By that logic, Obama deserves the credit for the stellar performance of the stock market during his administration, right?

That was from last November. Market is higher today. 16,799 on the DOW.

Source

 

Consider that the Obama-admin, with him at the helm, has engaged in years of buying our own national debt. Literally robbing one pocket to pay another, and accumulated record debt on top of record debt. This has artificially inflated the market, hence, no credit for it goes to Pres Obama.

When the crash comes, it will be much worse than what happened under Pres Bush.

 

Wrong again, friend. The Federal Reserve Bank, under the leadership of Bush appointee Ben Bernanke, began the policy of buying US debt, not the Obama administration.

Try again.

 

You are sadly mistaken.

The amount of debt owned by the Fed was less than $500 billion when Bush left office, it is now almost $2,400 billion and rising rapidly.

 

In case you have not bothered listening to the news for the last six years, Bush is no longer President. Pres Obama is the man in the White House, for six years his administration insane economic policies have continued buying the US Debt, hence, his problem, his failure.

 

And it reaching a point, if not already there, of being unsustainable.

 

I think we are already there. It will have to be quite a ways past that point before it comes to the attention of any politician.

 

I'll agree that Obama did nothing to stop the Fed from continuing QE during his term, but QE clearly started during the Bush administration and was implemented by a Bush appointee.

My point here that every one of you repub kool aid drinkers can't seem to grasp with your tiny angry brains is that neither Bush nor Obama has much control over the economy.

 

Oh really? Then Obama's "stimulus" program was...........what?

Politics?
Paying off political favors?
Ignorant?

Help me out here, I want to understand.

 

You have it on the money.

 

Obama didn't cause this problem.
100 years of American Foreign Policy caused it.
100 years of thinking that all oil is yours to exploit.
Why don't you just fuck of back to the isolationism you practised before WW Two.

 

The first Bernanke TARP interventions were qualitatively different from the quantitative easing program. They are two different things.

If you want to draw parallels, to assuage your hard-on for your Messiah or whatever, you could perhaps argue that Barack Obama's secondary TARP intervention, early in his presidency, was a continuation of Bernanke's interventions under Bush (though I would argue that they differ in the essential respect that the first intervention targeted specific dysfunction while the second intervention sent trillions down a black hole, no pun intended). In short, all forms of gratuitous money-burning are not equal.

 

No, no, no, moonbat.

It's the Medicis' fault, under the Holy Roman Empire.

No. It's the Romans.

No.... the Greeks.

Wait.... the Etruscans.

Or was it the Great and Glorious Hittites?

(giggle)

Sheesh.

Moonbats.

 

You pathetic right-wing repub!

Don't you know that it's George Bush's fault that Barack Obama is on track to raise the debt higher under his presidency than all previous presidents combined?

It's because he is a genius, you see.

And an astute manager.

And a hail fellow well met.

And if you don't understand it, you are either (1) not Communist (2) or didn't attend Harvard as an Indonesian or fake Indian Squaw (3) or both.

 

was the fed under bush buying it at 80 billion a month?

 

No, but Obama does not control The Fed. If anything, the Fed controls him.

 

so how much of the debt was the fed buying under Bush? I know under obama it was buying t 80 billion month

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...olution-to-Iraq-crisis-must-be-political.html

[h=1]Obama offers advisers and contemplates airstrikes, but insists solution to Iraq crisis must be political[/h] [h=2]Nearly two weeks after Isis advances began, Barack Obama offers limited US military and intelligence support, but warns that Iraq's warring religious factions must unite to find lasting solution[/h]
President Barack Obama has announced that the US will send up to 300 additional military advisers to Baghdad on Thursday and would contemplate air-strikes against Isis targets, but warned there would be no American-led military solution to the crisis in Iraq.



Announcing that the US was theoretically prepared to “take targeted and precise military action” against Isis forces on the ground, Mr Obama said the US would do this only to support a unified Iraqi government against the jihadist elements.



“I want to emphasize that the best and most effective response to a threat like ISIL will ultimately involve partnerships where local forces like Iraqis take the lead,” he said.





“The United States will not pursue military actions that support one sect inside of Iraq at the expense of another,” he said, “There's no military solution inside of Iraq, certainly not one that is led by the United States.”


Urging the rapid formation of a unity government in Iraq, Mr Obama also announced a new diplomatic offensive, with John Kerry, the US secretary of state, embarking on a fresh round of shuttle diplomacy in Europe and the Middle East this weekend.


The US administration has already voiced its misgivings over the sectarian nature of the Maliki government with Mr Obama saying that a political solution that bought Shia, Sunni and Kurds together would have to precede a military solution to the Isis advance.


“There is deep division between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders,” he said, “And as long as those deep divisions continue or worsen, it's going to be very hard for an Iraqi central government to direct an Iraqi military to deal with these threats.”


Mr Obama ruled out the prospect of US troops seeing combat in Iraq and promised there would be no mission-creep. The US pulled out of Iraq completely in 2011 after failing to reach an agreement with the government of Nouri al Maliki to leave even a small advisory force behind.


As Isis continued to try and seize strategic assets in Iraq, including the country’s largest oil refinery, Mr Obama said that the US had an interest in preventing Iraq descending into civil war or becoming a haven for terrorists that could “ultimately” blow back on the US and Europe.


“If they accumulate more money, they accumulate more ammunition, more military capability, larger numbers, that poses great dangers not just to allies of ours like Jordan, which is very close by, but it also poses, you know, a great danger, potentially, to Europe and ultimately the United States,” he said.


Mr Obama said that origins of the Iraq crisis were to be found in the exclusion of Sunni interests by the Maliki government since 2008 and that any solution must ultimately come from efforts to bring Sunnis and Kurds back into defending Iraq’s national interest.


“We've seen over the last two years - actually dating back to 2008, 2009, but I think worse over the last two years - the sense among Sunnis that their interests were not being served,” he said.


“I think that you hear similar complaints that the government in Baghdad has not sufficiently reached out to some of the tribes and been able to bring them into a process that gives them a sense of being part of a unity government or a single nation-state… that has to be fixed if we're going to get through this crisis.”





So much for Pres Obama's promise to not send troops to Iraq. Even so-called 'advisers' are still combat-troops (Read: Special Forces)

The fact remains clear on how little he cares about the safety of our armed force members (300 at this time not counting embassy guard reinforcements). Due to the complete failure of the incompetent President, our forces can be arrested, tried, and jailed or worse for any and all imagined crimes the Iraqi or any local government decides to press against them.

The fact we still have an ex-Marine bound in a Mexican jail shows again how little he cares for our armed forces. The VA fiasco confirms it.
Now he has broken his promise of 'no combat troops' (and still denies that they will become involved in combat.)

 

The Federal Reserve falls under the Executive Branch, hence it answers to Obama.

Significantly less than under Pres Obama and criminal associates.

 

Nope, the fed is not a government agency. The members of the board of governors are appointed by the President and Congress has to approve the nominee. They serve a 14 year term and can not be removed politically. The Treasury sets the policy that the fed operates under, but they do not run the fed.

But the fed does have to answer to Congress.