What Obama has accomplished in 1st year

[Machado]

A friend of mine shared this with me. Article written in SF Chronicle

I am here to report some good news. Times have changed. Things are not what they once were. Evolution has occurred, is occurring, just now occurred while you were reading this very sentence.

Did you feel it? Are you noticing? The new has fully arrived to replace the old, and the old is going to have to take a long nap under a tree and watch what happens while the new delves in even deeper and does the best it can under the circumstances.

There is much talk, for example, of the man known as President Obama, of his effect and impact so far, his supposed lack of marked accomplishment lo these first dozen months of this most historic and revolutionary of presidencies -- a period, by the way, I am absolutely convinced we will all look back on in 10 or 20 years and go, oh my God, there. Remember that? That was a time, wasn't it? We will sigh and smile and point at the historic pictures and say, dear God, how incredible that was. It was a difficult time, there was much acrimony and resistance, but it was amazing. And it changed everything.

But not so fast. Back here in the dwindling twilight of the '00s, there is much puling from the liberal left that Obama has not done nearly enough, quickly enough, that his list of accomplishments is no list at all and is more of a giant, infuriating shrug. Many are saying he's not all he's cracked up to be because he has yet to completely revolutionize every aspect of human life as we know it by instantly turning everything organic, curing all diseases and setting all gay military personnel free to romp in the fields of boot camp.

Where is the complete ideological overhaul of the entire federal government? Where is the Gandhi-like pacifism? Why are we sending 30K more troops to Afghanistan? What about my new job, my single-payer health care and my tiny car that runs on sunflowers and hemp popsicles? Indeed, rabid impatience has combined with impossible expectation to give many liberals a free ticket to the land of nonstop bitching. Alas.

Conversely, there is all manner of incoherent noise spewing like radioactive urine from the far right, a nonstop wail of childlike panic claiming that, because Obama behaves with unnerving calm, shakes hands with foreign dignitaries and doesn't seem interested in bombing everyone in a turban, he must be a socialist Muslim Nazi hell-bent on banning machine guns and killing all old Republicans in their sleep and replacing them with French-speaking hip-hop jazz musicians.

The good news is, both sides are wildly, fantastically, delightfully wrong. As Slate's Jacob Weisberg rightly points out, Obama has had a very first good year indeed, spectacular even, far better than most in major media acknowledge (but they will, they will). In fact, assuming health care passes, Obama will have accomplished more in his first year than any president in the history of the world, ever.

That might be an exaggeration. But I'm OK with that, because the basic idea is something that needs to be declared a bit more loudly. Nearly everything Bush tore down and decimated and humiliated to its very core, Obama has either restored, is in the process of restoring, or is set to restore. Even Afghanistan appears to have a coherent framework now (we shall see). And that's just the beginning.

Make no mistake, it is not all wine and roses and classy poetry slams in the East Room. Personally, I'm far from the nice swoon for Obama that I experienced when he swept to miraculous, world-altering victory, a swoon born in large part from the nearly unbearable sense of relief that Bush was finally gone. My appreciation is now tempered with harsh reality, as well it should be.

Then again, during the campaign, Obama admitted this exact fact himself, saying he was sure to make mistakes, that you would not agree with every decision, that there would be more bad news before we got back to the good. What a jerk. Oh wait.

Regardless, I had an ambitious idea, way back at the beginning of Obama's term, to keep a loose, running catalog of all his accomplishments, every announcement and policy shift, legislative act and executive order I could find that either reversed a toxic Bush agenda item or put into motion a progressive idea he'd mentioned during the campaign, everything from science to emissions, stem-cell research to women's rights. As the stories came across the wires, I'd grab the link and keep a master list. Just to see.

Ha. It didn't take long before I realized the utter futility of this plan. I simply could not keep up. There were too many, coming too quickly. What's more, many of the changes were not widely reported, were not shouted by the White House by a president seeking applause or a boost in poll numbers from a mal-educated, reactionary "base" who wouldn't be happy until every Planned Parenthood clinic was burned down and Jesus' face was on the dollar bill and the Indy 500 was declared a national holiday. For example.

The good news is, others took up this noble task, have tracked most of Obama's rather stunning, unsung achievements and policy nudges to date. And those changes are voluminous. Here's just one handy list, a quick rundown of about 90 of Obama's more noteworthy accomplishments, right off the top.
www.dailykos.com
Can you read it and not be impressed? Or do you get stuck on those handful that you disagree with, personal hot buttons that negate and blinder everything else? Shame.

The amazing thing is, this list is far from complete. Obama has actually accomplished even more, and shows no signs of slowing down. The Washington Post just reported, for example, that the Obama administration is now beginning to ban all lobbyists -- hundreds if not thousands of longtime influence peddlers -- from serving on federal advisory panels. Did you know? Probably not. It didn't get much coverage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02362.html

Huh. That's funny. I'm out of room. When I started this piece, I intended to mention Obama only briefly, just one example in a larger list of evolutionary energies that was to include music and food, technology and cars, love and sex, all sorts of myriad evolutions taking place in my world and probably yours as we dance down this wayward road.

But somehow, as I delved in a bit more deeply, as I scanned those lists and noted all the changes in a single year, I found myself reenergized, invigorated, slapped awake at the new tone and direction, the sheer scale of all the changes, and how we are no longer the rogue macho cowboy laughingstock jackass of the world.

Sure, there's still a long way to go. Yes, we're still invading Afghanistan. Wall Street is still packed with jackals and demons. DOMA still exists. All is far from perfect. But times have changed indeed. Things are most definitely not what they once were. I can think of no better news to report.

[tylamonroe]

So poisoned13 left Bret for Barry. Oh well. They had a good run.

[WhiteHouseSubsAC]

Did that article actually say anything?

[JakeYonkel]

Did that article actually say anything?

Something about how the Yankees are awesome and asking what division the Padres play in.

[WhiteHouseSubsAC]

Did that article actually say anything?

Something about how the Yankees are awesome and asking what division the Padres play in.

[chickenona]

Obama himself continues to be exactly what his pre-presidency record showed him to be, a cautious bet-hedger reluctant to put his name to anything more radical than trying to get the Olympics for Chicago.

The same can be said for the Democratic majority in the legislative branches. They're terrified to try to put anything through that won't be 150% filibuster-proof. As a result, the "new" healthcare system is going to suck vast quantities of insurance-industry and Big Pharma ass. Nice job handing the Republicans everything they want and proving them right about you, guys.

Oh, well, as a Vermonter at least I can say Bernie Sanders is ours, so it sure as shit isn't our fault up here.

[chickenona]

Hahahaha @ your fixation on, and obvious fear of, that word.

You do understand that the "free market" is responsible for the banking crisis, right? And that it would have been a lot worse for a lot more people if the government hadn't stepped in - after being BEGGED TO DO SO by the banks themselves - and thrown in a shot of taxpayer cash, right?

[chickenona]

Yeah, I'm not saying we should turn into a socialist republic or anything. There have been a lot of boneheaded government initiatives that have contributed to this, deregulation of the banking system being the main culprit.

And yeah, I always get a little defensive when people toss around the "S" word. On this board when I see it, it's generally attached to negative connotations. But some socialist initiatives could benefit the system. We already have a form of socialized health care in the US system - unfortunately, the way it's being applied right now, the only people benefiting from it are exactly the people everyone grouses about helping - those living on government assistance, the incarcerated, the infirmed who don't contribute anything to the tax base. The people suffering the most under the current health care system are the working poor, people who fall through the cracks because they're below the poverty line but not receiving assistance in a government program. I don't see anything in the new health care reform, as it stands right now, that's going to improve things much for these people. Without a public option, they'll be forced to purchase inadequate insurance or face a penalty they can't afford if they don't fall in line.

The Democrats have managed to screw this up worse than I'd previously thought possible.

[tin00can]

Thanks for that post, EYN. I'm so fucking tired of hearing how banks were "forced" to make loans by the government, like there were secret service people in every bank looking over all the loans that were applied for. Whenever I ask for any proof that banks were forced to make loans, I get a moment of silence followed by something along the lines of "the banks were AFRAID of what the government would do so they HAD to issue the loans!"

No, actually the banks went hog wild because they had a convenient red herring for later on when it all went tits up.

[tin00can]

Here is Clinton’s HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo telling how they forced banks to make high risk affirmative action loans on April 3, 1998.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64

There it is.

Wow! That's ironclad proof right there! You nailed it, bucko.

[Ugmo]

If only there were more socialists in the United States Congress.

That would rule.

[chickenona]

I'm loving how YourMomma is continuing to come in here with an agenda that he/she/it coyly pretends not to have.

Hahahaha @ acting shocked and outraged that the government "forced" banks to lend money on what is clearly marked "PUBLIC HOUSING" - ie, housing OWNED AND OVERSEEN BY THE GOVERNMENT. Yeah, all those poor put-upon banks were FORCED TO ACCEPT 21 BILLION IN GOVERNMENT FUNDS FOR WHAT IS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED REPEATEDLY AS GOVERNMENT HOUSING.

Whoo-hoo, what a smoking gun - the government having the nerve to tell banks how to spend MONEY THEY READILY ACCEPTED FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THIS AS PART OF A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.

[chickenona]

Where are you getting "forced"?

They took the money - the 21 billion cited repeatedly by Cuomo in that clip - voluntarily from a government program. When one does that, generally that means that they're going to be told by the government - rightly, because it's GOVERNMENT MONEY - what to do with the money. If they hadn't wanted to take part in a HUD program, once again, nobody was forcing them.

I'm still not getting what you're trying to say here. That news conference was nationally televised, it was not hidden, it's not a smoking gun. Some banks took 21 billion dollars' worth of HUD money with the understanding that they were going to be taking part in a government lending program for poorer families. They were not forced to take the money.

[tin00can]

Jesus, you're a dumb broad. It shows right there in that video that the banks were FORCED to lend to poor people! It's hidden in plain sight! The banks had no choice!

[chickenona]

I'm a flaming brainwashed liberal.

[absolutely fabulous]

Times eight year table...
in photos?

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0 ... 69,00.html

[chickenona]

I don't even see how you can call it "encouragement". The only banks "encouraged" to grant these loans were the ones who took the 21 billion that everybody knew was earmarked for a HUD program. There was no forcing or even encouraging about it. Banks were given a choice - take the money and participate in the program, or don't. Your refusal to acknowledge this fact is the only thing keeping your argument afloat at this point.

You do know that if a bank took that money and then DIDN'T use it for its stated purpose, that would have been fraud, right?

[tin00can]

Where are you getting "forced"?

Maybe "encouraged" is a word you might more readily accept. Whether banks were "forced" or encouraged" to lend to people that would never be able to pay them back is irrelevant since the outcome was the same.

So you're saying there is no difference between "forced" and "encouraged?" Seriously, how do you think all those loans went down? Was the government monitoring those banks to make sure they gave shitty loans to people they knew wouldn't pay them back?

[tin00can]

So you're saying there is no difference between "forced" and "encouraged?" Seriously, how do you think all those loans went down? Was the government monitoring those banks to make sure they gave shitty loans to people they knew wouldn't pay them back?

I don't even see how you can call it "encouragement". The only banks "encouraged" to grant these loans were the ones who took the 21 billion that everybody knew was earmarked for a HUD program. There was no forcing or even encouraging about it. Banks were given a choice - take the money and participate in the program, or don't. Your refusal to acknowledge this fact is the only thing keeping your argument afloat at this point.

You do know that if a bank took that money and then DIDN'T use it for its stated purpose, that would have been fraud, right?

Makes me wonder if either of you even watched the C-SPAN footage of member of Congress after member of Congress defending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the very end while insisting there was nothing to be concerned about and blocking any common sense regulations all the while encouraging continued risky lending to unqualified borrowers. Houston, we have a problem.

There's that word "encouragement" again. What exactly does that mean? What did they do?

[chickenona]

Hahaha, dude, you sound like a broken record.

You're determined to make your argument fit, all the while conveniently ignoring the fact that these are VOLUNTARY programs involving Federal funding that the banks DIDN'T have to take.

We wouldn't have failed if it weren't for those damn poor people the banks were FORCED to help out!

[chickenona]

If anyone is seeing things in black and white, it's you. EYUN has posted several lengthy articles explaining that there were many factors - gray areas, even - that caused the failure of the banks. I'm glad YOU'VE been able to simplify it into one causal factor - those damn poor people.

[tin00can]

There's that word "encouragement" again. What exactly does that mean? What did they do?

Community Reinvestment Act
The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5] The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.). To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.).[6]

For some reason my previous post didn't show up. Anyway...again, what proof is there of what actually happened to force these banks to make loans? Why haven't we heard anything from the banks themselves about how they were forced to make loans? While on the surface your quote does indeed seem damning, what actually happened? I found a few links that mention ACORN as part of the problem, threatening lawsuits, but still nothing solid:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

And then this rebuttal, admittedly from a biased source:
http://ragingtantrum.com/?p=1725

And this as well:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200809300012

As usual, the truth most likely lies between the screaming extremes. However, just from casual research it doesn't look like there were enough "forced loans" to be the cause of the housing crisis.

And as for "seeing things in black and white..." I'd wager that most people on this board see me as pretty fair in my viewpoints.

[tin00can]

I've provided material for the both of you. I will not do your homework for you. You are big boys and girls now and if you were truly concerned about finding the answers to your questions you would follow up on the information I have provided in backing up my statements. I will not be doing so.

= I got nuthin'.

[tin00can]

= I'm too lazy to dig for answers that I'm afraid could contradict what I already believe to be true.

Yeah, it sure looks like that in the links I posted, eh? I don't spend any time looking for something that challenges my opinion. You got me, chucko!

[chickenona]

I'm not really sure where your patronizing tone is justified here, guy.

Nobody ever said you didn't provide links. What you DID do was paint yourself into a corner with the word "forced". When it was explained to you how and why the Cuomo clip you posted did nothing to back the whole "forced" hypothesis, you moved onto "Well, okay, I'll humor you and say 'encouraged'." Right there your argument was pretty well voided out, but that's beside the point.

Early on in this thread you declared, as most right-leaners do, that the collapse of the housing and financial market was chiefly due to the government "forcing" - your word - banks to make risky loans to poor people. Right out of the gate, EYUN posted a comprehensive link that backs the argument that deregulation and speculation, not risky loans, were the primary causes of the collapse.

EYUN has posted on here for a long time and he does NOT lean left. He just looked at long-term causes and effects with available data and came to the conclusion that the markets started unraveling when deregulation came into play and really came undone when lenders speculated and gambled that the housing bubble would burst later than it did. There's no one factor that caused such a catastrophic collapse, but basically deregulation of the banks was the one event that set everything else in motion. The article he posted even addressed the risky lending practices of Freddie and Fannie, but it indicated that they happened too late to have been any kind of consequential factor. Freddie and Fannie were already in trouble prior to making those loans. And again, don't forget - the loans referred to in your Cuomo link were made with public funds that the banks were under no obligation to take.

[JakeYonkel]

EYUN has posted on here for a long time and he does NOT lean left.

Slow down. Every non-ZVD photoshop post he makes is trashing the right.

[chickenona]

He's handed me my ass on things like unions and defense, so it's fair to say he doesn't lean left. As smart as the dude is, he's a troll before anything else, so I guess you could say he leans to whatever side is going to garner the most reaction. For a long time there were a lot of butthurt Bush-hating lefties on here, so he'd give us a hard time to get a rise out of us. Now that most of the loudest ass-achers on here lean right, he posts a lot of stuff meant to upset them. Mostly he just wants to piss people off - and everybody makes it easy for him.

[Ugmo]

He has a hard-on for the death penalty too, but overall it's pretty obvious he leans more to the left than the right.

[Ugmo]

For a long time there were a lot of butthurt Bush-hating lefties on here, so he'd give us a hard time to get a rise out of us. Now that most of the loudest ass-achers on here lean right, he posts a lot of stuff meant to upset them. Mostly he just wants to piss people off - and everybody makes it easy for him.

Did he used to post under a different name? I don't remember him at all until he started hounding Zakk at every opportunity.