Well, bend over

[big bend gyrene]

No Bush did

I'm not looking to argue with Tennessee but dang sure will try to educate him.

Did some homework, TN, and it showed me that when Bush took office in 2001 the market was hanging around 10,000. Fast forward to the year after 9/11... market dropped down to the 7,000 range due to global fears associated with terrorism. Critique Bush as much as you want but he grabbed the reins and at least convinced global investors that our markets would be stabilized to the point it nearly doubled in the remainder of his presidency.

Fast forward again to his biggest mistake, agreeing to stimulus efforts... market drops down at the very end of his presidency to mid 9,000 - 10,000 range until Obama is elected. And yes, housing crisis that drove the need was a LIBERAL vote-buying initiative that predated Bush in the first place, so Bush's blame is limited. Nonetheless, most financial conservatives, including myself are still mad at Bush for allowing govt. meddling to begin, but he was keeping it limited to the point that the markets did momentarily stop bleeding, and as much as you may want to blame him, if you invested at the start of his presidency you might not have been left with a big profit at the end (unless you were wise enough to exit at the bubble whereupon you would have done quite well), but you wouldn't have lost much either... would have been pretty much a break even proposition.

Now, look at the date Obama wins election and starts making pronouncements as to the actions he'll take and watch the FORWARD reacting markets... straight down the pike... delude yourself if you want, BUT OBAMA OWNS this market collapse and more maddening doesn't really seem to care while he parties away eating $100 steaks to the sounds of Stevie and Earth, Wind, & Fire (and not being racist... right or wrong, it's REALLY what he's choosing to do).

[Tennessee]

No Bush did?

You seem to forget who was in charge of the Senate and house the last few years ( Hint: Democrats)

You also forgot who pushed banks and savings institutions to loan money to "minorities" for housing whether they qualified or not, in the name of "Political correctness". ( Hint: Democrats)

Housing loans is what brought this whole thing down.

You seem to forgot who was President the last eight years, the Democrat's had a very simple majority in congress, and until now powerless to do anything about the economy. It was the Republicans in 99 that sent Clinton the legislation that allowed banks to compete. Clinton's Dumb butt signed it, I am not a Dem. or Rep. being devoted to either will make you go blind.


Now, even thought I worked and paid for my house, They want me to bail out those that can't afford their $300,000 homes on a 25,000 yearly salary?

Do not get me started.


Dubble

[GatorBaiter]

All...let's give Tennessee a fair chance. Please elaborate...what exactly did Bush do to drag the economy to this level? I am not saying that the Republicans are innocent in this. At the very least, better pro active management could have softened the blow. But I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of what Bush or the entire Executive Branch of our government did in the past 8 years to cause this. Can you shed some light on this?

[dolphinatic]

It's simple economics that even a guy that washes cars and boats for a living can understand. The market projects the future (Oberkle), not the past (Bush). What's happened has happened and you can't place bets once the cards have been played. Well, Bush's cards have been played and a new hand has been dealt by Oberkle (I mean Reid & Pelosi ). The markets react to what is done now and Oberkle is telling them what his intentions are......then the market reacts. In my business, if a trusted client tells me the "check is in the mail" then I can budget accordingly. If they don't call me back or let me know that I'm going to be paid, I can't budget and have to control my spending. If Oberkle would just come out and assure America that "the check is in the mail" (not from the government mind you), then business and the markets can react. Instead Oberkle is saying that government is going to take more from those that are pursuing the American Dream and give to those who need more and don't want to bust their asses to achieve it.

[Tennessee]

All...let's give Tennessee a fair chance. Please elaborate...what exactly did Bush do to drag the economy to this level? I am not saying that the Republicans are innocent in this. At the very least, better pro active management could have softened the blow. But I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of what Bush or the entire Executive Branch of our government did in the past 8 years to cause this. Can you shed some light on this?

War in Iraq, which doubled our national DEBT, created an energy crises that led to infaltion, decrease in aggregate demand, and an increase in unemployment, that is snow balling, and at least through expansionary fiscal policy Obama is at least trying to put on the breaks with this stimulas package to increase aggregate demand. Our debt went from 5 trillion to 11 trillion under Bush and now all of the sudden we get a Democrat in office it is time to become fiscally conservative again. Believe me I am not for increasing the debt, but to do nothing right now could be disasterous. As for the stimulas package causing a drop in the stop market is rediculous. If trickle down economics really worked, there were more billionaires created during Bush's administration than any other, where is that money? Economies survive on reinvestment or distribution of wealth. That did not happen under Bush. Energy is the BIG reason we are in the shape we are in, it happened under Carter, and Reagon riened it in. Remember when Reagan took office we had a 500 billion national debt. At the end of his term it was over 3 trillion, he pushed stimulas as well, 4 trillion after Bush SR, 5 trillion after Clinton, and 11 trillion under Bush jr, Much of that money invested in other economies. The money Obama is asking for for the most part will be reinvested into our economy to try to increase aggregate demand and employment. Decreasing demand and unemployment is what is causing the stock market to fall, not to menton deflation which can be a doubled edged sword. I think the economy will come back, it was not entirely Bush's falt, that was more of a response the the Obama cartoon. If Iraq becomes another Qatar, it will have been worth the investment.

[Flint River Pirate]

Why are you guys talking about this on such a beautiful day? It is what it is..........................let's go fishing!

[Tennessee]

Why are you guys talking about this on such a beautiful day? It is what it is..........................let's go fishing!

Amen, I am stuck at work slow day, going tomarrow for some Carppie.

[GatorBaiter]

Dem sum big words fer a Vol!!! That being said I am getting outa here to go install my new Hummingbird. Just for the record I agree with most of what Tennessee had to say about the cause but not the cause of the cause. The rise in the price of energy did drive inflation but I would argue that it was driven not by the war but by the emergance of India and China as major consumer markets. What this has to say for the future and what the ultimate solution is I don't think anybody has really figured out...crappy time to have investment stocks...but great time to go fishin'!!! Later all!

[MudDucker]

All...let's give Tennessee a fair chance. Please elaborate...what exactly did Bush do to drag the economy to this level? I am not saying that the Republicans are innocent in this. At the very least, better pro active management could have softened the blow. But I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of what Bush or the entire Executive Branch of our government did in the past 8 years to cause this. Can you shed some light on this?

War in Iraq, which doubled our national DEBT, created an energy crises that led to infaltion, decrease in aggregate demand, and an increase in unemployment, that is snow balling, and at least through expansionary fiscal policy Obama is at least trying to put on the breaks with this stimulas package to increase aggregate demand. Our debt went from 5 trillion to 11 trillion under Bush and now all of the sudden we get a Democrat in office it is time to become fiscally conservative again. Believe me I am not for increasing the debt, but to do nothing right now could be disasterous. As for the stimulas package causing a drop in the stop market is rediculous. If trickle down economics really worked, there were more billionaires created during Bush's administration than any other, where is that money? Economies survive on reinvestment or distribution of wealth. That did not happen under Bush. Energy is the BIG reason we are in the shape we are in, it happened under Carter, and Reagon riened it in. Remember when Reagan took office we had a 500 billion national debt. At the end of his term it was over 3 trillion, he pushed stimulas as well, 4 trillion after Bush SR, 5 trillion after Clinton, and 11 trillion under Bush jr, Much of that money invested in other economies. The money Obama is asking for for the most part will be reinvested into our economy to try to increase aggregate demand and employment. Decreasing demand and unemployment is what is causing the stock market to fall, not to menton deflation which can be a doubled edged sword. I think the economy will come back, it was not entirely Bush's falt, that was more of a response the the Obama cartoon. If Iraq becomes another Qatar, it will have been worth the investment.

Bush was an amateur compared to your man Obama. Obama in 2 months is going to spend enough to quadruple our budget deficit. Obama ... One Bad Azzed Mistake America!

[Tennessee]

Maybe you guys need to get together and form a new contract with America, the one your buddies formed in 1994 worked so well. To do what you propose would be impossible. If you staked up 100 dollar bills it would take a stack 6000 miles high to pay off the debt, the Fed prints 635 million dollars a day it would take 30 years for them to print enough to make that happen. Mudducker maybe if you guys in Valdosta would hand a kid a book instead of a football when they were born we would not be having this conversation, just kidding hand them the ball. Dose Rush Limbaugh frequent the airwaves down there, if so call in and tell him Possum said hello. By the way do you know the difference between budget deficit and National debt. The stimulas is an investment in the future of America to help our kids who will have to pay off the debt, and be better stratigically prepared to do so. In the wake of that jobs will be created, aggregate demand will increase, as well as employment. Which will send more money in tax dollars. THE STIMULAS PACKAGE WILL NOT TAKE US OUT OF THE RECESSION, but IT CAN CREATE A FOUNDATION FOR A NEW ECONOMY! I like good debate if you guys would like me to not return to this site I will not, you can just ditto each other, and go on. Sorry if this crazy idiot offended anyone today.

[Dubble Trubble]

Stay with us Tennesee. Every Zig needs a Zag.


Dubble

[big bend gyrene]

The stimulas is an investment in the future of America to help our kids who will have to pay off the debt, and be better stratigically prepared to do so. In the wake of that jobs will be created, aggregate demand will increase, as well as employment. Which will send more money in tax dollars. THE STIMULAS PACKAGE WILL NOT TAKE US OUT OF THE RECESSION, but IT CAN CREATE A FOUNDATION FOR A NEW ECONOMY!

Tennessee, stuff you're smoking must be some REALLY good stuff! Guess the sound logic of your argument is SO OBVIOUS it's what's driven the markets since Obama's election this past November. Call me foolish, but I invest only money that I actually have in hand... had plenty of friends over the years who preferred using the IOU method, and never saw the results end up too well. Maybe you want to have your soul sold to the citizens of China, but I myself see it as a sad day and one I'm not going to run to with a smile.

Sorry, I'm not evidently as smart as you with your deep appreciation for debt spending and the increase in aggregate demand you believe it will drive... see, the most important lessons I ever learned were taught to me by my now 80 year old father who lived through the depression as a sharecropper in South Carolina, with the lesson taught never to trust the government to lead my life to some "life will be fair" end, and for me to aim to succeed by the sweat of my own brow. Though know what? After today, I may be starting to better appreciate Obama's math! Did hear Obama explaining his job creation work today... heard him say his stimulus was responsible for creating 25 jobs in Ohio!!! Granted, over 650,000 total jobs lost in February but who knows HOW MANY MORE HE SAVED, and when added to the 25 he single-handedly created today he must be up to his 4,000,000 saved/created number by now!

[MudDucker]

Mudducker maybe if you guys in Valdosta would hand a kid a book instead of a football when they were born we would not be having this conversation, ...

Now aren't you the smartazz. They get both. However, for some of them, their only desire and hope is a football. Liberals always seem to want to generalize certain classes of folks so that they can claim they are oppressed.

[PinFishKing]

Interesting reading. Below are portions of a NY Times article from 1999 . I also added the actual link for those of you who would like to read the whole thing. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

Link would not work when I pasted it in. Go to www.nytimes.com and search for Steven A. Holmes and you will see the article.

[Dubble Trubble]

Interesting reading. Below are portions of a NY Times article from 1999 . I also added the actual link for those of you who would like to read the whole thing. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

Link would not work when I pasted it in. Go to www.nytimes.com and search for Steven A. Holmes and you will see the article.

LOL. Yep. Obama was right when he said he "inherited" this mess. Right from the Clinton administration. What I have been saying all along.

Dubble