Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama And Geithner Plan Causes Stock Surge!  
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11323 posts, RR: 52
Posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2652 times:

Obama and Geithner introduced their plan to relieve companies suffering from having toxic assets on their books today. It's a public/private partnership where the assets are put up for auction so they can be accurately valued, the government matches the bid on those assets, and if the asset turns into a winner based on its new value, both the buyer and the government take the profit. If it turns out to be a loser, the buyer and the government share in the loss (which has already been paid for).

Wall street ATE IT UP!! They LOVE it! Stocks soared upon the announcement, and apparently, Geithner knows what he's doing after all.

DXing, Dreadnought, NIKV, and all other conservatives that had complained about Obama's lack of a plan... well, what do you think?


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGSOShutout55 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2631 times:

you conveniently left out the most important, and most costly aspect: the government also pays the difference between the combined bids and what the banks deem "fair value"

eg a $100 "asset" or "security" is deemed by a bank to be worth $100, the private bidder puts up $7, the government matches that $7, but also "loans" the banks the remaining $86...



B200/Ce500 Pilot
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11323 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

GSO, that may be true, although I wonder how many toxic assets will be bought at only 14% of their owners' already depressed valuations, and even still, it's a loan, not a purchase. But the point is still valid: Wall Street thinks this is an excellent plan. So where are the naysayers?

I'd hope to get a couple responses before noon EST tomorrow.  Wink



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2599 times:

Stocks surged after Bush passed that initial $700bi as well. . . and then they crashed again.


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineGSOShutout55 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

we'll see if the values area already depressed "enough". sorry about the rampant use of quotation marks, but so many of the words being used are arbitrary and I need to somehow highlight that.

The entire reason that the banks are holding out for the government $$ is that they know their assets are near worthless. IF they were worth more than the paper they were printed on, they would have already unloaded them in massive quantities to shore up their god awful balance sheets.



B200/Ce500 Pilot
User currently offlineGSOShutout55 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2577 times:

You've also got to remember that in large part the stock markets are driven by the people...and most are not exactly the most...qualified individuals to make decisions. For example, I jumped on the "rally" bandwagon today, thus helping drive prices up. No, I don't think a whole lot of this plan, but I'll ride it up and dump it all, possibly tomorrow, for a profit. Then I'll short everything on the way down. All it takes is a few people to think its a good idea, then more people buy, then more, then I jump on, more buy, etc... The point is just because the stocks rally doesn't mean diddly squat.

i just kind of rambled on there...so if parts don't make sense there's your reason.



B200/Ce500 Pilot
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11323 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2572 times:



Quoting GSOShutout55 (Reply 5):
You've also got to remember that in large part the stock markets are driven by the people

I don't really buy that. Large stock market movements are caused by educated institutional investors -- they are the ones that are paying attention to the news and can understand the significant pieces of information contained within. Yes, there are lots of me-too types (like you admit to being today  Wink ), but they're not the ones that push whole markets.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineWindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2723 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2562 times:



Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
If it turns out to be a loser, the buyer and the government share in the loss

The market was up because once again Uncle Sam would be covering for the private sector. The new plan to buy up bad bank assets is an improvement over the original Paulson TARP plan for the government to simply buy up toxic assets directly. The private part of the plan solves that problem, but the public half , the reliance on substantial taxpayer funding is another misstep, and could ultimately cost trillions of more dollars. The private partner shares in the upside but the taxpayer will be on the hook again for the downside.

The bill for us so far includes the $410-billion omnibus spending bill (with more than 8,500 earmarks) . Then there’s the $787-billion economic stimulus bill which passed. On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that the president’s proposed budget would produce a $9.3-trillion deficit during the period from 2010-19.

That’s $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget and, if accurate, would make the deficit unsustainable, according to the president’s own budget director!

So I would not be all cheery yet for Obama and his favorite Tax evader.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineGSOShutout55 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2560 times:

I'm not a me too type...I've learned when and how to follow the money. Although what you say regarding institutional investors is true, I don't believe they are the ones causing any major moves.
Large institutional investors also typically buy and sell in a slightly different market...you don't just go out and buy or sell 1,000,000 shares of AAPL of CAL for example. There are firms that specialize in finding buyers/sellers for very large transactions.

And I would argue against you, the masses (retail investors), drive the markets. I'd also argue that at present, most market participants are speculators and market players, not investors. Sorry, I don't have any concrete evidence to support my claims, they are just my opinions. In the meanwhile, I'll scrounge around for some "facts" to support my arguments.



B200/Ce500 Pilot
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11323 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2549 times:



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 7):
The private partner shares in the upside but the taxpayer will be on the hook again for the downside.

Not true. If the assets fail, both the government and the buyer lose.

As for the latter part of your post, it's not germane to this topic. Let's try to keep this thread on point.

Quoting GSOShutout55 (Reply 8):
you don't just go out and buy or sell 1,000,000 shares of AAPL of CAL for example.

Sure, but the DOW average doesn't include AAPL and CAL, but rather investments that institutional investors _do_ tend to go after. Same for the S&P 500. Not only are the DOW and S&P good indicators of what the market as a whole is doing, they are good indicators of what the institutional investors think about the market.

I'll cede some ground though - it's probably a mix of the two.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineStasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3283 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2509 times:

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
Wall street ATE IT UP!! They LOVE it! Stocks soared upon the announcement, and apparently, Geithner knows what he's doing after all.

Geithner might know what the plan is supposed to do in the end, but I think that It’s overly complicated. The plans has a crapload of different parts that need to all work together, it attempts to involve investors from the private sector, and these is no agreement that the banks will be willing to sell these toxic assets to create the program. The markets knee-jerk reaction today was good, but I have my doubts if this will last for long. The plan itself may not be sufficient to protect taxpayer's monies, uber-complicated (even for the financial services industry) and it might not work if enough banks refuse to participate in the plans bidder process.

In all, it's the nationalization of corporate losses and the privatization of corporate profits, IMO.

[Edited 2009-03-23 19:14:27]


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11323 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2483 times:



Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 10):
In all, it's the nationalization

Let me stop you there. There's an AWFUL lot of misuse of this word "nationalization" going on, mostly coming from the republican party and its media. Nationalization is not what's going on in the United States, even under these new programs. Nationalization means that the government has taken control of something, not that the government owns something or part of something. The government has investments just like any other large organization. For instance, the government has wide ranging investments to provide retirement benefits for long-term government employees. Is that nationalization? No. Not hardly. Besides, did anyone call it nationalization when the previous administration considered putting our social security funds into the market? No, even though that would have significantly upped government ownership of publicly traded entities. So, let's be a little more careful when throwing that word around.

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 10):
these is no agreement that the banks will be willing to sell these toxic assets to create the program.

I think banks will be quite eager to get rid of these assets and hold them as more appropriately valued assets.

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 10):
The plan itself may not be sufficient to protect taxpayer's monies, uber-complicated (even for the financial services industry) and it might not work if enough banks refuse to participate in the plans bidder process.

If it turns out to be a great success, can we count on you to say it was a success? I mean think about it today. Just taking into account the S&P 500, which gained 7% today: the S&P represents a market capitalization of about $7.85 Trillion. That means that a 7% gain is $550 Billion. The S&P companies are worth $550 Billion more today than they were yesterday, largely because of this plan! I think the money we spend is well worth it if it can make the rest of the economy grow $550 Billion in a day. Four days like this, and we will have already passed the total amount of toxic assets out there. (About $2 T.)


DXing? Dreadnought? NIKV? Where are you?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineStasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3283 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2462 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 11):
misuse of this word "nationalization" going on, mostly coming from the republican party

As a long-time registered Libertarian, I believe that both the Republican party and the Democratic party leadership have full and equal blame in the lack of oversight on the banking industry and the inherent fraud/misconduct that took place within the industry. The greed of the industry executives and their paid influence in Washington not only destroyed their firm's individual and institutional shareholder's value, but have damn near forced the global economy into a depression.  vomit 



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlineFlybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1801 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2435 times:



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
Stocks surged after Bush passed that initial $700bi as well. . . and then they crashed again.

That's what I thought. Anyways, since when is wall street opinion worth anything? Since November '08 the market has been schizophrenic going up and down like a friggen roller coaster. The Dow alone loses several hundred points when anyone in Washington sneezes wrong and gains hundreds of points when some intangible economic statistic is up a fraction of a percentage point.

If the market behaves for the next year like it's behaved since the beginning of this mortgage mess, all the gains made by the stock market today will be lost by the end of next week.



"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4490 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2429 times:



Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 13):
That's what I thought. Anyways, since when is wall street opinion worth anything? Since November '08 the market has been schizophrenic going up and down like a friggen roller coaster.

Very true, you can't solely look at the Dow and its daily gains or losses as an indicator of total market sentiment. Today was also a very low-volume day, which means the Dow's knee-jerk soar isn't quite as far-reaching as some posters allude to and should NOT be taken as a harbinger of things to come.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2416 times:



Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
DXing, Dreadnought, NIKV, and all other conservatives that had complained about Obama's lack of a plan... well, what do you think?



Quoting GSOShutout55 (Reply 1):
eg a $100 "asset" or "security" is deemed by a bank to be worth $100, the private bidder puts up $7, the government matches that $7, but also "loans" the banks the remaining $86...



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
Stocks surged after Bush passed that initial $700bi as well. . . and then they crashed again

Bought sums the situation up. The banks have been holding these assests for one simple reason, government backed dollars.

Quoting D L X (Reply 6):
I don't really buy that.

You ought too. I bought a bunch of Citi stock at $1.05 a share then turned around and sold it at $3.00 before the split. I'm not a day trader but there are still a lot of them out there.

Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
Not true. If the assets fail, both the government and the buyer lose.

Incorrect. Even if I don't buy any personally, which I probably won't, I'm still an owner through my tax dollars.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2387 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 7):
The private partner shares in the upside but the taxpayer will be on the hook again for the downside.

Not true. If the assets fail, both the government and the buyer lose.

Even more than that, according to whoever it was on the Lehrer Newshour, the private buyer loses first and then the government so that the private interest acts as a cushion against this rather precious creature the US taxpayer losing.  angel  Which is why the upside has the opposite bias - presumably!

Quoting D L X (Reply 11):
Nationalization is not what's going on in the United States, even under these new programs.

Correct. It is quite funny to watch the waltz around the nationalization icon. Step on that (the line marked "Nationalization") and you will be sucked to your doom appears to be the rule of the game. But in truth it is about as reasonable as the kids game of not stepping on the lines on the pavement (aka sidewalk). At times it will be better to grasp the nettle.

Which is the main bit that would worry me about the great antidote plan to cure the US of the toxic asset syndrome. You all will end up dancing such an elaborate fandango around the involve private capital shibboleth, that you (all again) might end up falling over your own feet.

Recommendation: Hire Hugo C for an afternoon, he would fix it!!!  duck   duck  Well, have you actually seen him do worse than Wall St - so far!!  fluffy 

Presumably with the stock market, either these cats are all dead and we are headed to Zero, or one of them will turn out to be a living cat, but which one???


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11323 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2341 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 15):
I bought a bunch of Citi stock at $1.05 a share then turned around and sold it at $3.00 before the split.

And the reason why you did that was because you saw that the market was surging. You didn't cause the surge, you rode the surge.

Quoting DXing (Reply 15):
Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
Not true. If the assets fail, both the government and the buyer lose.

Incorrect. Even if I don't buy any personally, which I probably won't, I'm still an owner through my tax dollars.

Um, I'm not sure how that's responsive to what I said. What does what you said have to do with what I said? That if an asset bought under this plan fails, both the government and the buyer lose on that investment?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2302 times:



Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
DXing, Dreadnought, NIKV, and all other conservatives that had complained about Obama's lack of a plan... well, what do you think?

I have not had the chance to read anything about the plan or even watch the news shows about it, so I reserve judgement. I'm up to my ears atm. But if it works and does not mean that the government has to shell out more money, that would be a good thing for the country.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineWindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2723 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2251 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 17):
That if an asset bought under this plan fails, both the government and the buyer lose on that investment?

But the governemnt loses most of it. The private sector gets almost all of the upside but has no risk on the downside. That is why the market went up. (also good housing numbers yesterday played a part). The private sector (Wall ST and the Banks) only have to pony up a 7 % down payment and the GOV (you) are financing the rest. If it goes south then the private sector does not have to pay the loan back (and only lose their 7%) and we the people take it in the shorts again over the same toxic assets. The same private sector who the Obama administration hates and is going out of his way to demonize received the best deal out of this again. This is a bailout for the Toxic assets and should once again not be doen. Plus with the government backing these assets will be priced higher thus we wil be overpaying for them.

Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
As for the latter part of your post, it's not germane to this topic. Let's try to keep this thread on point.

Pointing out that we have wasted our tax dollars on bad programs already and are about to bail out the same Characters again is not germane to the thread?.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11323 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2233 times:



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 19):
The private sector gets almost all of the upside but has no risk on the downside.

I hate to repeat myself, but this is simply wrong. The government and the buyer are 50-50 partners in the asset. Both rise and fall together.

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 19):
If it goes south then the private sector does not have to pay the loan back

Where are you getting this from?

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 19):
The same private sector who the Obama administration hates

Ahh... it's all clear now.

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 19):
received the best deal out of this again.

Well, then maybe you need to adjust your thinking about whether Obama hates them, considering you think they just received the best deal.  Wink

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 19):
Plus with the government backing these assets will be priced higher thus we wil be overpaying for them.

How do you figure?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2224 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 19):
If it goes south then the private sector does not have to pay the loan back

Where are you getting this from?

Perhaps from the same bucket that folk use to conclude that Airbus only has to repay Repayable Launch Investment if it makes a profit on the project? It seems to be a big bucket!


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8525 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

This is all crap. The government should not be borrowing my money to engage in this junk. If some rich guys failed, let them fail. It is asinine to think we can create a synthetic market run by premiers or politboro members from Washington, and that it's going to work out just great. When you put kindergardeners in front of a trillion dollars, it gets hoover-ed up on toys and play-dough, which appears to be what happened here.

User currently offlineWindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2723 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2222 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 19):
The private sector gets almost all of the upside but has no risk on the downside.

I hate to repeat myself, but this is simply wrong. The government and the buyer are 50-50 partners in the asset. Both rise and fall together.

The fed is supplying the financing to buy the assets. If the private sector does not pay back the loan is that a 50/50 loss? All of the risk goes to the taxpayer

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 19):
The same private sector who the Obama administration hates

Ahh... it's all clear now.

Yes it is very clear that Maobama dislikes capitalism

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 19):
received the best deal out of this again.

Well, then maybe you need to adjust your thinking about whether Obama hates them, considering you think they just received the best deal.

No they just had the leverage in making the deal.

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 19):
Plus with the government backing these assets will be priced higher thus we wil be overpaying for them.

How do you figure?

Being backed by the government will put them at a higher price than if it was just the private sector with no guarantee. It will make them sell at a higher price so if it does not work then we will have been robbed for even more Taxpayer cash.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2214 times:

Government is again monkeying with the markets, trying to make it do unnatural things just like they did before, and which led to the bubble and crash.

And instead of learning the lesson, they are trying to reinflate the same real estate and credit bubbles that blew up in our faces, all over again.

Has anyone heard about China pushing for a new international reserve currency at the G20 summit? That's a clear sign that China is not willing to buy any more T-Bills, having seen Obama's reckless spending habits. Get ready for double-digit inflation, guys, it's just around the corner...

[Edited 2009-03-24 16:37:48]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
25 D L X : Actually, it's pretty well settled that a complete lack of regulation and oversight led to the crash. This plan should help clean up the mess. Don't
26 DL021 : Does anyone not find it funny that the government holds to this mark-to-market accounting rule, which killed several otherwise healthy companies, and
27 Dreadnought : You forgot one thing. Two things led to the crash. First was, as I said, government attempting to manipulate the markets into providing "affordable h
28 Post contains links DXing : So much for that surge. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#symbol=%5EDJI;range=5d Actually I bought the stock on March 9th, well before this a
29 Aaron747 : Excellent analogy. Too bad that so many people still fail to understand how all of this actually works. Lost in the mire of bonus upsets and the Fann
30 D L X : " target=_blank>http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%...nge=5 Looks like the gains were held. Before the plan was announced, the DJIA was at 7445. At
31 DXing : Which is still down how much for the year? Or since the President was elected? Which was exactly my point. The FDIC will insure the investors. They c
32 Windy95 : Thus staritng the surge that day which was topped with the housing data that day. The investors will get to enjoy the upside and leave Uncle Sam hang
33 AGM100 : I am not sure about the plan to be honest . But I like the results over the past few days. Not sure why it took this long but that is cool , I believ
34 Baroque : 9000+ rise - which one was that more exactly?
35 AGM100 : Well in 2001 we were 6 -- and rose to near 15k ... so semantics aside it is about as credible as the 500 pt rise in the past few days . It really come
36 Post contains links Baroque : Well that might be so for some index I have yet to find. Down Jones Industrial started about 10,600 in 2001. It got down to about 8,400 after Sept 11
37 Flighty : A lot of that was based on incorrect expectations about risk. People did not realize the mkt was inevitably going to explode... "regulators," hedge f
38 EMBQA : .....and today he forces the CEO of GM out of office the market plunges. Can anyone else name a time when our Gov't forced a CEO out of his position..
39 Mt99 : Can you name a time when the Government invested dozen of Billions of Dollars in a private company?
40 EMBQA : Yes I can... but in that case they fixed the problem and paid back the money It was hanging around 11000 in late Oct - early Nov...and plunged right
41 Mt99 : So, the approach works! But for the record.. can you name the company ur talking about? The 11,000 mark was obviously a house of cards.
42 Post contains links PPVRA : We should have the new GM plan for the whole economy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7972464.stm He gets it! The banks & AIG could use such a pla
43 AGM100 : Not asking for applause at all... the thread stater indeed was fishing for applause for a 500pt jump. I have said on here before that the Fed does no
44 Mt99 : That's democracy in all its glory for you!
45 EMBQA : Chrysler in 1979-1980...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Obama And Don't Ask, Don't Tell posted Wed Nov 19 2008 12:15:43 by Mariner
President Elect Obama And Darfur...What's Up? posted Wed Nov 12 2008 11:39:38 by QXatFAT
Looks Like It's Obama And Bayh... posted Fri Aug 22 2008 17:14:19 by Slider
OBama And His Global Poverty Act...Whats This Crap posted Thu Feb 14 2008 16:56:22 by LOT767-300ER
Obama And Another Flag Problem posted Mon Feb 11 2008 18:41:15 by Cfalk
Obama And Hiliary - The Secret Affair posted Wed Jan 30 2008 19:01:50 by Emirates773ER
Its A Small World (Obama And Cheney) posted Tue Oct 16 2007 17:00:05 by LAXspotter
Dumb And Dumber (Bra Causes Accident) posted Sun Oct 15 2006 12:15:04 by TedTAce
Iran And Obama: No Unclenching Of Fist ... Yet. posted Sat Mar 21 2009 12:38:16 by Kaitak
Obama's Cabinet Picks Get Better And Better. posted Wed Jan 14 2009 10:41:14 by DXing