Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on October 02, 2008, 09:22:58 AM
-
Recieve this in an email. Appears to be pretty accurate!
George Bush has been in office for nearly 8 years. The first six the
economy was fine.
About two years ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) The DOW JONES hit a record high -- 14,000+
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacations overseas,
living large!
But Americans wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic
congress & yep -- we got 'CHANGE' all right!
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now $4 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up over 5%
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars &
prices are still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) The Dow is probing another low ~11,300 (now 10,800)
7) $2.5 trillion dollars has evaporated from stocks, bonds and mutual fund
investment portfolios.
8) And what about the $800 billion Wall street bailout?
Yep, in 2006 America voted for change. And we got it! A Democratic
congress, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid.
Now the Democrats' candidate for president -- and the polls say he's gonna
be 'the man' -- claims he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more
'change' do you think you can stand?
-
Good one Rip.
-
Good one rip, way to post up another chain email. Your excelling at originality.
-
That's been posted before.
CryRock will be along shortly to point out how all of those are lies.
-
Yep, repost (of sorts):
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247857.msg3040919.html#msg3040919 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247857.msg3040919.html#msg3040919)
-
Yep, repost (of sorts):
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247857.msg3040919.html#msg3040919 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247857.msg3040919.html#msg3040919)
Ah. Thanks. I missed it the first time through apparently..
-
excellant point
-
Good one rip, way to post up another chain email. Your excelling at originality.
you too...
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_D0qmWuUaP3g/R1Tc9kMsd6I/AAAAAAAAAH4/bWQD7bCGHdc/s400/monkey.gif)
-
G1 Rip I never saw it either! Let the Oc debate begin!!!
-
what I'd like to know about dems in recent history, and Obama in particular, after only 3 years in the senate, how did Obama come to be owned by Fannie Mae - the second biggest recipient of Fannie Mae political money out of ANYBODY??? In just 3 years??? Thank God Obama didn't have more time in the Senate.
-
what I'd like to know about dems in recent history, and Obama in particular, after only 3 years in the senate, how did Obama come to be owned by Fannie Mae - the second biggest recipient of Fannie Mae political money out of ANYBODY??? In just 3 years??? Thank God Obama didn't have more time in the Senate.
barney frank put in a good word for obama.
-
The root of the problem goes back further then that. I'm a stone cold republican but this is not a "party issue". The 2 primary causes are pretty easy to identify.
1) Bankruptcy reform
While it sounds good the true underlying issue was/is in over-the extension of credit to those who didn't deserve it. By making it harder to unload unsecured debt the focus on sound underwriting eroded even more and the ability to create institutional paper from junk was enhanced (this is what actually killed AIG)
2) Poor oversight of the mortgage banking industry
This goes all the way back to the late 1990's. Again underwriting standards were totally disregarded and we're paying the price.
The sad reality is that who we vote for is not going to have a major impact. Neither presidential candidate is worthy of the office and congress on both sides of the aisle is corrupt and self serving. Sadly we've reached a point of true disconnection between our elected government and the nation itself. The entire "bail out" debate simply highlights the scary combination of "bread and circuses" & "let them eat cake" we've arrived at. On one side we have a faction of barely literate and seemingly ill-educated liberals focused on maintaining the rights of the down-trodden while an equally powerful group has an unflinching belief in the rights of the oligopoly to protection against there own stupidity.
Sadly "rank & file" America seems to have no stature or standing with either faction. The end result will inevitably be a "bail out" that throws tid bits to the down trodden, transfers billions to the already rich and further sticks it to the guy in the middle sans vaseline.
-
lol, an enept 7 years of republic control gets spun on the democrats, yeah, WTG!!
Again, typical of the times, spin and blame someone else, take no responsibility
carry on
-
lol, an enept 7 years of republic control gets spun on the democrats, yeah, WTG!!
Again, typical of the times, spin and blame someone else, take no responsibility
carry on
barney frank is not a republican.
-
lol, an enept 7 years of republic control gets spun on the democrats, yeah, WTG!!
Again, typical of the times, spin and blame someone else, take no responsibility
carry on
The problem with this view is the lack of understanding it shows in what's happened. The sub prime mortgage crisis is largely a result of maneuvering by the democrats.
-
The problem with this view is the lack of understanding it shows in what's happened. The sub prime mortgage crisis is largely a result of maneuvering by the democrats.
And there goes your proof
voila!
-
Your showing your ignorance, I don't post much (here) but run a search on my recent posts in the O'club. Agree or disagree but recognize that I provide a context, history and a defined position. Your making shallow, inept and misguided generic comments with no basis in reality. If you want to argue then step up and wade in, otherwise save the band width....
-
Your showing your ignorance, I don't post much (here) but run a search on my recent posts in the O'club. Agree or disagree but recognize that I provide a context, history and a defined position. Your making shallow, inept and misguided generic comments with no basis in reality. If you want to argue then step up and wade in, otherwise save the band width....
Humble has spoken!!! :aok
-
That's been posted before.
CryRock will be along shortly to point out how all of those are lies.
How soft is SkyRocks ankle?
you've been on it for a while now
-
Jebus,
Don't let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good chain mail. Let me clarify my position first - I didn't vote for Democrats in 2004 or 2006 and I won't be voting for Democrats this election, either (but I have and will vote)
Consumer confidence was at a peak before Sept 11, 2001. It also peaked again around the 2004 election. 2006 it dove (but probably from fear mongering in the campaign cycle).
Regular gasoline sold for $2.60 2.5 years ago. It dropped following the election of 2006.
How hard is it to Google : "Dow Jones Record High" ? If you do this, you will find:
Monday, October 1, 2007 The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at a new all-time record high at 14,087.55 or up 191.92 points (+%1.38).
or
Thursday, July 19, 2007 Dow Jones Industrial closes above 14,000 for first time ever
But again, don't let the facts ruin the Democrat bash-fest.
-
Dang. I guess you all were right. My friend sent me the following email. This Obama guy is dangerous. How could anyone vote for a Muslim?!
---
Who is Barack Obama?
Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita, Kansas. Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia . Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta . He also spent two years in a Catholic school.
Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school." Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical.
Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior
Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.
Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.
Barack Obama has an unusual and interesting background, which the above-quoted piece draws on to paint him as a dangerous, camouflaged radical Muslim. Much of the information presented therein about his background is distorted and exaggerated, however, and no evidence supports a claim that Obama is currently, or ever has been, a Muslim (radical or otherwise).
-
What? You got to have a picture of him holding an AK-47 to convince you?
He has aligned himself all his life with radicals up until he decided, or should I say the Dems Groomed him to run for president. Thats a fact.
-
That's been posted before.
CryRock will be along shortly to point out how all of those are lies.
the info is misleading, but I expect nothing less from rightietards! :aok
-
What? You got to have a picture of him holding an AK-47 to convince you?
He has aligned himself all his life with radicals up until he decided, or should I say the Dems Groomed him to run for president. Thats a fact.
Bu11cheese. The aforequoted is just more evidence that you idiots will say anything, do anything, if it means one fewer person will vote against your favored party. What you don't realize is that your lies have the opposite effect on the people who are true moderates. You know, the people like me that will decide the outcome of the election. I suggest you knock it off if you want to win.
-
Bu11cheeky. The aforequoted is just more evidence that you idiots will say anything, do anything, if it means one fewer person will vote against your favored party. What you don't realize is that your lies have the opposite effect on the people who are true moderates. You know, the people like me that will decide the outcome of the election. I suggest you knock it off if you want to win.
Actually we've covered this topic before, and there is indeed evidence to support it. Do you want the facts again or will you still vote for the "Messiah"?
-
to be fair the world was heading for a crash anyway.
-
Your showing your ignorance, I don't post much (here) but run a search on my recent posts in the O'club. Agree or disagree but recognize that I provide a context, history and a defined position. Your making shallow, inept and misguided generic comments with no basis in reality. If you want to argue then step up and wade in, otherwise save the band width....
Yeah, you post that after posting this "The problem with this view is the lack of understanding it shows in what's happened. The sub prime mortgage crisis is largely a result of maneuvering by the democrats.
A blank statement with no context, history, or defined position. That would be a generic, enept and misguided comment
hypocrites are pure gold
-
That's been posted before.
CryRock will be along shortly to point out how all of those are lies.
:rofl :rofl Holy weeping wetstone batman.
-
Yeah, you post that after posting this "The problem with this view is the lack of understanding it shows in what's happened. The sub prime mortgage crisis is largely a result of maneuvering by the democrats.
A blank statement with no context, history, or defined position. That would be a generic, enept and misguided comment
hypocrites are pure gold
Actually I addressed the specifics in other posts which is why I referenced them. did you bother to read any of them at all. While a lot of variables come into play the issues specific to the sub-prime mortgage crisis are overwhelmingly democratic in origin. They actually date back to the 1990's. This is typical of the "pet project" horse trading that drives partisan politics (which we can see in the revised "bail out" as well). The failure of fanny and freddie can be laid squarely at the feet of the democratic faction of congress and Frank and others in particular. This is gross malfeasance on a scale that dwarfs Enron...in fact if Barney Frank was a "private citizen he's be under indictment already.
-
Actually I addressed the specifics in other posts which is why I referenced them. did you bother to read any of them at all. While a lot of variables come into play the issues specific to the sub-prime mortgage crisis are overwhelmingly democratic in origin. They actually date back to the 1990's. This is typical of the "pet project" horse trading that drives partisan politics (which we can see in the revised "bail out" as well). The failure of fanny and freddie can be laid squarely at the feet of the democratic faction of congress and Frank and others in particular. This is gross malfeasance on a scale that dwarfs Enron...in fact if Barney Frank was a "private citizen he's be under indictment already.
And that's perfectly fine, but the thread starts out with this: George Bush has been in office for nearly 8 years. The first six the
economy was fine.
My response was to laugh as it went on to place blame on the democrats. The republicans had control of the White House and Congress for almost 7 years and went on a spending spree the likes we have never seen. Spiking in 2005 with a budget that included over 13k earmarks while raising the debt ceiling at every turn.
The economy wasn't fine, it was being artificially propped up by a number of things, and alot of it was borrowed money.
So the right comes in here and throws it all at the feet of freddie mac and the dems
So yeah, I would say that is placing blame and accepting no responsibility
And I got news for Ms Pelosi, if she gets the votes from her fellow dems to pass this while a majority of republicans say no, she and her buddies can kiss control of congress goodbye. There is a reason 40% of the dems said no, a yes and their goose is cooked. Just ask the republicans who said yes to spending a few years back.
Want to see something that will make your stomach sink? Found this (http://www.afn.org/~concord/coalition/debtdef.htm) in a search. And I don't know how accurate it is, but it dates back to 1996.
"Now you can see why the national debt just keeps growing and growing. In early 1996 it will top $5 trillion (that's $5,000,000,000,000). Back in 1976 the national debt was $540 billion (minuscule by today's standards but quite shocking at the time). Since America's bicentennial, twenty years of whopping deficits have resulted in this near ten-fold increase in the debt. Today our annual interest payment of more than $200 billion eats up every dollar of income tax paid by everyone living west of the Missisippi River. This interest payment buys us nothing! Even if we balanced the budget tomorrow, this interest payment will stay with us...a penalty for past deficit spending. To eliminate it, we will actually need to run budget surplusses for many years in order to pay down the $5 trillion debt.
Wait...there's more to the story. Unless substantial reforms are made soon, when the baby boom generation begins to retire and collect old age federal entitlements, the debt will explode. A huge amount of our taxes will go to nothing but interest. Moreover, at today's taxation levels, every dollar that is collected will be gobbled up by entitlements and interest alone. Massive tax increases will be required just to pay for national security and non-entitlement programs (i.e., everything that we usually think of as government services). Our children and grandchildren will be left with the bill for our excesses."
So Rush Limbaugh is wrong, our deteriorating situation over the last 20 years was not caused by freddie mac and the dems.
-
sixpence I don't disagree with you at all, this is an issue that goes far beyond party lines or just the sub-prime fiasco. However, the immediate crisis is rooted in the sub prime and unsecured consumer debt security instruments. As much as we focus on the mortgage issue the years of "what's in your wallet" unleashed by the misguided changes to the BK laws are equally to blame IMO. While the underlying issues go back 2 decades the straws that broke the camels back are easily identifiable.
-
sixpence I don't disagree with you at all, this is an issue that goes far beyond party lines or just the sub-prime fiasco. However, the immediate crisis is rooted in the sub prime and unsecured consumer debt security instruments. As much as we focus on the mortgage issue the years of "what's in your wallet" unleashed by the misguided changes to the BK laws are equally to blame IMO. While the underlying issues go back 2 decades the straws that broke the camels back are easily identifiable.
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/fannie_mae_and.html
I would agree with you, but I would disagree to blame freddie mac
-
The problem is that poor fiscal policy pushed the demand curve artificially, which triggered a need that resulted in new products. This forced a continued upward trend in housing cost and a further round of "new product". In the end we had an artificial "boom" manufactured by poor lending processes and easy unsecured credit that had no real basis in underlying productivity. The end result....we're seeing it today. So I blame both the democrats for pushing a politically motivated agenda for housing and the republicans for an improper and self serving revision of the BK process.