Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Obama ready for fight on financial overhaul

Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:16 AM EDT
business, politics, us, obama, barack-obama, consumers
Ben Feller, Associated Press
In his weekly address President Barack Obama says not everyone is in favor of his financial reform ideas.

President Barack Obama discusses the importance of fatherhood during an event in the East Room of the White House, Friday, June 19, 2009. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Saturday that current financial rules exploit consumers and he put critics of his proposed overhaul on notice: "While I'm not spoiling for a fight, I'm ready for one."

Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address to defend his recent proposal, which is intended to prevent a repeat of the breakdown that has sent the U.S. economy reeling. But such major changes face a fight in Congress and opposition from some leaders in the banking and insurance industries.

In the address, Obama focused on a consumer watchdog office that he wants to set up.

"This is essential," Obama said. "For this crisis may have started on Wall Street. But its impacts have been felt by ordinary Americans who rely on credit cards, home loans and other financial instruments."

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency would take over oversight of mortgages, requiring that lenders give customers the option of "plain vanilla" plans with clear and affordable terms.

"It will have the power to set tough new rules so that companies compete by offering innovative products that consumers actually want and actually understand," Obama said. "Those ridiculous contracts — pages of fine print that no one can figure out — will be a thing of the past. You'll be able to compare products, with descriptions in plain language, to see what is best for you."

More broadly, Obama's changes would begin to reverse the easing on federal regulations pressed by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Democratic leaders in Congress are promising legislation will get passed this year, but that depends in part on how Congress answers big questions about the overhaul, including the role of the Federal Reserve.

"I welcome a debate about how we can make sure our regulations work for businesses and consumers," Obama said. "But what I will not accept — what I will vigorously oppose — are those who do not argue in good faith."

By that, Obama said, he meant those who defend the status quo at any cost. He didn't name any people or organizations, but said special interests are already mobilizing to fight change. He called that typical Washington.

"These are the interests that have benefited from a system which allowed ordinary Americans to be exploited," Obama said. The president said he would stand up for his plans, saying: "While I'm not spoiling for a fight, I'm ready for one. The most important thing we can do to put this era of irresponsibility in the past is to take responsibility now."

___

On the Net:

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Ben Feller's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (46)
MyOpIA

Yet another "essential". If he had just let the bums go out of business this year instead of propping them up we might have had some new ideas being proposed by now. But thanks to him and his cronies it's the same old bunch spinning the same old stories.

  • 6 votes
#1 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:55 AM EDT
Roxanne2Sweet

If he had just let the bums go out of business this year instead of propping them up

Shortsighted, aren't we MyOpIA?

According to all the leading economists, the one flaw of that approach is that the bums would have completed the annihilation of both our economy & the globe's.

Why do you think even GWBush rushed thru the 1st 700billion, with armageddon-like haste?

  • 4 votes
#1.1 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:24 AM EDT
Profchaos

so instead we continue with a very flawed system. sometimse you need to tear something down to build it back up.

would it suck hardcore... indeed it would. but bandaids on a gushing wound do very little...

  • 5 votes
#1.2 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:44 AM EDT
Kc77

would it suck hardcore... indeed it would. but bandaids on a gushing wound do very little...

Um it would do more than "suck". What people fail to realize is just about every single major bank only 8 months ago was technically bankrupt, or very close to it, save maybe Bank of America, which is why you had a free-market guy (Paulsen) rush to provide funds after Lehman Bros went under.

If the government had literally let Citigroup, etc etc all go under you would be living on government cheese right now, because not only would these banks be gone, who do you think would also move to collect on our debt?

  • 1 vote
#1.3 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:45 AM EDT
Linda Luke

They love that you believe exactly what they want you to believe.

The banks yelled bingo and won the jackpot.

  • 3 votes
#1.4 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:05 AM EDT
Bubba-939441

Let the banks, insurance companies and car companies go broke.  The government rewards them for incompetence and punishes their competitors.  Stable companies must now compete against the government.  The consumer suffers in the end. 

  • 2 votes
#1.5 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:15 AM EDT
Us-1157647Deleted
Florida_kes

sometimse you need to tear something down to build it back up.

But if you turn around and use the same builders, architects and failed ideology to rebuild, the only thing that happened was the a lot of the "little" people get hurt while those at the top stay in place.

  • 1 vote
#1.7 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:58 AM EDT
Kc77

They love that you believe exactly what they want you to believe.

The banks yelled bingo and won the jackpot.

I love that you are actually so arrogant as to believe everything would be a-ok if all of the major banks went under, which is why you started hearing a dialogue on "mark to market". I'm not disillusioned one bit in understanding the fraud that got us here. However, derviatives were a globally traded financial instrument, written down on the books of many banks therefore they have an impact of trillions of dollars whether you like it or not.

  • 1 vote
#1.8 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:56 PM EDT
Kwame-890519

Ever try and figure out "two cycle billing" on your credit card account? Why are interest rates increased if the lender is worried about a cash strapped borrower being able to make payments? If your late one time in making a payment to your electric utility why would a credit card company raise your interest rate? Why are payments credited to the balance with the lowest interest rate? What rate would you consider to be usurious?

    #1.9 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:13 PM EDT
    MyOpIA

    So far, it seems that all of the arguments circle around the same old bunch spinning the same old stories, as I stated in my post. If you look for a painless answer then you will be wandering around blindly like Obama. There is no way to borrow your way out of debt, and that is all that is being attempted.

    It's almost as if many people want all the problems solved just as long as the solution doesn't cause them any inconvenience. Maybe that's a product of the entitlement mentality that has weakened Americans, and now America itself, over the years. I can just imagine how far they would have progressed 234 years ago if there was just a bunch of people sitting around whining about "not if it bothers my interests". I'd make a reference that then we'd still have a queen, but given the current administration it would be redundant.

    • 2 votes
    #1.10 - Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:53 AM EDT
    Kc77

    It's almost as if many people want all the problems solved just as long as the solution doesn't cause them any inconvenience. Maybe that's a product of the entitlement mentality that has weakened Americans, and now America itself, over the years. I can just imagine how far they would have progressed 234 years ago if there was just a bunch of people sitting around whining about "not if it bothers my interests". I'd make a reference that then we'd still have a queen, but given the current administration it would be redundant.

    and that's a bunch of BS, because the only ones that don't want to be "inconvenienced" are sitting at the top. Don't act like the middle class and lower haven't suffered. None of them have received bail outs, or private plane trips to Las Vegas, or multi-million dollar severance packages.

    Here's another thing deficts didn't magically start in 2009. They've been around since pretty much the beginning. This isn't new. This isn't some uncharted territory.

      #1.11 - Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:09 PM EDT
      MyOpIA

      Here's another thing deficts didn't magically start in 2009. They've been around since pretty much the beginning. This isn't new. This isn't some uncharted territory.

      For anyone utilizing a rational thought process, the phrase "same old bunch spinning the same old stories" would seem to indicate precisely that. I just don't happen to view the continuation or exacerbation of failed policies as being excused because of the "we've always done it that way" excuse, especially when the one doing it achieve office by claiming to be something different. Many though, having heard such drivel before, were not fooled. Your statement makes me think you are among the majority who were.

      • 1 vote
      #1.12 - Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:13 AM EDT
      Kc77

      Your statement makes me think you are among the majority who were.

      No promises were made about deficits.I guess you weren't listening. Are you mad about your previously misplaced votes in which you thought the last eight years would actually benefit you?

        #1.13 - Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:40 AM EDT
        MyOpIA

        Still not paying attention? Is the word "continuation" too big?

        • 1 vote
        #1.14 - Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:23 AM EDT
        Kc77

        Looks like your just saying stuff to say it.....cya.

          #1.15 - Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:49 PM EDT
          Reply
          TheRealGlamDeleted
          Profchaos

          "It will have the power to set tough new rules so that companies compete by offering innovative products that consumers actually want and actually understand," Obama said. "Those ridiculous contracts — pages of fine print that no one can figure out — will be a thing of the past. You'll be able to compare products, with descriptions in plain language, to see what is best for you."

          No group has the power to do that. no more fine print.... right. in this age of massive litigation, the fine print actually protects both parties

          • 2 votes
          Reply#3 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:42 AM EDT
          angela593

          I do not run my home on a totally, free market capitalist philosophy. The buck stops with me- I am the consumer protection agency and I want some regulations that grow the economy, provides jobs, and nurtures the average citizens' financial needs. The lawyers, market place, banks, and the wealthy will continue to build wealth exponentially, at the expense of the little person. This is a guarantee. Time, world conditions, economics, little person stamina are not on our side.

          Money is a player. Money plays us all and the love of money is the root of all evil. Obama, big government or not, must make the regulations work to encourage all citizens to "do the right thing" "to do things right" and reestablish some equilibrium. The predictions for the USA economy are grim. Some believe we will not be a world power by 2015, and this is regardless of how successful we are today. The country that has the strongest resources, government, and population will be on top by 2025, and that will be China. We need the best long range plan available to human thinking and we all must be willing to compromise, especially the rich, the entrepreneurs, the powerful. How can the Us Congress plan for stability for generations to come regardless of troubles?

          By that, Obama said, he meant those who defend the status quo at any cost. He didn't name any people or organizations, but said special interests are already mobilizing to fight change. He called that typical Washington

          • 1 vote
          Reply#4 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:57 AM EDT
          Eric AlbertDeleted
          rebel-conf

          obama the broken record what a nut job ya all elected . sorry obama the scare tactics are over were sick of you you,re a bafoon and a loser . hey obama why dont you actually do you,re job instead of running a reelection campaign.

          • 1 vote
          Reply#6 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:33 AM EDT
          just_my_opinion-1021472

          I still say- You can't fix the economy without jobs. The US needs to go back to producing our own goods and import less. This means the companies that are making money hand over fist need to realize if they wish to continue making money, need to get their asses back here in this country and settle for just making a large sum of money.

          President Obama should be encouraging this somehow instead of printing more money that isn't going to help anyone when it is all said and done.

          • 1 vote
          Reply#7 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:46 AM EDT
          steve-686481

          Sadly you are more right than you can possible realize.

          And the solutions of the Obama admin are all geared toward moving us back into a consumer country again. Spend, spend spend is the sickening mantra from the blowhards in Washington. Not one of his policy solutions is geared toward getting Europe and Asia to develop their consumer markets which MUST happen if mfg is to return to the US.

          We simply cannot mfg and sell within the confines of the US and expect our standard of living to increase or even to be maintained. 1) basic economics prevents this outcome and 2) the wealth will concentrate even further than it already has in the hands of a very few.

          Global trade is the ONLY long-term solutions. But it must be SMART Global trade, something our Government is incapable of doing in its current state.

            #7.1 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:07 AM EDT
            Reply
            DoctorLogic

            I just don't get it. We are in the midst of a comeback from one of the worst financial debacles since the great depression. Some used the financial system as it was to get filthy rich at the demise of many, many others. That is a fact and I don't think anyone disputes it. It is also an undisputable fact that one of the reasons it occurred was the lack of rules/oversight keeping them in check. It is clear that something needs to be done…I think that everyone should be on the same page at this point.

            So, common sense provides that the government needs to do something to assure this doesn’t happen again. To do nothing would be negligent. What do they do? They are changing what was done in the past and adding more regulation due to the changing type of market they are facing. I finally thought we’d have something we could all agree with…especially since this all happened so recently.

            Still, surprisingly (sarcasm intended), Obama gets flack for addressing what wasn’t addressed for years. This silliness of opposing everything the Obama Administration does simply because government is “always evil” and can do no right has got to stop. This financial crisis shows that government is an absolute NECESSITY and even though there are times it should step out of the picture, there are times where it needs to interject its power for the common good.

            For those opposing Obama’s plan for regulation, what is your plan for assurance that this same situation doesn’t happen in 10 or 20 years? If you rely on private business to police itself in the interests of the people, you’re delusional.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#8 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:00 AM EDT
            steve-686481

            Like so many, you believe the failure is one of no rules. But the fact is there are numerous rules and laws in place that, if enforced, would have prevented the very behavior that got us in this mess.

            More regulation will not prevent this from happening again. ONLY ENFORCEMENT WILL. And clearly we, meaning our regulatory bodies, have a problem holding people accountable through honest and rigorous enforcement.

            This is why Obama is getting flack and rightfully so. By adding more layers of Bureacracy he is actually creating an environment where everyone can now point the finger at some other agency for not doing their job and you will get ZERO accountability rather than more. There is far too much agency overlap in responsibility now to actually hold our regulators accountable.

            Between the SEC and Treasury what other new agencies are necessary to enforce sound financial decisions by Companies and lending institutions?

            Their charters are as follows.

            The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.

            Serve the American people and strengthen national security by managing the U.S. Government's finances effectively, promoting economic growth and stability, and ensuring the safety, soundness, and security of the U.S. and international financial systems.

            Maybe, just maybe, let's try to actually enforce the current laws on the books first before we go off and change a world that is not as broke as some would lead us to believe.

              #8.1 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:29 AM EDT
              Bubba-939441

              Steve's right. There is another law in place against illegal immigration. If enforced we would not have to pay for healthcare for 20 million and could perhaps provide healthcare for our citizens.

              • 2 votes
              #8.2 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:42 AM EDT
              DoctorLogic

              steve:

              I agree with you on one point...there was some semblence of regulation in place that was overlooked. In large part because the market has changed and the system that is in place is not designed to deal with it. Much of the "regulation" that is in place is meant to deal with an economy of many, many years ago. The reducIt doesn't make any sense to me to add more onto a plate of an agency...as a matter of fact, I think it makes more sense to give these agencies one primary focus(which, in large part, is what Obama is looking to do).

              Lets not forget the brilliance of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. Many point to that reduction in oversight as the kick start to our situation now.

              • 2 votes
              #8.3 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:06 PM EDT
              steve-686481

              I agree the brilliance of repealing the Glass-Steagall was one of utter incompetence.

              However, I still believe the mechanisms are in place to deal with the financial engineering that has occurred over the past 20 years. The SEC has the authority to regulate all financial securities.

              As such, before any company can issue securities they go through a very rigorous process to insure the public isn't buying blue sky.

              Why can't the SEC simple have a review board that insures that all financial products meet certain transparancy criteria prior to offering. Otherwise, just like the FDA, you tell whoever is trying to market the product try harder.

              We certainly don't allow a new drug to be introduced until we know its efficacy, same with new cars, planes, or other potentially hazardous products. Prior to launch the companies have to prove that their products meet certain minimum standards.

              What makes financial products any different? Nothing.

              Take Credit Default Swaps for example, if pricing is so difficult that Alan Greenspan, head of the fed, cannot figure it out. Then maybe the product should not be allowed to be sold until a more transparent pricing mechanism can be shown.

              I heard that there was a healthcare proposal. However, they didn't know how much it would cost or how to pay for it. Not sure about you but I call that wishfull thinking not a proposal. Same with any product.

                #8.4 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:34 PM EDT
                Lampell

                Lets not forget the brilliance of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. Many point to that reduction in oversight as the kick start to our situation now

                As an ex stockbroker and a former owner of an investment bank I am quite aware of what the Glass Steagall Act did and didnt do. It had nothing to do with the rise of over the counter CDO's which allowed AIG to write 12 times as many insurance contracts than there were underlying bonds in the first place. The Act was an anachronism, meant to separate brokers from banks. With the advent of mega banks, and more importantly hedge funds the Act didnt do anything. We have a shadow banking system known as 10,000 hedge and private equity funds that at present have almost no regulation. Those funds are the ones with the money right now, not the banks. Lets focus on getting them in line with regulations.

                • 1 vote
                #8.5 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:32 PM EDT
                DoctorLogic

                I was speaking to the overarching concept of more regulation vs. less regulation. Given your experience, you know a heck of a lot more about this stuff than I do...but one concept holds true throughout any of these different industries: government HAS to play an effective role in regulation. Even if what they're proposing isn't viewed as perfect, I truly do believe the Obama Administration is, at minimum, taking strides in the right direction.

                • 1 vote
                #8.6 - Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:09 AM EDT
                Lampell

                I truly do believe the Obama Administration is, at minimum, taking strides in the right direction.

                Of all the programs that this administration is doing the only one I agree with so far is the regulation of the financial services industry. I dont agree with the stimulus because the way it has been done will not make it very effective. In the area of financial regulation we should be beefing up the SEC not emasculating it by giving more power to the Fed. To many not in the business it wont matter but the SEC is more equipped to regulate hedge funds etc more effectively. And of course no amount of regulations will do any good if those laws are not enforced. That is the key

                  #8.7 - Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:23 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  KattyyDeleted
                  Roach353

                  What our socialist President is saying is that this is what he wants to do. If anyone opposes him, he will get rid of them. It's his way or the highway. This is not the American way. Lets spend more money and put more beauracratic governmental agencies into place that will cost us more money. As his ratings begin to fall lets all set our sights and hopes for a total govenmental, societal, & economic melt down. God bless the king......

                  • 3 votes
                  Reply#10 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:12 AM EDT
                  DoctorLogic

                  Roach wrote:

                  What our socialist President is saying is that this is what he wants to do. If anyone opposes him, he will get rid of them. It's his way or the highway.

                  What are you talking about? He'll get 'rid' of those who oppose him? Point to some evidence that supports ANY of what you're saying.

                  Better yet, what would you have done differently given the beautiful situation Bush left the country? It is absolutely ridiculous to assume he wanted to help the banks or auto industry. To assume so is paranoid gibberish.

                  • 2 votes
                  #10.1 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:29 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  http://blablabla.ee/Artiklid/artikkel/368Deleted
                  Roach353

                  give incentives to bring manufacturing back to this great country. The world used to buy everything from us. Stop giving our national security away to the world. People just don't get it.

                  Question: Does anyone know what Dec 7th is? or June 6th? or Sept 11th?

                    Reply#12 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:29 AM EDT
                    http://blablabla.ee/Artiklid/artikkel/368Deleted
                    Beckyal

                    within the FY 2010 President's Budget, Obama stated that he want to have a Participatory Democracy where citizens can have their voices heard. the more I watch this man, the more I realize this just the opposite of what he wants. His actions state that if you disagree with him, you are suppose to keep your mouth shut or else. Why are not more Americans calling this man out. He states what the people want to hear but does as he wants to do.

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#14 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:38 PM EDT
                    DoctorLogic

                    His actions state that if you disagree with him, you are suppose to keep your mouth shut or else.

                    What are you talking about?!?!?!? Because he has different viewpoints than you he's telling you to "keep your mouth shut or else"....what type of logic does that follow?

                    If I remember right, during the Bush regime any time we questioned him we were called 'treasonous' and 'shouldn't question the commander in chief during wartime'.

                    Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

                    • 2 votes
                    #14.1 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:16 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    Paul Lucero

                    Obama will go down fighting on this and losing!

                      Reply#15 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:42 PM EDT
                      kissmyarsenal

                      Good lord. How many little gestapos is Obama going to try to set up? He's dismantling the Constitution one czar at a time.

                      We the people need some czars to oversee Congress and the President. Funny how the biggest threats to our country are those we elect to reduce the threats to our country.

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#16 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:58 PM EDT
                      c anderson

                      People fail to be correctly alarmed by this "czar" thing. Most government appointees have to be approved by and answer to the Congress. Obama has completely bypassed the checks and balances system by appointing these "czars." They answer to no one but him. Congress has no control. In turn, the people have no control. It is government of Obama, by Obama and for Obama.

                      • 2 votes
                      #16.1 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:29 PM EDT
                      Reply
                      River-239955

                      ROFL!!!!

                      "Those ridiculous contracts — pages of fine print that no one can figure out — will be a thing of the past. You'll be able to compare products, with descriptions in plain language, to see what is best for you."

                      It's way past time that these leeches were put in their place. Will it fix everything? Of course not. Will it help us move forward to eliminate those who have deliberately milked the system and all that the general public is worth? You betcha....

                      I'm thrilled that he is working for the common man. That's my kinda Prez.

                      • 2 votes
                      Reply#17 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:00 PM EDT
                      Big Bang-1167974

                      Pages of legal fine print are truly ridicules for credit card companies to do to consumers. Short and sweet contracts are good for the consumer and fair to credit card companies. I’m more suspicious of obama’s fine print that somehow screw’s everyone!

                        Reply#18 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:11 PM EDT
                        DoctorLogic

                        As I've mentioned over and over...useless, one line(maybe two) statements that "Obama's gonna get ya"....brilliant. Once you start coming up with some evidence to back up your ridiculous claims, maybe someone will listen. Until then, keep spreading the lies!

                        • 2 votes
                        Reply#19 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:51 PM EDT
                        Heretical Monk

                        Here, lets give our right wings nuts a little history lesson:

                        "The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly referred to as the S&L crisis) was the failure of 745 savings and loan associations (S&Ls aka thrifts). An S&L association is a financial institution in the United States that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage loans. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government—that is, the U.S. taxpayer, either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts—which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s.

                        The concomitant slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990–1991 economic recession. Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed per year dropped from 1.8 million to 1 million, the lowest rate since World War II."

                        What was that? the government bailed out banks in the 80's? but wasn't Reagan president? that means Reagan was a Socialist!!!!! oh but wait, only us liberals can be called Socialist.

                        Anytime the right accuses Obama of Socializing America give them this little history lesson.

                        • 3 votes
                        Reply#20 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:57 PM EDT
                        Leave a Comment:
                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                        Newsvine Privacy Statement
                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                        FUN STUFF:
                        • Leaderboard |
                        • E-Mail Alerts |
                        • Top of the Vine |
                        • Newsvine Live |
                        • Newsvine Archives |
                        • The Greenhouse
                        COMPANY STUFF:
                        • Code of Honor |
                        • Company Info |
                        • Contact Us |
                        • Jobs |
                        • User Agreement |
                        • Privacy Policy |
                        • About our ads
                        LEGAL STUFF:
                        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com