It's all I want for Christmas.

That's pretty obvious. FYI. Obama is our President. He does have a rock star status with young voters. You are welcomed.

Obama has been a big disappointment to his own race. I have never seen so much misery in cities with large black populations. Only republicans seem to be happy with him. He has completed Bush's agenda to the T. Now it's time for us knuckleheads to vote again. I will probably vote for him again. He leaves me wishing for the good ol' days under Bush, and I am DEMOCRAT.

And which country DID we give "trillions" to?

Unless you count the money that Bush and cohorts "sent" to a completely unneccessary war in Iraq, which was started under false pretense and that has managed to kill (in addition to our own troops) countless thousands of civilians who personally never were at war with us, thus creating a fresh pool of people who objectively have reason to hate us (imagine Iraq invading the U.S. to depose Bush and in the process causing "collateral damage")...

If THAT money had been invested into THIS country instead of playing "tough guy" half way around the world, we would have NOT wrecked our economy - because the country would have been able to pay its own bills.

THAT is the money that is now missing from our coffers, and which started the downward spiral of debt. Then the hole multiplied as it caused the economy being unable to keep up which means that there was even LESS on the revenue side - further speeding up the decline.

@Andy, if you want an answer to that question: as of 2010, 3 billion to Israel; 2 billion to Egypt; 1.4 billion to Haiti; 1 billion to Mexico; 1 billion to Ethiopia, etc etc.

Presented without comment -

Increase in Federal Debt ($ in billions) and as % of current total Fed. Debt:

All other 307 2%
Nixon 101 1%
Ford 177 1%
Carter 288 2%
Reagan 1,873 11%
Bush Sr. 1,483 9%
Clinton 1,419 9%
Bush 6,656 40%
Obama 4,334 26%
Total 16,638 100%

GOP 1,873 11%
Presidents last name Bush 8,139 49%
Democrat 5,753 35%
Total Federal Debt 16,638

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. In the 3 years of the Obama Administration it has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The Bush Administration was funding two wars. The Obama administration is funding his social programs.

Presidents. We go from an egomaniac, sociopath nymphomaniac to one that does not give a rat's A, to one that talks big and carries a little stick. We are doomed.

Umm, I'm one of those "criminal bankers", and I've donated to Democrats for a while now. Honestly, its not the bankers that screwed up the country, its the moronic Republicans, with their deregulation.

Let me answer this one @Billy. You ask what moron lends a couple who makes $120k enough to buy an $800k house? The moron is Democratic Congressman Barney Frank who oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Barney Frank who lied to the American people that everything was fine as the walls were caving in." These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Barney Frank
Barney Frank who was to busy getting his then boyfriend a job at Freddie Mac
Barney Frank who said we can't deny people mortgages because it's discrimination.

Does that answer you question as to who the moron was?

So you are saying that all was well in the mortgage lending business prior to Bush. Yes, I know that the sh@t hit the fan when he was President, but are you suggesting that his administration was the cause, through lack of oversight, of the current financial meltdown?

Who said I like Barney Frank? Maybe I shouldn't have attacked Republicans like that. Let me clarify. Both sides of the isle were responsible. There are people on both sides who shouldn't be in office.

And yes Harlan, I am blaming his administration. Bush was the chief executive of the country, therefore he had to pay attention to what was going on.

The Bush Administration was paying attention; it kept warning the democratically controlled Congress; kept trying to pass reforms that BFrank and his pals kept blocking, saying the Bush Administration were "inane" and using "scare tactics" because there was nothing wrong. The mortgage industry collapse falls squarely on his lap.

Luca, and what legislation would that be? I honestly think that the Dodd-Frank reform bill is going to be good for our industry. Aside from the CEO-Employee salary ratio requirement.

As a banker weren't you following the warnings for gse reforms? I was responding to your question on the mortgage meltdowns. You can easily trace the Bush Administration's frustration on what was going on at least 5 years before the actual meltdown.

Luca, you'd have to be specific, there are a lot of warnings from the government, some that I follow, some that I don't.

You said that it's not the bankers that screwed up the economy but the moronic republicans with their deregulation. You also said that under Bush, banks were allowed to buy up all these mortgages that were "complete crap" and that Bush should have had safeguards in place.

1. In 2001, the Bush Administration proposed budget presentation predicted that the size of fannie mae and freddie mac and gse's were too big and a potential problem, it wanted a regulator and reforms. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd said no, everything was fine.

2. in 2003, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight released a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. Barney Frank said the Bush Admin was wrong, Frank said " The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing"

3. As I said before, the Congressional denial of any problems with the housing market went on for years and years.

4. When everything started to crumble in 2008, and foreclosure rates skyrocketed, Dodd and Frank woke up and realized that they had a leaky bag on there hands. They proposed exactly what the Bush Administration wanted back in 2003.

Those are the facts.

Yeah, and I corrected my self on the deregulation statement Luca. Using all of these facts that you posted, can you justify why the Republicans want to repeal Dodd Frank? After all, aren't they the ones who proposed the stuff in it?

Because as usual the democrats didn't just reform to stabilize, typical democratic fashion, they think the government is a social charitable organization. The law includes cute little provisions like the Home Affordable Modification Program and another provision which allows the FDIC to borrow from the U.S. Treasury by imposing a fee on the largest financial firms (like the one you work for) to recoup any taxpayer dollars used in the process. The Congressional Budget Office estimated a repeal of the resolution authority would cut $22 billion

So pretty much they want to reform a bill which mostly does good, but has a few things written in it that they don't like? I think you aren't seeing the big picture here. They don't want Wall Street to be regulate. Honestly, its sad, because regulation is what we need, most of the people at my firm would agree, possibly even the CEO.

Unless the CEO is Jon Corzine, I guarantee that he will not agree.

You're right Billy, I don't see the big picture. I should have stopped an hour ago.

Have a good night my friend.

I can agree with you on that one Luca, I made the mistake of voting for Corzine. He was a pretty big failure at my firm too, I came after he had left, but from what I hear, he never had a chance at CEO. Good night, that was a good discussion.

It always amuses me that when the Bush Administration could have clearly documented and addressed a problem which the Democratically controlled Congress with Barney Frank (who had no business ever being elected and worse in charge of such a powerful committee) refused to correct, not only ignored, but blatantly mismanaged, it's bipartisan. But if it's something that the democrats can invoke "plausible denial" it's George W's fault. Eventually, in the next 100 years or so, the George W excuse is going to get worn.

Gary, there are idiots in every party. The ultra-liberals of the Democratic Party and then the tea-partiers of the Republican Party.

Now thats something I can easily blame on Bush, with his two wars. Afghanistan I can at least agree with, because it took out the Taliban, but Iraq was useless and thats where you're billions went. The funny thing is that Bush couldn't get Osama even with all that money he spent.

If he respected the military so much, why did he send many of them to their deaths in wars that were unneeded. Iraq never attacked us, so why did Bush send so many of our brave men and women to die there?

@Billy, the Obama administration spends most of it's time apologizing to the world for the military, for our beliefs, for our actions, for our way of life. We are not respected by other nations, we are ridiculed.

We are respected by other countries and you can witness that if you go to another country. I recently returned from a business trip to Hong Kong, and my delegation and I were treated with the utmost respect, this isn't anything new. If you go anywhere out of the country on business or even a vacation, you'd see that. But Luca, you still have answered my question.

@ Luca D -- thank you Luca D for your service to this country, and God Bless you and all of those who gave their time, lives or health serving in the military. President Bush truly gave the respect our military (and PD and FD....no "beer summits" PR stunts) they deserve on many fronts. But I'd rather he exercised greater discretion and restraint and avoided Iraq, and passed on the impossible task of "nation building" in the Afghanistan. Best regards, GXR

TY @Gary. Again, I agree. No one would rather go to war.

>> We are not respected by other nations, we are ridiculed <<
Luca D - I routinely deal with various nationals visiting her or abroad. Yes, Bush was ridiculed around the world (and so were people who elected him) for his lack of insight, the false pretense of starting the war in the wrong country, the lack of listening to his military experts on how to secure Iraq immediately after the war, the handling of New Orleans, the "Mission Accomplished" show, the Afghanistan "fumble" -- just too many to count.

Since Obama was voted into office, confidence in the civility of the country and the ability of the electorate to make intelligent choices has been restored around the world. There are many countries that exceed the U.S. in various respects. Other than military spending and the size of its economy - there are actually very few (desirable) areas where the U.S. is leading the world (if anything, the U.S. often trails behind even less-developed nations). Having a president who is not on Cloud 7 about the "greatest country the in world" - but is realistic to recognize that the U.S. is at best equal among many others, has helped us regain the respect on the world stage. Humility is a sign of confidence - not a weakness!

@Andy you are free to have your own opinion, but don't put words in my mouth. I said we are ridiculed around the world because of the constant apologies issued by the Obama Administration, Obama who bows to the Chinese leader Hu Jintao, Obama who apologizes because brave men and women in the military did the jobs they were ordered to do, Obama who is counseled by radicals like BIll Ayers and Rev Wright. I've done my fair share of traveling, in uniform and as a civi. Ask Israeli if America has the same level of prestige now, ask an Iraqi or a Russian.

"Lose the military's respect and you have lost all." Obama would never declare war, he has already surrendered to the rest of the world.

Luca D - I challenge you to poll any 100 people outside the U.S. and find more than 1 who even KNOWS who "BIll Ayers and Rev Wright". The fact that you cite those as the supposed reason that the U.S. has "lost respect" tells me that you are pulling this out of your hat.

In reality, people outside of the U.S. care about the FOREIGN policy of the U.S. - and respect very much that sanity and reason has returned to the office of the President. They respect that Ghadaffi was removed from power so swiftly and effectively (under U.S. leadership) that most people have already forgotten that episode. They respect that finally there was a President listening to the military and intelligence experts so that priority could be given to the hunt after Obama - allowing them to do their job and bring in the results instead of diverting attention to the wrong country.

I have my issues with Obama's track record - but he certainly restored respect for the U.S., which had been all but lost under Bush.

@Andy, you say I am "pulling this out of a hat" and you on the other hand are of the opinion that this country is respected by the rest of the world. I don't question your opinion, it is yours to have- right or wrong. Your barb about me pulling things out of a hat is comical.

I use those two radicals because Obama used them as men who have counseled him. You believe that Obama is respected by the US Military when he worships Ayers - a man who was instrumental in planning the bombing of Fort Dix. Do not lecture me on what I know about him. You don't know the extent of my knowledge.

I have worked with military and civilians around the world, you couldn't find 5 people in my circle that respect Obama or what he has turned this country into. He is not a leader, he is a great orator, a good family man, but he has never been a leader.

Luca - you implied that you have been travelling, conversing with locals, and supposedly finding out that "we are ridiculed around the world because of ... Obama who is counseled by radicals like BIll Ayers and Rev Wright".

You didn't state this as an "opinion" - but as a fact, as if THOSE where the actual reasons why foreigners ridicule the country. Since people outside the U.S. (and probably 2/3rd in the U.S.) would not be able to say who Ayers/Wright are, they could not possibly be the reason...

I am not stating my opinion - I'm reporting on ACTUAL conversations that I have had many times a year over the past 12 years with a large number of foreign nationals (who normally are quite concerned with the U.S. leadership - no matter which administration was in charge) and it's very easy to gauge the overwhelming sentiment.

Pretty much the only "domestic" policy issues they usually are aware of are the lack of comprehensive, affordable health care and the energy policy and of course the level of gun violence - but never once have the names Ayers or Wright ever been mentioned.

@Andy, I didn't imply that I have traveled abroad, I actually stated it.

If you read what I said, it clearly states that we are ridiculed BECAUSE OF Obama's Administration's apologies. Thereafter, I defined who Obama was as a supposed leader, the one who bows to the Chinese, the one who surrounds himself with advisers like Ayers and Wright, etc.

Obama does not listen to the military experts. He has dismantled our ability to defend ourselves. Do you honestly believe the military leadership advised him to do so? He has replaced experts with Obama flunkies. For the first time in the history of this nation, we couldn't defend ourselves if he wanted to.

Were you proud of our leader when he leaned over to Putin and whispered be patient until after the election? Another proud moment in Obama history.

@Andy you state that Obama is listening to the military and intelligence experts. Wrong.
General Dempsey is the chairman of the joint chiefs, on the automatic cuts to the military under Obama, this is what the military expert said “In my personal military judgment, formed over 38 years, we are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime … I think sequestration would be completely oblivious to that, and counterproductive, it will create a hollow force and pose unacceptable risk.”
General Jack Keane testified sequestration “would absolutely break the bank at the Defense Department. We would be a mere shadow of our former selves and be unable to face our global responsibilities.” Our military will loose another 100,000 troops (raising unemployment), making ours the smallest ground force since 1940. Our navy will have fewer than 230 ships, the smallest level since 1915 even though the threatening Chinese fleet outnumbers our navy. We will end up with the smallest tactical fighter force in history.
We are relying on Israel to deal with Syria and Iran. China is considered a world super power that has surpassed the US in economy and military.

The government has an obligation to defend the people of this country, so why cut defense by $1 trillion over 10 years? The government has no right to be dictating healthcare, bail outs, or providing education for the undocumented.

On this @Gary, I agree.

I can agree as well.

Thats not me, its milly bays.

Not me

Hey at least you are a head something. Most of us are just grunts.

Not meant to be insulting, but Democratic women leave a lot to be desired in the looks department.

Not me.