Video: Obama In Tonight's Late Show With David Letterman

[folium]

In between all the partisan squabbling here's a handy "Idiot's Guide" to what's really driving the 2012 US election:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19729802

Might come in handy for some folks!

[Chicog]

"The percentage of new lower-quality subprime mortgages rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004 to 2006.

OK, I'm curious, please show me the timeline.

I don't buy that rich people want to bleed everybody dry. The only people who believe that the pie is only one size and can't be expanded giving everyone an opportunity to be better off are the Democrats. So the rich Dems who believe it is possible to bleed everyone dry. The rich Reps believe they can get richer by making the pie bigger so there is something for everybody.

Being obtuse does not serve an argument. I pointed out that the majority of toxic mortgages were created from 2004-6, during and after which times they were packaged into a series of complex financial instruments and fraudulently sold around the world. This was one example of the Republicans relaxing financial regulation so they and their backers could steal more, with the blessing of a Republican administration.

The same thing happened with Enron.

If the people want more of the same, they should vote the Republicans back in.

Talking about "pies" and Republicans making other people rich is rubbish, and the change in wealth distribution amply demonstrates that there is one Republican plan and one plan only: Grab more.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

States with Republican governors have an average unemployment rate a full point lower than states with Democratic governors. Republican governors head seven of the 10 states with the lowest unemployment rates. And 12 of the 15 states that have been ranked the "best for business" have Republican governors. They are far ahead of the democrats when it comes to creating wealth.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

States with Republican governors have an average unemployment rate a full point lower than states with Democratic governors. Republican governors head seven of the 10 states with the lowest unemployment rates. And 12 of the 15 states that have been ranked the "best for business" have Republican governors. They are far ahead of the democrats when it comes to creating wealth.

I could not agree more with that last sentence, although I do think you should add the words "for themselves".

[koheesti]

I pointed out that the majority of toxic mortgages were created from 2004-6, during and after which times they were packaged into a series of complex financial instruments and fraudulently sold around the world. This was one example of the Republicans relaxing financial regulation so they and their backers could steal more, with the blessing of a Republican administration.

My God. Doesn't ANYONE around here read the links? Sorry, I have just posted the following New York Times link from 2003 so many times on this subject but it seems that the Republican-haters flat out refuse to read it. Listen, this is the NEW YORK TIMES we are talking about, the largest, liberal, anti-Bush newspaper on the planet. The same newspaper that made Abu Ghraib front-page news EVERY DAY for over a month. Back in 2003 (before your timeline begins) the Bush administration called for more oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of the impending problems, They were blocked by Democrats - specifically Barney Frank, at the time the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. The same Barney Frank who went on TV in July 2008, two months before the collapse, to say that Fannie and Freddie were not in trouble.

WHY would the liberal NY Times print something that makes Bush look so good (retrospectively at least)? Probably because at the time they thought it made him look bad, wanting to cheat poor people out of the right to own a home or some other irrational excuse.

Here's the link, PLEASE read it. I know it isn't a short piece, but that's how the New York Times does things,...

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON

Published: September 11, 2003

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 — The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac , the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/11LEND.html

Edited October 2, 2012 by koheesti

[Chicog]

Well they weren't facing a financial crisis in 2003, were they? The massive increase (8% to 20%) occurred between 2004 and 2006. Don't criticise other people for not reading when you are ignoring what is right in front of you.

And by the way, what happened to the Plan you described? Because if it was implemented, it didn't do much of a job, did it?

In fairness, it's a stain on both parties. Politicians the world over, scum sucking bottom feeders the lot of them.

how did Fannie and Freddie manage to avoid being heavily regulated or even nationalized? They spent $170 million lobbying Congress and another $19.3 million in direct campaign contributions. In other words, they legally bribed the people who were supposed to be regulating them.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Chicog

[chuckd]

How about some more links to prove the Democrats are the ones that dropped the ball on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, NOT THE REPUBLICANS, as some claim.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Bush warned the country beginning in 2001 about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

The bush adminstration in 4/2001 raised red flags, the 2002 budget requests declares Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

“Potential problem.. and can cause strong repercussions in the financial markets”

In 2003 the White House upgraded the warning to a systemic risk that could spread beyond the housing sector.

John Snow Treasury Secretary called for Regulations & Supervision of GSE’s.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...and this...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are plenty more out there for those interested in the truth.

[chuckd]

Well they weren't facing a financial crisis in 2003, were they? The massive increase (8% to 20%) occurred between 2004 and 2006. Don't criticise other people for not reading when you are ignoring what is right in front of you.

And by the way, what happened to the Plan you described? Because if it was implemented, it didn't do much of a job, did it?

The proposed bill never became law. The Democrats in the Senate threatened filibuster and it was killed. The Republicans did not have the required 60 votes for cloture.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S. 190 (109th): Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

109th Congress, 2005–2006

A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes. Introduced: Jan 26, 2005 Sponsor: Sen. Charles “Chuck” Hagel [R-NE] Status: Died (Reported by Committee) See Instead: This bill was re-introduced as S. 1100 (110th) on Apr 12, 2007.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s190

[koheesti]

In fairness, it's a stain on both parties. Politicians the world over, scum sucking bottom feeders the lot of them.

We can agree on this at least.

[Chicog]

Actually this list from the Grauniad doesn't take sides in apportioning blame.

There is another one on Time somewhere, but I can't get it to load for some reason.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/26/road-ruin-recession-individuals-economy

[keemapoot]

Update on Letterman:

On Monday night's show Letterman spent his monologue laying into Romney for not showing up and not responding to requests to appear. Paraphrasing, he said "Romney says if elected he'll get tough on China. - really, Mitt? What about me? you can talk tough to China but you can't come on my show? For 30 years, every Presidential candidate has been on this show at this time, and you don't get to be President without sitting in that chair."

He then added, I'm a registered Independent, but do me a favor, if he doesn't come on the show, don't vote for him ok? It's just that simple." - that got lots of applause.

Edited October 2, 2012 by keemapoot

[maccaroni man]

my bet is, if mitt gets elected the office of potus will regain some dignity and the talk shows, beer sumits and golf courses will be missing a guest.

[Ulysses G.]

He then added, I'm a registered Independent, but do me a favor, if he doesn't come on the show, don't vote for him ok? It's just that simple." - that got lots of applause.

Everyone knows that Letterman is a liberal who is in the tank for Obama. Romney will not lose one vote by not showing up to get ridiculed by Letterman.

[keemapoot]

He then added, I'm a registered Independent, but do me a favor, if he doesn't come on the show, don't vote for him ok? It's just that simple." - that got lots of applause.

Everyone knows that Letterman is a liberal who is in the tank for Obama. Romney will not lose one vote by not showing up to get ridiculed by Letterman.

I agree. I think going on the show now would be a mistake.

Jon Stewart ridiculed both candidates campaigns on Monday's show, for lowering the expectations in the debate in this fabricated "he's a better debater than I am" nonsense.

Edited October 3, 2012 by keemapoot

[Ulysses G.]

Jon Stewart is very funny and he does make insightful jokes about both sides - although conservatives come in for more abuse.

[koheesti]

He then added, I'm a registered Independent, but do me a favor, if he doesn't come on the show, don't vote for him ok? It's just that simple." - that got lots of applause.

Everyone knows that Letterman is a liberal who is in the tank for Obama. Romney will not lose one vote by not showing up to get ridiculed by Letterman.

I agree. I think going on the show now would be a mistake.

Jon Stewart ridiculed both candidates campaigns on Monday's show, for lowering the expectations in the debate in this fabricated "he's a better debater than I am" nonsense.

Letterman must have been making a joke when he said he was a registered Independent. I wonder what happened to Dave? He didn't used to be like this - a deranged liberal. I was a big fan of his back during the Reagan years and even remember his morning show in 1980. I was supported Reagan, cast my first vote in a presidential election for him in 1984. IF Letterman had been such a dick like he is today, I wouldn't have loved the guy so much.

Jon Stewart - he is certainly funnier and edgier than Letterman. My biggest gripe against him was that he picked on conservatives more and that dumb young voters use him as their main source of news. He's on the freakin' Comedy Central channel for chrissakes. His famous CNN Crossfire appearance would have been epic if he weren't either drunk or on drugs at the time, slurring his speech and all.

I don't think Romney should avoid either of them though. Stewart would be tough because at least he would grill Romney hard on policy which is what our candidates should face from an interview. Letterman would probably just try to ridicule Romney in a sophomoric way. Letterman is still funny, but if he delves into policy, he can be made to look stupid - even Bill O'Reilly was able to do that.

In the end, Letterman is right about one thing, if a candidate can get tough with China, he should be able to handle a late night funny man.

[Chicog]

Jon Stewart is very funny and he does make insightful jokes about both sides - although conservatives come in for more abuse.

Jon Stewart doesn't go for the throat as much as he could - after all, the establishment pays his wages.

[Ulysses G.]

Jon Stewart doesn't go for the throat as much as he could

That is probably why he is so funny. The "throat" grabbers usually aren't.

[Chicog]

Jon Stewart doesn't go for the throat as much as he could

That is probably why he is so funny. The "throat" grabbers usually aren't.

But sometimes I wish people like him WOULD go for the throat. I haven't seen someone do that since David Frost back in the '60's.

[Neurath]

I recall Bill O'Reilly going on the Colbert Report one evening. When asked about it on Fox Bill O'Reilly said "Colbert blew me right away". Cut back to Colbert, hands in air, saying plaintively in high tone "I didn't!"

[keemapoot]

I recall Bill O'Reilly going on the Colbert Report one evening. When asked about it on Fox Bill O'Reilly said "Colbert blew me right away". Cut back to Colbert, hands in air, saying plaintively in high tone "I didn't!"

I think it was Ulysses earlier in this thread who observed that there is a huge bromance between O'Reilly and Stewart/Colbert, as they are very good business for one another's ratings. If you watch Stewart, he ribs O'Reilly, but doesn't lay into him the way he does the other real fox drones.

[Neurath]

I recall Bill O'Reilly going on the Colbert Report one evening. When asked about it on Fox Bill O'Reilly said "Colbert blew me right away". Cut back to Colbert, hands in air, saying plaintively in high tone "I didn't!"

I think it was Ulysses earlier in this thread who observed that there is a huge bromance between O'Reilly and Stewart/Colbert, as they are very good business for one another's ratings. If you watch Stewart, he ribs O'Reilly, but doesn't lay into him the way he does the other real fox drones.

Sure, that's because they deserve and O'Reilly doesn't - at least not always

[keemapoot]

He then added, I'm a registered Independent, but do me a favor, if he doesn't come on the show, don't vote for him ok? It's just that simple." - that got lots of applause.

Everyone knows that Letterman is a liberal who is in the tank for Obama. Romney will not lose one vote by not showing up to get ridiculed by Letterman.

I agree. I think going on the show now would be a mistake.

Jon Stewart ridiculed both candidates campaigns on Monday's show, for lowering the expectations in the debate in this fabricated "he's a better debater than I am" nonsense.

Letterman must have been making a joke when he said he was a registered Independent. I wonder what happened to Dave?

I don't think Romney should avoid either of them though.

In the end, Letterman is right about one thing, if a candidate can get tough with China, he should be able to handle a late night funny man.

1. You're right about Letterman having changed. It's as though he's using his program as a personal anti-Romney soapbox. And I guess because he is so powerful in his media position, he can get away with it. Frankly, it's interesting to watch just because I want to see how far he will go with this.

2. I think Romney should avoid Letterman's show. This is clearly enemy territory for him, and I suspect there are very few viewers who are not sympathetic to Dave's views at this point. I mean, he has been poking fun at Romney nonstop for months and months, in what I suspect is a long term effort to influence viewers' opinions. However, I would be delighted to see Romney man up and do it. He does appear cowardly hiding from simply a stand up comedian turned into media mogul.

3. And, finally, yes are right. Letterman is no political pundit. Yes, he plays dumb like a fox, but nobody takes him seriously as they would if he were not an entertainer. And, that is kind of the interesting subject of this OP. Can entertainment hosts affect large segments of public opinion and make a difference in a Presidential election?

[Ulysses G.]

Republican candidate sums up Obamacare in one sentence.

"We are going to be gifted with a health care plan that we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don’t,” Bellar continues, “signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/02/doctor-seeking-illinois-senate-seat-offers-brutal-diagnosis-obamacare-in-viral/#ixzz28EgAc9Nv

[Neurath]

What health care plan are people going to be forced to buy? What nonsense.

More importantly though, should fat people be allowed to be Surgeon General? Is that like making someone President who believes that 47% of my fellow citizens have no sense of personal responsibility. Nah, give me a fat Surgeon General any day. They can be fat and still care about the health of others.

[Chicog]

funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes

That's rich. Where are Romney's tax returns and how much does he have in the Caymans, Switzerland, Australia, etc. ... and why?

[Ulysses G.]

It is a joke guys, but Romney already provided his tax returns and there is nothing illegal about keeping funds in the Caymans.

[Chicog]

(I) No he didn't, just selected ones that hide what he was doing prior to 2010.

(II) No-one is even questioning the legality - they are just trying to find out if the future president is trying to cut taxes and do nothing about tax loopholes because he would personally benefit.

We already know the "trusts" were a tax avoidance device.

If he didn't have something to hide, they would have been released by now.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

Giving the democrats more documents to nitpick about makes about much sense as appearing on Letterman.

[Chicog]

Giving the democrats more documents to nitpick about makes about much sense as appearing on Letterman.

Seriously Ulysses, if he'd released them in the first place, it wouldn't even still be a talking point - unless there is something unwelcome.

He's made them a focus by being secretive.

The question every voter should be asking is "What has he got to hide?".