What CBS left on the cutting room floor in Obama '60 Minutes' interview

American stinker and guys like corney are pissed that Obama has done some of the things that bush the mental/moral midget just said he was gonna do but ended up wasn't enough to be bothered with......like getting the guy that he told us was directly responsible for 9/11.

Just wish the gNOp would do what THEY promised when they took power in 2008.......you know the issue. JOBS. Like they have even addressed it at all.....they couldn't be bothered any more than bush the m/m mwas with bin Laden!

I am with you indytx. He said most of it.

so far historians are saying he was better than reagan.,though a year old, he was ranked 15th back then.

Naughtia: I think you may find the Gallup Poll of Best Presidents more inclusive.

www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/...poll-greatest-president/.../386725

Considering the mess Obama inherited and the ensuing onslaught of obstructionism, coupled with the Tea Party/Birth racists junta; he has done exceptionally well.

quoting newsmax is like quoting Donald Trump

?

never mentioned "christain" people in my comment...then again you are probably equating the republican party as the "christain" party...am I correct in saying this?

dream on...

pettiness of the right-wing

Even though this was a softball CBS interview, it is amazing that the comments that could have given CBS great ratings for the comically statement, were left on the cutting room floor. It demonstrates that CBS editors were embarrassed by the silly claim that the President made about his own greatness.

Can he prove he saved this country from a great depression?

Well we lost 12 trillion in wealth 4 months before Obama took office, We lost 9% of GDP(just like 1929) and we lost 2.5 million jobs before bush left office, 820,000 the month he left. The dow plummeted by near 50%, and things didn't stop until the stimulus started...yeah he stopped a great depression and ignored the Teabagger/Hooverites, which is why we don't have 25% unemployment right now.

Can you prove that he didn't? In light of the fact we AREN'T in a Great Depression I'd say he did.

Proove the stimulus of $800,000,000,000 did anything to help. Maybe it was Obama keeping the Bush take cuts that helped the economy.

The Economy tanked due to housing Bubble crash. The housing bubble started when Carter pushed the homes loans in the red-lined areas. And the "liar loans" were furthered by Clinton's Community Redevelopment Act, and the housing bubble was growing until it crashed on Bush and continues to crash under Obama. Neither Bush nor Obama started this. Bush tried on several occasions, but got no support. Obama got a handful from numerous predecessor, but he has had no success in recovery. And I can tell these facts without once throwing out insults and name calling to those I disagree with. PS Obama loves talking the bows for all the defense spending of Bush for which many insults have been hurled.

MPN, can you give links proving your assertions?

MyPurpleNews
Proove the stimulus of $800,000,000,000 did anything to help. Maybe it was Obama keeping the Bush take cuts that helped the economy.

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

http://www.aei.org/article/economics/fiscal-policy/the-year-ahead/
american Enterprise Institute a far right think group

CBO: Obama stimulus helping economy
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/195181-cbo-says-obama-stimulus-still-helps-economy

Reversing Bushs' hemorrhaging of jobs -from negative to positive
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/privatejobs_mar11.jpg

The Economy tanked due to housing Bubble crash. The housing bubble started when Carter pushed the homes loans in the red-lined areas. And the "liar loans" were furthered by Clinton's Community Redevelopment Act, and the housing bubble was growing until it crashed on Bush and continues to crash under Obama. Neither Bush nor Obama started this. Bush tried on several occasions, but got no support. Obama got a handful from numerous predecessor, but he has had no success in recovery. And I can tell these facts without once throwing out insults and name calling to those I disagree with. PS Obama loves talking the bows for all the defense spending of Bush for which many insults have been hurled.

Utter Bull@!$%#, purp. The CRA had nothing to do with private banks making risky loans, it stopped discrimination of people with good credit from discrimination by race or zip code.

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/cra/community_reinvestment_emerging_from_housing_crisis.pdf
lending exploded in the late 1990s, reaching over $600
billion and 20 percent of all originations by 2005. Only
25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and
thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six
percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible.

No gov't entity made those private banks dole out these junk loans, and nobody forced wall street to mix them in with good loans and pass them off as triple A investments

Bush didn't do @!$%# to reign it in, republiks had the full majority for 12 years and couldn't get it done, there was no Democratic obstruction to it, in fact Repub Oxley and Frank worked to pass a regulatory bill that could have prevented this meltdown or at least cut it in half...It was sent to the Senate and KILLED by Frist, reportedly at the request of Bush,

Mike Oxley, we hardly knew ye. An amazing report from the FT:
The Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess [at Fannie and Freddie] on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.
He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. "All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this," he says. "What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute."
report from the FT

Only right wingers would break out in covulsions if you dare mention the bad economy under Bush, yet they will attempt to pin it on at president from near 40 years ago...pathetic!!!

Randy, Thank you for your detail.

Utter Bull@!$%#, purp. The CRA had nothing to do with private banks making risky loans, it stopped discrimination of CRA was in deed the problem.

The short version is that these are not separate issues. Due to Lenders fears of discrimination due to red-lining and the guarantee by Freddie and Fannie, the term "liar loan" came into play. No proof other than ones word and a few fuzzy documents and loans were given. Many very bad loans were made. The CRA plus the guarantee by Fred and Fan were the root of this plethora of bad loans. Furthermore, the Fed Reserve flooded the market with cheap money and Fred and Fan guaranteed the loans and sold them to Wall Street who packaged the good and the bad because the junk was guaranteed.

A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats.
bucksright.com/bush-proposed-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-supervision-in-2003-1141

MyPurpleNews:

Lets get it right from the horses mouth. Peter J Wallison was a member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commision appointed by Congress. He stated the following:

The 1992 affordable housing goals required that, of all mortgages Fannie and Freddie bought in any year, at least 30 percent had to be loans made to borrowers who were at or below the median income in the places where they lived. Over succeeding years, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) increased this requirement, first to 42 percent in 1995, to 50 percent in 2000, and finally to 55 percent in 2007. It is important to note, accordingly, that this occurred during both Democratic and Republican administrations.

At the 50 percent level, Fannie and Freddie had to acquire at least one goal-eligible loan for every prime loan that they acquired, and since not all subprime loans were goals-eligible Fannie and Freddie were in effect required to buy many more subprime loans than prime loans to meet the goals. As a result of this process, by 2008, Fannie and Freddie held the credit risk of 12 million subprime or otherwise risky loans -- almost 40 percent of their single-family book of business.

But this was not by any means the full extent of the problem. HUD took Congress's enactment of the affordable housing goals as an expression of a congressional policy to reduce underwriting standards so that low-income borrowers would have greater access to mortgage credit. As outlined in my dissent, by tightening the affordable housing goals, HUD put Fannie and Freddie into competition with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a government agency with an explicit mission to provide credit to low-income borrowers, and with subprime lenders such as Countrywide, that had pledged to reduce underwriting standards in order to make more mortgage credit available to low-income borrowers. Moreover, all these organizations were joined by insured banks and S&Ls, which as noted above were required under the CRA to make mortgage credit available to borrowers who are at or below 80 percent of the median income in the areas where they live.

Of course, it is possible to find borrowers who meet prime loan standards among low-income families, but it is far more difficult to find such loans among these borrowers than among middle-income groups. And when Fannie, Freddie, FHA, subprime lenders like Countrywide, and insured banks and S&Ls are all competing to find loans to borrowers in the low-income category, the inevitable result was a significant deterioration in underwriting standards.

So, for example, while one in 200 mortgages involved a down payment of 3 percent or less in 1990, by 2007 it was one in less than three. Other credit standards had also declined. As a result of this government-induced competition, by 2008 19.2 million out of the total of 27 million subprime and other weak loans in the U.S. financial system could be traced directly or indirectly to U.S. government housing policies

There are 2 faults with your talking points. Lets say there was legislation ...25 years prior that was harmful to the economy...then it is incumbent on those in power to pass legislation to avert disaster. Well who had control of the ENTIRE federal government 25 years later? Bush and the repub congress! This problem didn't crest until the ass end of Bushs' administration...there was no prior incidence of it save for reagans Black Monday, typical overspeculation bubble after rewarding speculation over investment that is par for the course in the modern conservative dogma. In short if you are sitting back with a jaundiced eye while the economy is torn asunder on your watch, YOU are responsible.

The other fault is the kneejerk blame government and the CRA and FnF, not saying they were innocent far from it, but lets examine the rot, and how and when it occurred.

True Clinton allowed a minor amount of the market to be subprime, thats not altogether bad, because there are some upwardly mobile people in society that have holdings and income and a record of trustworthiness, they are a minority, but they are there. Thats why, when Clinton left office, the subprime market was only 5% of total mortgage market share, and you'll notice, these were not the loans that collapsed, those loans specifically were sold between 2002-2006. we know this because the mortgage failure rate was relatively steady through at least 1990-2005, any loans originating under clinton that went bad would have reset in 2,3,5 yr increments. No the loans were starting to reset in 2006 and on.

So Clinton left the subprime market at 5% in 2000. By 2005 the subprime market was 25% of the mortgage market . Where were the republicans during this? they did nothing...they were also not too interested in what the minority was saying, and there was nothing from stoping them to pass whatever they wanted, which they did, in the house in large bi partisan fashion, and Frist killed it by not offering it up for a vote. He also killed a bill originating from the Senate by Chuck Hagel.

Bush also loosened federal lending standards, enabled liar loans to apply to liar loans, and rendered CRA meaningless . Thats why your Carter/Clinton meme doesn't fly, there is no denying the responsibility to stop an impending disaster, be it your fairy tale or the reality, you made it the monster it turned out to be.

Again I have to school cons ....who sold these loans were 100% private entities , who stamped them triple A, private bond raters,who packaged them for non asset backed debt obligation bets? Private hedge funders. First and foremost this was a free market failure, where those who were supposed to "self-police"
and aviod negative outcome because they are "so efficient", they were allowed to sell these junks products at a consumer level therefore the originators of the disaster.

Fannie n Freddie were only secondary purchasers, they bought the bad loans along with the good,they allowed themselves to buy up junk loans. The GSE seems to embody the worst of both government and private markets, a publicly traded company with the under writing of the government, a disaster never would have occurred like this if they were not privatized in the 60's. But thats irrelevant, because though they were huge they were losing market share to private secondary mortgage market buyers. Do you know why there is none of Fannie and freddies competition around anymore? Because they bought more bad loans than FnF.

So you could keep on with your narrative based fact devoid revisionist history all you want, but it don't change the fact there are reasons this disaster happened at this specific time, and it is the same reason the market crash in 1929 turned into the great depression...give republicas the majority control of the gov't anf they will cause such economic disasters...

...then it is incumbent on those in power to pass legislation to avert disaster.

The Bush administration moved aggressively in 2004 to regulate Fannie and Freddie, actually got a bill through the Senate Banking and Finance Committee only to have it filibustered by [Sen.] Chris Dodd.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accelerated their bizare behavior (protected by Frank and Dod) after the administration attempted to regulate them. They bought almost as much mortgage debt from 2005 through 2008 as they bought in their first 30 years of their existence.

Rep. Gregory Meeks, a New York Democrat, said at that Sept. 25, 2003 House Financial Services Committee hearing that he was “pissed off at OFHEO (Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight),” because of the agency’s suggestion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be regulated more closely. A number of other Democrats agreed there was no need for reform. hmmmm

But revisionist history has been one of the corner stones of the far left, and these fact may not play well with how they want to remember how things went.

donnie, didn't Dodd get a sweet deal for himself, and doesn't Barney Frank warrant some blame as well?

donnie, didn't Dodd get a sweet deal for himself, and doesn't Barney Frank warrant some blame as well?

The complete truth about the causes of 2008′s credit meltdown may never be admitted by the mainstream media, but Presidents Carter and Clinton , followed by Frank, Dodd, Waters, et.al bear the brunt.

Oh NOT the Teleprompter thing again! You guys are a broken freaking record!!!!

Can anyone prove to me that the Stimulus helped anyone except the bankers and fat cats on wall street. Did it help you from losing your house or job?

Hey roy, the CBO says the stimulus created jobs. Here:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/did-us-stimulus-create-jobs-cbo-says-yes/articleshow/9963901.cms

Darkdonnie

The complete truth about the causes of 2008′s credit meltdown may never be admitted by the mainstream media, but Presidents Carter and Clinton , followed by Frank, Dodd, Waters, et.al bear the brunt.

People have written books and spoken for hours on the topic and the details, but now you have iterated the most succinct truth I have seen!

I wish others would connect the dots to understand, that you can not push out money as loans to those with limited means, guarantee the money with Freddie and Fannie and think no one is going to walk on these deals when the bubble pops and there is way to little skin in the game. Yet the blame falls on wall street, not Congress and Presidents for crowd pleaser (albeit bad business) legislation.

Prepare yourself for a blast of mass stupidity for your remarks.

Hello everyone, thought I would put my 2 cents in on the subject. When President Obama was elected he came into the White House with a stimulus bill that " He & Bush ", signed into law together. President Bush did not dare leave town without doing the stimulus. Because he was leaving Obama with about 8 trillion dollar's worth of unpaid spending from his administration. Which included the war, in Iraq & Afghanistan/a unpaid for medicare prescription program/and the Bush Tax cuts. That's why Bush had his Republicans agree on passing the Stimulus Bill that everyone only wants to blame On President Obama. Reality everyone is that without the Republicans Obama would not have gotten that stimulus. And Obama is right that if he had not " loaned ",the money to the Auto Companies we would have lost approximately another 2 to 3 million jobs in this Country. So when he claims to have saved jobs Obama& Bush did with the stimulus program to loan the money the Auto Industry!. He has also started a Health care Bill that in time/when it is fully in place will be great for this Country if not another person has to file for Bankruptsy due to Medical Bills for a catastrophic illness of a loved one of theirs/or themselves. Yes Obama is still struggling with trying to create jobs in the absence of any Republican Support. So anyone that criticizes Obama now better remember that Bush & The Republicans Helped Create this Countries Deficit too !!!!!

He & Bush ", signed into law together

Maria, your opinions above are not fact. Bush did not sign the American Recovery Act (stimulus) for $800,000,000,000.

Regarding the war funding that you are whining about the cost, Have you seen all the bows that Obama is taking for it?

It the auto industry did not get bailed out, they could have gone through bankruptcy like other insolvent companies and come out without the burdensome Union agreements and restructured debt.
Obama should have talked to Romney if he wanted a good model to suggest to the States to implement. The Fed. Gov. has no authority to be in the Health Insurance Business, especially in a cram down mode. Have you ever researched the Fraud and Waste in Medicare? It is estimated at 25 to 30%. Have you heard how well the Post Office is doing these days-ready for bankruptcy. You bet, let's throw more of the tax payer money to the Federal Government to waste, mismanage, and to please the lobbyist!

Obama is still struggling with trying to create jobs in the absence of any Republican Support

.
Are you familiar with the bills that the Republicans have sitting on Reeds desk for jobs? Obama has never mentioned those jobs that he could encourage the Senate to pass.

blatant obstructionism

This is a good term to describe Reeds action for the Balanced Budget Amendment and all the Republican jobs bills he is hiding on his desk

Need some extra funds, use the Obama's travel budget: His trip to Hawaii for his for his Christmas trip alone was $4.1 million, but then whose counting!

Are you familiar with the bills that the Republicans have sitting on Reeds desk for jobs?

More tax cuts for the rich - FAIL (You must have missed the last decade - trickle down economics does NOT work.

Balanced budget amendment - FAIL (you don't run the biggest economy in the world like your household budget)

Drill, baby, drill (nothing like shillin' for big oil)

Defense - no cuts there, but watch teapubs try to screw over the middle class and poor to find their cuts.

What a waste of time and money. They want to @!$%# the middle class tax cuts though, that is the one tax cut that they don't want. They refuse to pass anything that might actually work to lift the country because that would put a wrench in their plans to "make Obama a one term president" (I hear Bachmann's voice shrieking that as I type).

You know, when you bitch about Obama's Christmas in Hawaii I know you are just an Obama hater. I'll bet you had no problem with Bush's record vacation days. The only president to take less vacation days than Obama at this point is Clinton. After 31 months in office (August 2011) Obama had taken 61 days, compared to Reagan taking 112 days and Bush jr was at 180 days. Why the different standards?

Lib50 its better to talk over purp as they are a megaphone of unconscious talking points... they just want to buckle the american worker and expect lower wages will keep the level of aggregate demand , 2/3rds of the real economy to to reward investors, just like they thought in 1930, turnout well, not soo much.

Obama had taken 61 days

I am falling on the floor laughing. Talk about games with statistics and HR policy! Frankly, I'd like to see him take about 365 days a year vacation, because his rants of half truths, whining, and blantant lies on any talk show that will have him is quite tiresome. I believe you are right, I hate about every policy that comes from Obama. A recent interview with Bill Clinton, reminds me that the Democratic party can actually have positions that I support, but Obama, for all his stumbling around, has not stumbled on one yet.

american worker and expect lower wages will keep the level of aggregate demand

Randy-right out of he Union play book. Those poor workers, just making $60/hr. If you feel so much for the worker, then be a supporter of the 80% who are NOT union workers, do not want to be union workers and cannot get a job because there is no Right to Work laws in their area. I am tired of crocodile union tears, when they exclude 80% of the work force by opposing the Right to Work laws!

"Can you prove that he didn't? In light of the fact we AREN'T in a Great Depression I'd say he did."

Yeh, yeh, in light of the fact it is below freezing outside I'd said all that crap about global warning is just that - crap.

AZPADDY
No, not bitter. Nothing againt the President personally. But I soundly disagree with his positions on most policies. In particularly, his economic policies. I support a small Federal Government since they are poor handlers of money and the lobbyists and unions warp most policies that get passed. Hence, the President, who wants to control massive amounts of things, and I WILL NEVER SEE EYE TO EYE.

I see huge waste in the entitlement programs such that we can not help those who really need the help because so many are cheating the system and stealing money from those who deserve it.

Not bitter, just fed up with the Big Fed.

My question is how Re-Reg Trolls like MyPurple News keep getting through the system?

I've heard these rants before, and all one has to do is go to the MPN's vine page, and see the Troll droppings everywhere......

DNFTT!!!!

DNFTT!!!!

Flynavy-all the Navy men in my family wonder why you fear other opinions. Tisk, tisk.

At #9 --

And when Hillary Clinton is elected in 2016 all we'll hear is how "she isn't fit to carry Barack Obama's shoes, let alone Lincolns!"

The same right-wing who now bestowal praise on Bill Clinton were the same one's -- literally -- burning him in effigy when he was President declaring him a "Dangerous Left Wing Radical!".

Now, in comparison to the definite right-wing radicals who have been in charge since former-President Clinton, everyone now sees just how moderate he truly was.

The exact same will be said of Barack Obama.

Inde____WHAT EVER !

IndependentVoter
The community organizer is not fit to carry Bill Clintons shoes..let alone Lincolns.

Thats an unfounded assertion....While its true Clinton inherited a mess, record deficits and debt and high unemployment, he didn't inherited a depression level event as President Obama had, and if the Bush crash hadn't occurred He would be be walking Bushs' unbelievable debt after pissing away near 6 trillion in Surplus'.

If Hillary runs, I will vote for her. If she runs now..I would vote for her.

Bushs' unbelievable debt after pissing away near 6 trillion in Surplus'

Sorry the surplus never really existed....it was a CBO projection.

Thats an unfounded assertion

It is my opinion.

At #9.4 -- Evidence of the surplus existing is equal to evidence George W. Bush created jobs.

You can't refute one while praising the other.

I never said Bush created jobs.....

Surplus was a CBO projection.

I never said Bush created jobs...

Now that I point out the potential hypocrisy you don't.

I have never said Bush created jobs...ever...

You are a legend in your own mind. You and Obama would get along great.

So, if he ranked himself #1 that would be okay with you?

He's as entitled to his opinion as you are yours. And looking at polls, it would seem his self-confidence isn't entirely unjustified :)

Your joking right? Thanks LOL

Your joking right?

The President is currently polling the 40s (about even with every other incumbent who's been re-elected) while the Republicans are polling in the single digits.

No son...between the two of us, I'm not the one who's joking.

There's a difference between disagreeing with their actual assessments of one's accomplishments, and disagreeing with the mere notion that they are so arrogant as to brag their feats during a campaign season. A few people here are disagreeing with Obama on particular points, but I'm seeing a lot more accusing him of being an egomaniac. For God's sake, the seed summary opens with this:

You can catch Obama's excessive praise of himself

And if you click through to read the link, not a single paragraph is devoted to disagreeing with particular points. It's all just criticizing braggadocio and arrogance, because the man had the sheer audacity to answer a question about himself. The nerve!

(Psst, he's running for reelection. Bragging on his high points is what he's supposed to do.)

" MyPurpleNews "______You sure can tell you are a republican!!!!! The facts are my side because you cannot deny the fact that Obama wouldn't have gotten that $800 billion dollar stimulus if the Dumb Republicans had not voted with the Dems: to give it to him. And the reason why the DRs voted for it is because the order for them to do so, " From The Big Guy George Dubya ". Andas far as the Auto Industry (LOANS) not bail-outs. Obama not only saved the only real Manufacturing by giving them the (LOANS) but he saved We The People from having Our Military Equipment Out Sourced To China. So I guess My Purple News/that means you would trusted " CHINA ", to supply our. Jets/tanks/armed hummers/guns/mortars/protective vehicles for Troops/ships/subs/ Well you get the message that is what would have happen. Maybe your Chinese for all I know and therefore you would have been alright with that. But I would rather much like our War Equipment made mostly here/thank you very much. You know My Purple News/it does like American Latina said get very old to have you Republicans whining about Obamas faults. Yet refuse to take the real step you need to take and that is to remember for every finger you are pointing at Obama there are 4 fingers pointing back at your Republican Party. Saying it's time to clean your own house _— " With the Deficit that George Dubya & Your Republican Party Left ". Before you can say anything about what Obama is doing. Have a nice day you/Hypocritical In Denial Repbulican. Maria

Philip Grant_____Good answer, which of us human beings haven't on a good day tried to toot our own horns. And besides the things Obama bragged about did actually come to pass. Through the House and Senate.