Obama leading US into Depression

[Mr. Shaman]

Is that Pope Clinton I?

Nope; the Messiah.​

Maybe you mean that the Dems failed in the 90s, and so will fail again?

Also, not true.

Ask Mommy & Daddy about it.

​

 

[top gun]

You need to remember who you're talking to--I've been basically saying that neither party has it right and that this was coming regardless of who (which party) was in charge. Hell, they're both bad!

As an aside, let's tabulate some of the very worst of deregulation that helped cause a lot of this d@mn bubble:

Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999

...strongly lobbied for by this b@stard.

And let's not forget this turkey:

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000

Those are the worst and they don't begin to cover it all. The Democrats in Congress in '93 were trying pretty hard to reign in the Federal Reserve with accountability and transparency, but Clinton didn't back them. The Federal Reserve fell more and more under the control of private financial interests. I think we now see where that's gone although I entertain no hope whatsoever that we've even come close to seeing all the damage.

Nobody with any real power has attempted to bring the true culprits to justice and so far Obama isn't demonstrating any effort that way, either. I know, I know... there's that pitiful crap that he's done that appears to be going after "those miserable rich b@stards!" but apparently that's to appease The Masses, making them THINK he's going after the real offenders. Mathematics will be teaching said Masses the bitter truth in the long run, though.

There probably are a few good politicians. Maybe. What I think they're good at is making most folks think they're on the correct side of a given debate all the while slipping in some really horrible legislation that's going to bite later.

I simply said that President Obama did predict before he took office that things would get worse before they got better. They did and there will now start to be an upswing.

Secondly I simply said that the graph you presented didn't show the entire severe downturn of which the lion's share was unmistakably on George Bush's watch.

And seriously you know it's just totally disingenuos to try and paint the Dems as the "deregulators". Yes there most certainly were some Dems on some issues that were in favor of some types of deregulation. BUT COME ON... you know well that the Republicants spent their whole lives preaching almost TOTAL DEREGULATION.

To be exact I'll post video of virtually the entire Republicant Party all beating the Dems over the head because the Dems in general favored MORE REGULATION!

I think we all should take from this all is that regulation & oversight are very necessary in any large financial dealings . We see this to be true not only with things like home financing but all the way up to individual investors like Bernie Madoff.

I personally don't see politicians as "bad". The system was set up in a way to where Representatives try to bring money back into their respective Districts. In fact some earmarks are even good and hurry up an appropriations process that could otherwise take 2 years. Others are bridges to nowhere. The problem for either side is getting the votes needed to eliminate his "as bad" but not mine.

In theory a Presidential line item veto would be a good thing IF Presidents would only act to strike obviously unnecessary and blatantly wasteful projects. The problem I see... it probably would become more of a "just strike out the other sides programs" tool for the President. I guess it all boils down to one simple thing... Democracy isn't easy!

As far as Political Parties in general... you're not going to find a perfect one so I don't assume to expect that.

I try and look at the basic planks of each Party's platform and see what I think is most fair & reasonable. Then I look at the recent history (the preceding 8 years) and decide how I truly think the country overall was run, good or bad.

One of the two sides is going to be in power. I try to pick what I think will be best overall.

My personal opinion is President Obama will do better and better as time goes on and he gets his full agenda established. I also think the economy will rebound in the middle of his first term. Truth is the guy's been about as busy as a President can get for only being in office for what 6-7 weeks?

Rome wasn't built in a day!

 

[HankHill]

I simply said that President Obama did predict before he took office that things would get worse before they got better. They did and there will now start to be an upswing.

He did predict that, but he just didn't add that he would be the one making things worse. And where is the upswing?

I think we all should take from this all is that regulation & oversight are very necessary in any large financial dealings . We see this to be true not only with things like home financing but all the way up to individual investors like Bernie Madoff.

The Reps attempted to regulate, but good ole' Barney "3 drink lunch" Frank, said eeeverything is ooooook... And as for Made-off, many SEC officials should be in jail for not reigning in his scheme, instead they decided to ignore it.

I personally don't see politicians as "bad". The system was set up in a way to where Representatives try to bring money back into their respective Districts. In fact some earmarks are even good and hurry up an appropriations process that could otherwise take 2 years. Others are bridges to nowhere. The problem for either side is getting the votes needed to eliminate his "as bad" but not mine.

"Bad" is putting earmarks in a bill that should stimulate the economy in dire times like these. And who put these earmarks in????? Bad politicians!

In theory a Presidential line item veto would be a good thing IF Presidents would only act to strike obviously unnecessary and blatantly wasteful projects. The problem I see... it probably would become more of a "just strike out the other sides programs" tool for the President. I guess it all boils down to one simple thing... Democracy isn't easy!

The argument is that if the President vetoed the bill, it would delay it's passing (as demonstrated in the past) by up to 2 years. So, the President will sign it, whether he is disgusted with the earmarks or not. And believe this, Obumbler is just fine with all the earmarks, even though he says the contrary in public.

As far as Political Parties in general... you're not going to find a perfect one so I don't assume to expect that.

Bad politicians make up a bad party. Both parties are laden with bad politicians that appease special interest and lobbyists.

My personal opinion is President Obama will do better and better as time goes on and he gets his full agenda established. I also think the economy will rebound in the middle of his first term. Truth is the guy's been about as busy as a President can get for only being in office for what 6-7 weeks?

I couldn't disagree with you more. Obumbler has an agenda alright, but it's not the roses and cupcakes you think it is. Just look at his past associations and you'll see where he wants to lead this country. Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Louis Farahkan, Tony Rezco, and the list goes on....

Rome wasn't built in a day!

We all know what happened to the Roman Empire!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Well....at least Bristol Palin will have time to watch Bill, tonite!!!

​

 

[Pidgey]

I simply said that President Obama did predict before he took office that things would get worse before they got better. They did and there will now start to be an upswing.

Secondly I simply said that the graph you presented didn't show the entire severe downturn of which the lion's share was unmistakably on George Bush's watch.

And seriously you know it's just totally disingenuos to try and paint the Dems as the "deregulators". Yes there most certainly were some Dems on some issues that were in favor of some types of deregulation. BUT COME ON... you know well that the Republicants spent their whole lives preaching almost TOTAL DEREGULATION.[/B]

You seriously think that "things would get worse before they got better" means this relatively short period of time? And you're expecting an upswing now?

You've got to be joking...

You know, I can show you data like this that I took the time to go find, size for comparison and post to my photo account just for your benefit:

...which is a timeline comparison of oil prices to the XLF. I'm sure you understand the crude oil price chart although I expect you want to believe that the recent price runup is all or mostly due to evil speculators (Republicans, no doubt... ) and nothing whatsoever to do with an increasing disparity between production supply and current demand. I'm sorry but I've studied the field production numbers and I know for a fact that the supply/demand problem was driving. That's WHY the speculators ran the price up.

In any case, it's all too easy to see how the price spike CAUSED the sharp downtrend in the XLF. What that's essentially saying, by the way, is that dividends (net profit) began to degrade seriously. When you get to the point that you can't service the interest on the debt (big debt... national debt, not just your house loan) then you're just plain insolvent. Insolvency is NOT the same thing as a liquidity crisis--it's a helluva' lot worse.

I know, I know... how can you wake up in a world tomorrow where everyone's still alive, has the same stuff as today, same bills, same kids, same cars, same jobs... and the situation turns so dire, so fast? How can that be? The tough part of explaining it is in not really knowing who you are and how you see things... or in what ways you're capable of seeing things.

If you rigidly subscribe to the idea that The Rich STOLE the money because they were given tax cuts that impoverished The Poor and the accumulation of that much theft did all the damage... well, you're pretty much dead wrong. They reinvested it in the system and put more people to work. Money just sitting around loses value due to inflation on a continual basis.

I know, I know... BUT THOSE SWISS BANKS WERE SHELTERING 2.2 TRILLION BUCKS FOR ALL THOSE RICH B@STARDS (and B@stardettes--gotta' be an equal-opportunity-defamer, right?)!!! Well, lemme' ask you a question... do you get taxed on money that you're letting sit in your bank acount that's non-interest bearing? We'll have to wait on the particulars about all that money and its disposition before we find out the truth so let it go for now. I'm sure some of it's bad and needs to go back to the treasury but I'll warrant you that it's nowhere near enough to do any truly signficant good.

So, the $64,000 question is how could we have avoided this eventuality that was going to happen at the appointed time REGARDLESS of who was sitting in The Oval Office? Exponential economic growth (the economic boom that we all seem to require in order to properly pursue happiness) REQUIRES exponential growth in energy and resources. PERIOD. END OF STORY. And the financial house-of-cards collapses when the required exponential debt service increases beyond the exponential increase in primary energy supply.

I can't help but get the impression that your position CANNOT at all costs consider that possibility--it HAS to be Bush's fault. Why? What's wrong with simply asking the question, shopping for the data and then analyzing it for what it is with no preconceived agenda?

And can the "disingenuos" [sic] BS... members of both parties' leadership participated eagerly in the growth of the "finance economy". It's a time-dishonored tradition. I keep telling you... they're all bad, and I mean it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And Bush and his Republican Congress (2000- 2006) has something to do with that debt as well.

No doubt!!!​

"Between 2004 and 2006 US interest rates rose from 1% to 5.35%, triggering a slowdown in the US housing market."

Whatta great use of that MBA, Georgie!!!​

 

[top gun]

HankHill;89501]He did predict that, but he just didn't add that he would be the one making things worse. And where is the upswing?

He predicted things would continue the downward Bush trend for awhile... which it has. President Obama's (or anyone's new policy) takes a minute to start to operate.

And we have seen some signs of the very beginnings of improvement.

Overall though you crack me up... the guys only been President like what 50 days!

The Reps attempted to regulate, but good ole' Barney "3 drink lunch" Frank, said eeeverything is ooooook... And as for Made-off, many SEC officials should be in jail for not reigning in his scheme, instead they decided to ignore it.

You convienienty leave out that while some Pubbies spoke about the possiblity of future trouble with Fannie & Freddie many Pubbies were just like Barnie Frank and thought things were ok with them.

If you're now breaking from the overall Pubbie position that regulation is bad and for more regulation... then we are uncharacteristically in agreement.

"Bad" is putting earmarks in a bill that should stimulate the economy in dire times like these. And who put these earmarks in????? Bad politicians!

Spending in general (along with the Obama targeted tax cuts) is the stimulus. Earmark only says "where" the money will be spent. It's still job holding and creating stimulus whether it's not canceling but instead hiring a complete police officers class in Ohio for Democrat Sherrod Brown or building a hotel in South Carolina for Lindsey Graham.

Reality is to get things passed at all the Congress often has to spread the money to states all over in ways that are often not perfect.

The argument is that if the President vetoed the bill, it would delay it's passing (as demonstrated in the past) by up to 2 years. So, the President will sign it, whether he is disgusted with the earmarks or not. And believe this, Obumbler is just fine with all the earmarks, even though he says the contrary in public.

I agree with your first sentence. President Obama knows we cannot sit on our economic hands for 2 years and do nothing while in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression... AKA... THE BUSH RECESSION.

Everything else you said here is just Republicant gibberish!


My advice... remember what disaster we are coming off of before you start throwing stones at the ones toiling hard everyday trying to turn around the whole big mess handed to them.

 

[top gun]

You seriously think that "things would get worse before they got better" means this relatively short period of time? And you're expecting an upswing now?

You've got to be joking...

NO... what I'm saying is that President Obama knew and wanted everyone else to know that the day he took office the Bush economic crisis wasn't going to just disappear. (Not at all hard to remember the Wackos on the Right were trying hard to smear him as thinking he was Christ like)

Finding ways to stabilize a Bush economy in free fall... purpose, pass & implement a jobs stimulus package and trying to put some type of a floor under the country's financial sector are first critically and somewhat consuming needed steps.

Much like Confucius said... Even the longest journey begins with the first step.

Too be more specific I believe an "upswing" will show up little by little over the next 2 years... which is a very good thing.

 

[Pidgey]

Too be more specific I believe an "upswing" will show up little by little over the next 2 years... which is a very good thing.

Based on what?

I've posted a plethora of graphs over several threads that have demonstrated economic factors and declining returns on investments over several decades, as well as primary energy data. Seeing as how the trend has followed the post-peak oil production for the US, I don't see much of anything to get too optimistic about. All stimulus to the economy for the past few decades have been "false economy" types of measures.

 

[Pandora]

Based on what?

Based on hope!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You folks've gotta quit listening to Porky Limbaugh, so much.

During their "quiet times", together, I think Jeff Gannon is lying-to-him.

​

 

[Andy]

You folks've gotta quit listening to Porky Limbaugh, so much.

During their "quiet times", together, I think Jeff Gannon is lying-to-him.

​

Coming from the least reliable source of information on this forum.

Not to mention, the link was nothing but an opinion from a chairman of the federal reserve. The federal reserves predictions, and the weather man have a lot in common. Namely they can both be wrong more than half that time, and still have everyone listen intensely to what they say.

 

[top gun]

Based on what?

I've posted a plethora of graphs over several threads that have demonstrated economic factors and declining returns on investments over several decades, as well as primary energy data. Seeing as how the trend has followed the post-peak oil production for the US, I don't see much of anything to get too optimistic about. All stimulus to the economy for the past few decades have been "false economy" types of measures.

Graphs and charts can be both self serving and not explain the overall situation at hand. Do you have any idea how many times in American history the doom & gloom sayers have pulled out graphs and statistics and sure enough things change and the economy revives yet again?

What I'm saying is that there definitely has been a economic adjustment to the worse that started it's free fall under George Bush.

But President Obama is working hard to shore up several things that will lessen the blow to everyday hard working Americans. The economy will rebound and things will get better.

Will it get back to it's height quickly... no... but we are going to stabilize and the start going back up as President Obama gets more than say 50 days in office.

I think we've even seen some changes for the better this last week in the stock market. It becomes a time to get super deals.