CNN Poll: GOP TAKES BRUNT OF BLAME FOR ECONOMY; Obama Gains.

Search

Rx .Junior
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,376
Tokens
Man Mccain must really be wanting to strangle GW by now...:nohead:

CNN poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy; Obama gains

<!-- google_ad_section_end --><!--endclickprintinclude--><!--startclickprintinclude-->
  • <LI class=cnnHiliteHeader _extended="true">Story Highlights<!-- google_ad_section_start --> <LI _extended="true">Two-thirds say economy is not fundamentally sound, poll found
    <LI _extended="true">Nearly half of those polled blame Republicans for current financial crisis
    <LI _extended="true">Obama leading McCain 51-46 percent, according to CNN poll out Monday
  • Majority of respondents viewed Obama as better on economic issues
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- By a two-to-one ratio, Americans blame Republicans over Democrats for the financial crisis that has swept across the country the past few weeks, a new national poll suggests.
<!--startclickprintexclude--><!-- PURGE: /2008/POLITICS/09/22/cnn.poll/art.obama.gb.afp.gi.jpg --><!-- KEEP -->
art.obama.gb.afp.gi.jpg
Sen. Barack Obama greets supporters during a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on Monday.




1 of 2


corner_wire_BL.gif



<!-- /PURGE: /2008/POLITICS/09/22/cnn.poll/art.obama.gb.afp.gi.jpg -->
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript _extended="true"> var CNN_ArticleChanger = new CNN_imageChanger('cnnImgChngr','/2008/POLITICS/09/22/cnn.poll/imgChng/p1-0.init.exclude.html',1,1);//CNN.imageChanger.load('cnnImgChngr','imgChng/p1-0.exclude.html');</SCRIPT><!--endclickprintexclude-->That may be a contributing factor to an apparent increase for Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain in the race for the White House.
In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey out Monday afternoon, 47 percent of registered voters questioned say Republicans are more responsible for the problems currently facing financial institutions and the stock market, with 24 percent saying Democrats are more responsible.
One in five of those polled blame both parties equally, and 8 percent say neither party is to blame.
The poll also indicates that more Americans think Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, would do a better job handling an economic crisis than McCain, the Republican presidential nominee.
video.gif
Watch Obama blast McCain on the economy »
Forty-nine percent of those questioned say Obama, D-Illinois, would display good judgment in an economic crisis, six points higher than McCain, R-Arizona.
And Obama has a 10-point lead over McCain when it comes to who would better handle the economy overall.
These numbers seem to be affecting the battle for the presidency. Fifty-one percent of registered voters are backing Obama, five points ahead of McCain, who is at 46 percent.

McCain and Obama were tied at 48 percent apiece in the previous CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey conducted September 5-7.
Obama's advantage, while growing, is still within the poll's sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Where did Obama make his gains?
"In two core McCain constituencies: men, who now narrowly favor Obama, and seniors, who have also flipped from McCain to Obama," said Bill Schneider, a CNN senior political analyst.
When including people most likely to vote, the results are pretty much the same. Among likely voters, Obama has a four-point lead, 51 percent to 47 percent.
video.gif
Watch McCain blast Obama for not having a plan »
A CNN Poll of Polls calculated Monday also shows Obama with a single-digit advantage -- 49 percent for Obama to 44 percent for McCain.
"The economy has always been considered John McCain's Achilles heel, and the CNN Poll of Polls started to show an Obama edge in the middle of last week -- just as the financial crisis began to hit home for many Americans," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.
The poll also expands to include third-party candidates. When included in the results, independent Ralph Nader has the support of 4 percent of those polled, with Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney each at 1 percent. Also, Obama has the backing of 48 percent of likely voters, three points ahead of McCain's 45 percent.
A couple of other factors in the survey appear to contribute to Obama's slight rise and McCain's slight drop in the polls. Fifty-three percent of those questioned say McCain, if elected, will mostly carry out the policies of President Bush, who remains extremely unpopular with most Americans. Bush's disapproval is up three points from the previous CNN/Opinion Research poll.
video.gif
Watch Obama's ad tying McCain to Bush »
The survey also indicates Obama's recaptured the "change" factor. Just after the Republican convention, Obama's lead had shrunk to eight points when voters were asked which candidate would be more likely to bring change. His lead is up to 14 points in the new poll.
The margin of error on that question was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Another factor could be McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Thirty-five percent of those questioned have an unfavorable opinion of her, up 8 points from a previous survey. And two-thirds believe she and her husband should testify in the Alaska investigation into the firing of a state official.
"Change has always been Obama's strong suit, but McCain and Palin clearly made inroads into that issue during the GOP convention," Holland said. "Palin, in particular, was seen as an agent of change when she made her first appearance on the national stage. That may be changing now."
The poll also sheds more light on how Americans feel about the financial crisis. Twenty-two percent are frightened by the crisis, with two-thirds concerned. Eleven percent say they are not worried.
Most Americans think that the programs to deal with the financial crisis currently being worked on by Congress and the Bush administration will be unfair to U.S. taxpayers, but they think those programs will help the economy.
Six in 10 think the federal government should step in and address the financial crisis, and 37 percent say the government should stay out. But when it comes to last week's bailouts, support slips to 55 percent, and given the concerns about how future programs will affect taxpayers, it's conceivable that public support for the plans that Congress and the administration are working on could be even lower.
<!--startclickprintexclude--><!--startclickprintexclude-->
 

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
3,255
Tokens
get real, please. Whats wrong with you ??:ohno:

White House warned 17 times about problems with Fannie and Freddie

September 22, 2008 - 11:07 ET
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."
2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
  • "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
  • "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
  • Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.


I love Jackie Mason

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0bZT7QnOZs&feature=user

. Fannie Mae really WAS run right into the ground wasn't it? And guess what? It was DEMOCRATS who did it. Former Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO Franklin Raines was the White House budget director under Bill Clinton. He was also cited by the Washington Post as an economic advisor to...Barack Obama. Obama, in his very short time in the U.S. Senate also quickly became the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae, ahead of even John Kerry.

2. Well then, there's Jamie Gorelick. Does that name sound familiar? She served as Bill Clinton's Deputy Attorney General. She installed the Intelligence "Wall of Separation" that helped lead to the disaster we suffered on 9/11. Then she served as Vice Chairman at Fannie Mae. In 2002, she told "BusinessWeek" that Fannie Mae was "very, very strong" and was "managed safely". For her efforts, driving the company to the brink, she received $26 million plus bonuses.

3. Actually, in large part, it does. Fannie Mae is heavily involved with the Congressional Black Caucus. Interim CEO Daniel Mudd described the relationship Fannie Mae and the Congressional Black Caucus shared as a "family" relationship. The Caucus pressured Fannie Mae to get mortgage loans for millions of Americans who couldn't afford them. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the worst offenders in this housing loan crisis, which in turn caused so many banking institutions to go down with it. The crisis has had a domino effect throughout our financial institutions. In fact, AIG was in part brought down because it held $600 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Meanwhile, President Bush has called for reforming Fannie and Freddie 17 TIMES this year alone!

The democrats' fingerprints are all over this crisis.
 

Rx .Junior
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,376
Tokens
Hey can I ask you where you got the information contained in the above post?
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
Political simpletons think the POTUS micro-manages the economy, as does the 10 second sound bite American general public. Thus BO does get a bounce with bad economic news.

What's funny is that when such people actually believe the POTUS controls the economy, they ignore what party passed what legislation, what party blocked what legislation and how members of their own party actually voted for or against certain legislation. In summary, they really have no fucking idea about what they're talking about.

They just know it's W's fault. :103631605
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
Hey can I ask you where you got the information contained in the above post?

Sweetpea is always more concerned about the source than the facts. I can only surmise he's short on the facts and needs to have "faith" in the source, thus he only uses left leaning sources. They give him the faith he needs.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,998
Tokens
Dear SweetPea,

You might want to put your blinders on (again)
before you read this. By the
way, Hassett is the director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
data



Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
 

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
2,415
Tokens
Anybody who thinks the GOP is not responsible is out of their minds.

Don't forget Clinton could have vetoed the bill in 99 that started all this shit. Anyone with half a brain could see the writing on the wall when these crazy loans were taking place a few years ago. They just ignored it. Both parties are to blame.
 

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
2,415
Tokens
Political simpletons think the POTUS micro-manages the economy, as does the 10 second sound bite American general public. Thus BO does get a bounce with bad economic news.

What's funny is that when such people actually believe the POTUS controls the economy, they ignore what party passed what legislation, what party blocked what legislation and how members of their own party actually voted for or against certain legislation. In summary, they really have no fucking idea about what they're talking about.

They just know it's W's fault. :103631605

Well it was Repug Congress and Senate push all this legislation up to 2006. Here these big companies are bust and the trickle up theory of the Repugs goes into effect again. We need to let them collapse and all feel the pain until the economy really recovers instead of delaying this for another 20 years.
 

Rx .Junior
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,376
Tokens
Sweetpea is always more concerned about the source than the facts. I can only surmise he's short on the facts and needs to have "faith" in the source, thus he only uses left leaning sources. They give him the faith he needs.

Oh Willie are you calling me names? Have you officially joined the list of :sadbb::sadbb:
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
Well it was Repug Congress and Senate push all this legislation up to 2006. Here these big companies are bust and the trickle up theory of the Repugs goes into effect again. We need to let them collapse and all feel the pain until the economy really recovers instead of delaying this for another 20 years.

So what legislation did the "Repug's" pass that led to the current problems?
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
Oh Willie are you calling me names? Have you officially joined the list of :sadbb::sadbb:


My words, as do yours, speak for themselves. :103631605
 

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
2,415
Tokens
So what legislation did the "Repug's" pass that led to the current problems?

Sorry I missed your response. Here is a portion of an article from 1999:

The House Banking Committee, breaking a deadlock over consumer privacy, on Thursday overwhelmingly approved legislation to lift Depression-era barriers among banks, securities firms and insurance companies.
The committee voted 51 to 8 to approve legislation that would allow commercial banks to freely affiliate with securities and insurance companies. The bill, sponsored by committee Chairman James A. Leach (R-Iowa) and the panel’s leading Democrat, John J. LaFalce of New York, would repeal the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act and amend the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, two central laws governing the U.S. banking industry.

Click link for full article.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/mar/12/business/fi-16431
 

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
8,834
Tokens
So what legislation did the "Repug's" pass that led to the current problems?

WOW ... you can't be serious ... it passed in 1999, but that was Bubba's fault right? After all, he was President ... but wait, the POTUS doesn't micro-manage, so it's not his fault.

Willie's argument in a nutshell:

Between 1992 and 2000: It's the POTUS' fault
Between 2000 and 2008: It's not the POTUS' fault.​

I get it.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,480
Members
100,871
Latest member
Legend813
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com