voted for “change” have no idea what kind of change you were voting for. Noone knows \*\*\*\* about obama other than what he said on the campaign trail, and we all know how truthful that is. If you are a college kid with no real grasp of the world, I can see getting all fired up and voting for obama. But anyone over the age of say 25 and is still a liberal democrat, is just stupid. good job retards :bigthumb: ---
**Author:** ![BooSSted\_SS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5f9b8f/32.png) [@BooSSted\_SS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BooSSted_SS)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:05am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/198 "2008-11-07T05:05:30Z")
> [@FS:91 notchback (GONE) TRADED](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/fs-91-notchback-gone-traded/38310/37): > > BooSSted\_SS Quit copy/ paste we don’t give a f uck Just because you have no idea what the F uck I posted don’t mean it’s not relevant… ---
**Author:** ![tksmr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@tksmr2](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/tksmr2)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:42am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/199 "2008-11-07T05:42:33Z")
[http://www.politicalforum.com/elections-campaigns/57340-how-can-you-vote-socialist-swine.html](http://www.politicalforum.com/elections-campaigns/57340-how-can-you-vote-socialist-swine.html) ---
**Author:** ![T70\_Tsi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/898d66/32.png) [@T70\_Tsi](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/T70_Tsi)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:29am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520/200 "2008-11-07T06:29:54Z")
> [@lol, make your own atari game box art](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/lol-make-your-own-atari-game-box-art/38614/49): > > x2 > > all you people that voted for “change” have no idea what kind of change you were voting for. Noone knows \*\*\*\* about obama other than what he said on the campaign trail, and we all know how truthful that is. > > If you are a college kid with no real grasp of the world, I can see getting all fired up and voting for obama. But anyone over the age of say 25 and is still a liberal democrat, is just stupid. good job retards :bigthumb: ^^ Not to mention (and to respond to a previous comment) You’re right, the President has a whole team that’s in place that is supposed to keep things in check before decisions/policies/whatever are made. Problem is it’s those people I’m worried about, there’s no one to keep them in check anymore and some of the people he’s appointing are more radical/crazy than he is. [Previous page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520.md?page=9) [Next page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/our-44th-president-barack-hussein-obama/200520.md?page=11)