The Fate of the Economy... still under deliberation.

[Hap]

Ok Exactly what did Bush specifically do to cause the economy to tank?

Spent 10 gazillion dollars, gave carte blanche to corps because regulation doesn't work.

There's 2

[eagl]

Spent 10 gazillion dollars, gave carte blanche to corps because regulation doesn't work.

There's 2

The president doesn't spend money.  That's what Congress does.  The President does submit his own budget which is essentially the framework his party will start with, but Congress actually makes the budget and the laws to implement the budget.  Yes the war in Iraq was expensive and the money might have been better spent elsewhere (we'll never know, but we haven't been successfully attacked again either) but at the most you can blame the president for not vetoing spending bills that grew out of control during the last 8 years.

This is one reason why Congress as a whole has a lower approval rating than the President...  Most people realize that Congress is more "at fault" for the budget problems than the President if for no other reason than they continued to fight for partisan agendas and increased non-defense spending during a time of war.  Both parties share the fault and it's stupid to try to place all the blame on the president.  Most people know this, hence congress' 13% approval rating.

[SkyRock]

See, you just THINK you know me. And now, faced with your own lack of evidence to support your argument, you have nothing left to offer in defense of your position but a sad attempt at a personal attack on someone you once claimed you were a friend of. But you were never a friend of anyone, and you did not know me at all. Your opinion is so baseless, and so lacking in fact, that it does not matter at all to me. You lack the knowledge and the intelligence to make me cry. But you have enough arrogance and ignorance to keep me laughing for hours at a time. But keep trolling, and keep trying, it is all you have.

I apologize.  I felt you were attacking me by calling me a liar.  I shouldnt have typed that.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I apologize.  I felt you were attacking me by calling me a liar.  I shouldnt have typed that.

That's fine, no problem. You should know by now if I was calling you a liar, I would not mince words.

What I AM saying is that you have not offered supporting evidence for your statement. What you DID offer was "Iraq". If you look at what the Iraq war has actually cost, you can obviously see that the Iraq war is NOT what has damaged the economy. The truth is, Bush has made some mistakes regarding the economy, but they aren't nearly as bad as what Congress has done and continued to do. Now, Bush has failed to veto a lot of spending I hoped and expected him to veto. I hold Bush AND Congress responsible. Them for rampant spending and stupid lending laws, and Bush for failing to veto and failing to cut spending himself. And even Obama is now saying "I would hesitate to roll back the tax cuts because of how the economy is struggling". Those tax cuts he hesitates are the so called "Bush tax cuts". Without those tax cuts, the economy would have foundered years ago. Bush just failed to cut spending and taxes even more.

[Gunslinger]

does anyone else feel like they are getting it from both ends.

I have a home loan, I pay ALOT of money in interest.  Same goes for auto and credit cards that I have.

I also pay taxes to my govt be it through income or otherwise.

NOW these guys that make a TON of money off of me simply because I owe them money get their tulips bailed out by ME through taxes???

It's angering me, it really is.  What happens if we just let them fold?

[eagl]

It's angering me, it really is.  What happens if we just let them fold?

If they fold, the banks collapse, taking people's savings with them.  Only $100,000 per account per bank is insured by the federal govt, so not only would tax dollars still have to go towards the financial disaster, it would also take people's savings and investments with it.  The accompanying market collapse would render both cash and stock investments nearly worthless, as banks and companies defaulted on loans and bonds.

No, the govt has to be involved because the alternative is more painful.  A soft crash redistributes wealth (often in the wrong direction) but a hard crash is worse.

[Getback]

Economy is fubar, but what'd you expect from 7 years of moron.

I wouldn't call him a Moron but still you have a point. Being the liberal you are you should like all the freebies he has bestowed like Paid prescriptions. Taking over Fannie mae. All socialist ideals. But I agree he has tanked the economy. I guess you can include all the pork too. I noticed he had nothing but help from the democrats. To me he's been a huge disappointment in this regard.

[1pLUs44]

Economy is fubar, but what'd you expect from 7 years of moron.

Funny thing is, it's still climbing

[eagl]

Funny thing is, it's still climbing

Yea, the price of oil is down about 30% and the dollar is strengthening enough that even last week's OPEC production cuts failed to keep oil prices high.

I think that if the market players don't panic and the economy can be kept from a hard crash, we'll see conditions for a really good economic rebound just in time for the next president to take credit for saving the nation's economy    That's the way it always works because our market is inherently cyclic.

[Getback]

Funny thing is, it's still climbing

LOL 1plus, very well said yet again. Smart kid you are. I guess I bit into some liberal lies. Shame on me.

[zuii]

We are being screwed from both sides, republicans and democrats. Its thats simple.

and after two weeks on the road i come back and i cant fly cause the servers are down.

 

zuii! <S>

[DREDIOCK]

It was caused by his leadership.  I don't have time to give details, sorry.

The proof is in the details
If you cant provide the details
Then the entire claim is invalid.

[Baitman]

Late breaking news

Wall Street Prepares for Potential Lehman Bankruptcy (Update3)

By Craig Torres and Shannon Harrington

Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Wall Street readied for a potential Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. bankruptcy after Bank of America Corp. and Barclays Plc pulled out of talks to buy it and the government indicated it wouldn't provide funds to prevent a collapse.

Banks and brokers today held a session for netting derivatives transactions with Lehman, or canceling trades that offset each other, in case the New York-based firm files for bankruptcy before midnight

Full article at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNMh_8NRE6QM&refer=home

[DREDIOCK]

Funny thing is, it's still climbing

So is the unemployment rate.
Which I think is a better indicator of how the economy is doing
Has been for 6 months now.
Not the sign of a good economy

"Friday, September 5, 2008.
The unemployment rate rose from 5.7 to 6.1 percent in August, and non-
farm payroll employment continued to trend down (-84,000), the Bureau of
Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today."
http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm



Manufacturing lost 61,000 jobs, while construction employment fell by 8,000. But the job losses were widespread and went beyond those two troubled sectors.

Retailers trimmed 20,000 jobs despite the back-to-school shopping season, which for many stores is typically second in sales only to the holiday period. Business and professional services - a broad category that includes industries such as accountants, consultants and legal services - lost 53,000 workers. Leisure and hospitality cut 4,000 jobs.

Construction employment fell..during what is traditionally the busy season. you can expect that number to climb as the winter months set in

[Chalenge]

Neither Greenspan or Bush had anything to do with the housing bubble... That was caused entirely by Congress passing laws designed to encourage home ownership by people with lower incomes, and simultaneously allowing those loans to be packaged and sold as investments which encouraged the banks and investing companies to give riskier and riskier loans.  Both laws had the intended effect, with disastrous consequences.  People who had no business buying a house were told that buying houses with loans they could not possibly pay off was somehow their right and the realization of the American Dream, and investment managers got rich trading these worthless loans.  Given the inevitable outcome when adjustable rate mortgages hit the end of their low-rate period, it's clear that congress got exactly what they intended with these laws - people who had an income that could not support home ownership were kicked out of the homes they never should have had in the first place, and investment companies were stuck with worthless pieces of paper and rendered insolvent almost overnight.  The laws couldn't have caused more damage if they were specifically intended to bring down the mortgage industry (reference the tobacco industry which has survived numerous legislative attempts to destroy it).

It's easy to assign blame for the mortgage crisis and resulting economic disaster, but there were a couple of laws pushed through by Congress without Presidential influence that directly encouraged and enabled the process.  And those laws were passed while the Democrats were in power.  this should not be a surprise, since "a home for every family" was the liberal rallying cry that led to these laws being passed without serious opposition.  It's typical liberal koolaid, making terrible laws based on an unrealistic dream of how things ought to be.  Well, people who can't afford homes should not be enticed to buy homes they can't afford with loans they can not repay.  It's as simple as that and no amount of pretty speeches about rainbows and ponies will ever change that.

By the way it was this same scheme that landed the savings and loans in Arkansas in hot water and somehow Ms. Clinton made a ton of money on the deal (paybacks) and it never made the light of day somehow.

I wonder which politicians made money on it this time?