The Obama Boom.

[dude1394]

What do these idiots know anyway...
http://www.businessweek.com/print/in...034_253747.htm

Did Obama Cause the Stock Slide?
Wall Street has soured on the new Administration's policy moves. Can this relationship be saved?

By Ben Steverman

At least on Wall Street, the honeymoon is over for President Barack Obama.

Polls still show the President has strong popularity among the general U.S. population, and Obama continues to command power in Congress. But among investors, fairly or unfairly, there is griping that the new Obama Administration is at least partly to blame for the recent slide in stocks. Since Nov. 4, Election Day, the broad Standard & Poor's 500-stock index is off about 25%, and since Jan. 20, when Obama took office, the "500" is down 15%.

It's never easy to determine exactly why the stock market moves in a particular direction. Plenty of other factors have influenced stock prices since November. For example, the global economy has slowed further and the outlook for corporate profits has worsened.

But BusinessWeek interviewed a wide array of investment professionals, and many said the first six weeks of the Obama Administration have soured their outlook on the stock market.

[Mavdog]

very selective timeframe isn't it? the dow reached 13,028 on May 20, 2008, and closed at 6626 today.

the dow declined much more during the bush term than during obama's term (the dow was at 7949 when obama took office...)

but hey! no matter the facts and inaccuracies, blame obama!

[dude1394]

Yea...what do they know anyway. Blame bush...absolve Obama of any responsibility.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yea...what do they know anyway. Blame bush...absolve Obama of any responsibility.

so in your view obama is "responsible" for the economy/dow average prior to his inaugaration?

[92bDad]

The market was going down under the Bush administration, then when the elections took place, the market reacted to the election of Obama. Thus, yes, Obama is responsible starting in November at the latest...if not sooner as specualtion was clearly in Obama's favor.

I would even go as far as to say that the market reacted with the pending speculation that Democrats would be in control, which to them, who doesn't matter, but rather the knowledge of the Liberal agenda hurts business and thus hurts the market.

It is rather naive to pin the blame 100% on Bush...keep in mind the Democrats have now been in charge for 2 years...

So what was the market doing around November of 2006?

But hey, why let reality get in the way of liberal fantasy...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

The market was going down under the Bush administration, then when the elections took place, the market reacted to the election of Obama. Thus, yes, Obama is responsible starting in November at the latest...if not sooner as specualtion was clearly in Obama's favor.

yet it declined greatest during bush's tenure, seems you want it both ways, which is not an honest viewpoint to say the least.

I would even go as far as to say that the market reacted with the pending speculation that Democrats would be in control, which to them, who doesn't matter, but rather the knowledge of the Liberal agenda hurts business and thus hurts the market.

that's an odd speculation, as the dow has historically increased in value more under democrat presidents than it has under republican presidents.

so history says that your speculation is wrong.

It is rather naive to pin the blame 100% on Bush...keep in mind the Democrats have now been in charge for 2 years...

So what was the market doing around November of 2006?

But hey, why let reality get in the way of liberal fantasy...

"fantasy" is believing that the stock market doesn't want a democrat in the white house.

you believe bush has been gone for two years already? just what drugs are you on?

odd, but it seems that you are the only one who has mentioned a word about "pin[ning] the blame 100% on bush"...your attempt at that strawman argument won't fly.

[TheMaverick]

As each day passes, can we all agree that the deserving blame should be less and less on Bush, while more and more on Barack?

[aquaadverse]

[I]"what? "the last president to get elected primarily by a message of being the opposite of an unpopular president that wasn't a candidate"???

please try to make sense."[I]

Carter ran a campaign against Nixon, not Ford.

Obama ran against Bush, not McCain. McCain only called him on it once and never used the historically low ratings of Congress.

Neither Nixon or Bush was a candidate. Once you get past that there was little to Carter. If Nixon or Bush weren't as unpopular the tactic wouldn't have worked. In spite of taking one for the team by pardoning Nixon and having a huge amount of ground to make up, Ford damn caught Carter.

And if the little meltdown had happened 45 days later this race would have been more interesting.

It's like the popular backup QB from BFE U. with no experience replacing the starter who is doing badly. Call it the "can't do any worse" syndrome.



"pelosi? she has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue."

As persuasive as using CAPS and declarative sentences with zero explanation of how you got there happens to be, I still think Pelosi is taking a fair amount of heat while Obama gets to talk about about "regrettable lack of bipartisanship".

If you want to think her comments of "We won, we'll write the bills" and constant face time while Obama has no contact with the press and never actually comments on any details of the legislation has no effect on his approval rating, fine.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

[I]Carter ran a campaign against Nixon, not Ford.

Obama ran against Bush, not McCain. McCain only called him on it once and never used the historically low ratings of Congress.

Neither Nixon or Bush was a candidate. Once you get past that there was little to Carter. If Nixon or Bush weren't as unpopular the tactic wouldn't have worked. In spite of taking one for the team by pardoning Nixon and having a huge amount of ground to make up, Ford damn caught Carter.

you were alluding to carter? yikes.

carter didn't run a campaign against nixon, he never uttered nixon's name. carter ran a campaign against the "washington establishment", which btw included his own party.

your point is wrong.

And if the little meltdown had happened 45 days later this race would have been more interesting.

It's like the popular backup QB from BFE U. with no experience replacing the starter who is doing badly. Call it the "can't do any worse" syndrome.

what the heck are you saying? the economic "meltdown"? it was in full swing in november, and is one of the reasons obama won (remember mccain ceasing his campaign due to the "severity of the crisis"?)

As persuasive as using CAPS and declarative sentences with zero explanation of how you got there happens to be, I still think Pelosi is taking a fair amount of heat while Obama gets to talk about about "regrettable lack of bipartisanship".

If you want to think her comments of "We won, we'll write the bills" and constant face time while Obama has no contact with the press and never actually comments on any details of the legislation has no effect on his approval rating, fine.

pelosi is almost inmvisible right now, and I do not know how you have missed the weekly press interviews and public speeches obama has been conducting. you even take one of his quotes...odd that on the one hand you'd say he "has no contact with the press" while you then turn around and produce a quote.

there's a fairly long interview in fact on the nyt wesite today.

obama's ratings have stayed up because he is communicative and getting lots of time in the news.

[aquaadverse]

you were alluding to carter? yikes.

carter didn't run a campaign against nixon, he never uttered nixon's name. carter ran a campaign against the "washington establishment", which btw included his own party.

your point is wrong.

Nope. There are many similarities, mishandling of an unpopular war, trampling of constitutional rights etc...He didn't have to use his name.

Saying Watergate, the Saturday Night Massacre, his very new practice of taping conversation etc....had little to do with Carter getting elected is wrong. I voted in that election and remember it well. People didn't vote for Carter as much as they showed disgust with the actions of the Nixon administration. He continually hammered on scandals, broken faith. Ford pardoning Nixon sealed a loss. Saying he got elected because of a general campaign against the Washington establishment is ludicrous.

The fact that he didn't want to seem unpresidential by savaging Nixon and his staff directly doesn't change the fact it didn't require mastery of nuance and the fine points of subtle inference to know what he was referring to with a reference of mishandling a tragic and wasteful war, loss of trust because of secrecy and scandal, and people in high office feeling above the law.

http://www.observer.com/2008/turning-obama-jimmy-carter

There are numerous similarities in the dynamics between the two campaigns. I'm not saying they are exactly the same or that Obama is going to end up like Carter.

what the heck are you saying? the economic "meltdown"? it was in full swing in november, and is one of the reasons obama won (remember mccain ceasing his campaign due to the "severity of the crisis"?)

I'm saying if the events of September had happened at the end of October or July Obama might have lost. The race was a statistical dead heat with McCain making up ground after the DNC. If the big crash that saw Lehman Brothers going under and the huge drops in the market had occurred after the election instead of the end of September it would have been closer. Obama got a break when the issue bitched slapped the public and the time frame was perfect for him. He got to point the finger of blame without needing to float a solution.

pelosi is almost inmvisible right now, and I do not know how you have missed the weekly press interviews and public speeches obama has been conducting. you even take one of his quotes...odd that on the one hand you'd say he "has no contact with the press" while you then turn around and produce a quote.

there's a fairly long interview in fact on the nyt wesite today.

obama's ratings have stayed up because he is communicative and getting lots of time in the news

Pelosi is invisible because the bill is done. Obama is still trying to appear a centrist and a uniter. Pelosi was styling herself as the keeper of change. This is not a new strategy and there are many examples in our history with different parties in power.

And I don't know how you missed this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28808756/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17833.html

He hasn't made any meaningful explanation that ties this huge round of back loaded deficit spending to a recovery. He talks about making federal building energy efficient and replacing the Federal Fleet with hybrids because it's difficult to argue against it. He didn't address the subject of housing in detail because he didn't want to preempt his Treasury Secretary press conference two days later. He continues to toss out slogans about 4 million jobs and other highly generalized comments because he doesn't want follow ups. Try to find any widely distributed comments by him addressing the lack of positive reaction by the financial sector to his strategy. Try to find any widely distributed comments about his seeming inability to find senior staff without tax issues. Try to find comments by him justifying waivers clearing people with lobbyist ties to serve on his staff.

I'm not really slamming him over it. It's a smart strategy and it obviously works.

He remains popular because a large chunk of our population are unable to name any of his cabinet besides Hillary and Biden and probably couldn't find Afghanistan on a map if their lives depended on it. Millions buy boy band and Hanna Montana music and concert tickets but it hardly means it's because they have demonstrated great depth in interviews.

There is a difference between exposure and access. He is very intelligent and media savvy. That is very different from communicative. Quotes by him are easy to come by. Answers of any depth aren't. He is popular because he is very careful of what he says and the image he portrays. If you think a photographer was just kind of wandering by and got lucky snapping pictures of him frolicking in the surf in Aloha land you're mistaken.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Nope. There are many similarities, mishandling of an unpopular war, trampling of constitutional rights etc...He didn't have to use his name.

Saying Watergate, the Saturday Night Massacre, his very new practice of taping conversation etc....had little to do with Carter getting elected is wrong. I voted in that election and remember it well. People didn't vote for Carter as much as they showed disgust with the actions of the Nixon administration. He continually hammered on scandals, broken faith. Ford pardoning Nixon sealed a loss. Saying he got elected because of a general campaign against the Washington establishment is ludicrous.

The fact that he didn't want to seem unpresidential by savaging Nixon and his staff directly doesn't change the fact it didn't require mastery of nuance and the fine points of subtle inference to know what he was referring to with a reference of mishandling a tragic and wasteful war, loss of trust because of secrecy and scandal, and people in high office feeling above the law.

http://www.observer.com/2008/turning-obama-jimmy-carter

There are numerous similarities in the dynamics between the two campaigns. I'm not saying they are exactly the same or that Obama is going to end up like Carter.

the obama campaign had no "nuance" nor "innuendo". obama ran against bush and the bush republican party.

carter ran against the washington establishment, and ran against his own party's establishment. that focus alienated the rest of the democrat party and all but doomed the carter presidency all on its own.

I'm saying if the events of September had happened at the end of October or July Obama might have lost. The race was a statistical dead heat with McCain making up ground after the DNC. If the big crash that saw Lehman Brothers going under and the huge drops in the market had occurred after the election instead of the end of September it would have been closer. Obama got a break when the issue bitched slapped the public and the time frame was perfect for him. He got to point the finger of blame without needing to float a solution.

the economy aided obama, and if mccain had any credibility with the public on his economic credentials it would not have benefitted obama as much.

as mccain didn't have any economic cred, I'm not sure that the timing of the recession would have ever been a positive for mccain.

Pelosi is invisible because the bill is done.

but you said that "pelosi is taking most of the heat", now you're agreeing that she is invisible. a bit contradictory there...

Obama is still trying to appear a centrist and a uniter. Pelosi was styling herself as the keeper of change. This is not a new strategy and there are many examples in our history with different parties in power.

but didn't you just agree that pelosi is invisible? talk about inconsistency...yikes.

And I don't know how you missed this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28808756/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17833.html

and? photographers complaining is somehow confirmation of your assertion that "obama has no contact with the press"???? you have got to be joking, right?

He hasn't made any meaningful explanation that ties this huge round of back loaded deficit spending to a recovery. He talks about making federal building energy efficient and replacing the Federal Fleet with hybrids because it's difficult to argue against it. He didn't address the subject of housing in detail because he didn't want to preempt his Treasury Secretary press conference two days later. He continues to toss out slogans about 4 million jobs and other highly generalized comments because he doesn't want follow ups. Try to find any widely distributed comments by him addressing the lack of positive reaction by the financial sector to his strategy. Try to find any widely distributed comments about his seeming inability to find senior staff without tax issues. Try to find comments by him justifying waivers clearing people with lobbyist ties to serve on his staff.

I'm not really slamming him over it. It's a smart strategy and it obviously works.

easy to refute.
obama press conference feb 9

obama interview on al arabiya

obama interview with nyt

interview on air force one

He remains popular because a large chunk of our population are unable to name any of his cabinet besides Hillary and Biden and probably couldn't find Afghanistan on a map if their lives depended on it. Millions buy boy band and Hanna Montana music and concert tickets but it hardly means it's because they have demonstrated great depth in interviews.

yeah, those same circumstances didn't exist for bush...wait, they did!....and boy it really helped his popularity, didn't it?

There is a difference between exposure and access. He is very intelligent and media savvy. That is very different from communicative. Quotes by him are easy to come by. Answers of any depth aren't. He is popular because he is very careful of what he says and the image he portrays. If you think a photographer was just kind of wandering by and got lucky snapping pictures of him frolicking in the surf in Aloha land you're mistaken.

read through the links above, you'll find answers to these questions you want addressed.

it's very apparent you just haven't been listening.

[fluid.forty.one]

Big rally on Wall Street
Major gauges surge as Citigroup helps charge up a rally following the recent bloodletting.


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Markets surged Tuesday afternoon, recovering from multi-year lows, after Citigroup cooled some worries about its solvency and talk resurfaced that the SEC could reinstate a key trading rule.

Investors also considered comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about the need for an overhaul of the financial system.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) gained 300 points, or 4.6%, with around 2-1/2 hours left in the session. The Dow ended the previous session at its lowest point since April 15, 1997.

The S&P 500 (SPX) index gained 35 points, or 5.3%, after ending the previous session at the lowest point since Sept. 12, 1996.

The Nasdaq composite (COMP) climbed 74 points or 5.9%, after ending the previous session at its lowest point since Oct. 9, 2002.

Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) shares jumped 34%, leading a broader rally in the financial sector. Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) and Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500) were among the stocks rallying. The KBW Bank (BKX) sector index climbed 9%.

But the rally was broad based, with all 30 Dow components rallying. In addition to the Dow's financial stocks, other big gainers included Alcoa (AA, Fortune 500), Caterpillar (CAT, Fortune 500), General Electric (GE, Fortune 500) and General Motors (GM, Fortune 500).

A variety of big tech shares jumped, too, including Cisco Systems (CSCO, Fortune 500), eBay (EBAY, Fortune 500), Dell (DELL, Fortune 500), Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) and Dow component Intel (INTC, Fortune 500).

"Citigroup got us started but then Barney Frank came out and said that the uptick rule could be reinstated and that helped a lot too," said Tom Schrader, managing director at Stifel Nicolaus.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the head of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee told reporters Tuesday that the Securities and Exchange Commission would restore the "uptick rule."

The uptick rule -- which was in place until July 2007 -- limits short sellers from adding to the downward momentum of a stock that is already plunging. In short selling, traders make money when the price of a stock falls.

Critics say the ending of the uptick rule has added to the selling in the financial sector stocks over the last year and a half.

Stocks were also bouncing back in response to the recent bloodletting in the markets.

0:00 /1:33Waiting for the bears
Year-to-date, the Dow and S&P 500 were down around 25% as of Monday's close, while the Nasdaq was down around 17%. In light of the massive selloff, analysts have been saying for some time that the market is due for a sharp, bear market rally. That seemed to be taking hold Tuesday morning.

The rally is an oversold bounce off these recent levels, Schrader said, but it also has the potential to usher in a bigger advance within the ongoing downtrend. That was also the case after the stock market hit lows in both October and November of last year.

"There's a chance that if this gets enough gas, it could move up a lot more," Schrader said. "There's tons of cash sitting in money markets and if people start to think they're going to miss out, they're going to want to jump back in."

The Dow and S&P 500 ended at fresh 12-year lows Monday after Merck's $41 billion purchase of Schering-Plough failed to distract investors from worries about the economy.

March 10 is a dubious holiday for the Nasdaq. It's the 9-year anniversary of the day it hit its all-time high of 5048.62 at the height of the tech boom. As of Monday's close, the tech-heavy index was down 75% from its peak. (Full story)

Banks: Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) CEO Vikram Pandit, in a letter to employees, said the bank was profitable year-to-date and that it is confident about its capital position. The letter, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was a relief to investors who have been watching Citi's share price break the buck as the company has struggled to stay afloat.

The government has stepped in repeatedly to bolster Citi, most recently last week when it agreed to take up to a 36% stake in the company. Pandit's letter said that, so far, the first quarter of 2009 has been the best since the third of 2007, the last time Citi was profitable. Yet, the letter did not specify how much credit losses and other one-time items would offset the profit. (Full story)

[fluid.forty.one]

Since everything bad that happens in the market is Obama's fault, he has to get a little credit here, right? Right??

[mcsluggo]

no, no... you missed this earlier portion of the story:

Despite Tuesday’s slight optimism, investors remain watchful about developments in the world’s banks, which have seen their balance sheets ravaged by the financial crisis and the deepening global economic downturn.

Earlier most Asian stock markets climbed, but Japanese shares sank to a new 26-year closing low amid ongoing worries about the economic crisis. Japan’s Nikkei 225 stock average fell 31.05 points, or 0.4 percent, to 7,054.98 _ the lowest closing level since Oct. 6, 1982 when the index finished at 6,974.35

The Obama administration was just distracted away from screwing the US economy, by turning their attention to screwing the Japanese economy... (over the last 26 years)

Never you fear, Obama will get his priorities straight return to savaging the US economy soon...

[u2sarajevo]

How did Citi post a profit? That goes against everything the media is telling us is happening, right?

It was refreshing to get a glimpse of what good news is like.

[dude1394]

Another ignorant person...daring to criticize theOne.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031003211.html

Mr. President, Time to Rein In The Chaos


By Andrew S. Grove
Wednesday, March 11, 2009; Page A15

There is nothing more difficult . . . than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.

-- Niccolò Machiavelli

Machiavelli's 500-year-old warning notwithstanding, we elected a president who is committed to "change." The economic meltdown in which our country finds itself at the start of his administration makes his difficult task even more daunting. In less than two months, the hopeful enthusiasm that welcomed the Obama administration has given way to growing worry and frustration. I find myself wringing my hands, not over the goals President Obama has set but over the ineffectual ways the administration has pursued them. I have no qualifications to judge how well the Obama team manages the political dynamics, but as a business executive with 40 years' experience, much of it managing change, and a part-time academic dedicated to studying why so few corporations succeed in navigating change, I feel compelled to comment not on the what of the Obama team's efforts but on the how.

I have found that to succeed, an organization must travel through two phases: first, a period of chaotic experimentation in which intense discussion is allowed, even encouraged, by those in charge. In time, when the chaos becomes unbearable, the leadership reins in chaos with a firm hand. The first phase serves to expose the needs and options, the potential and pitfalls. The organization and its leaders learn a lot going through this phase. But frustration also builds, and eventually the cry is heard: Make a decision -- any decision -- but make it now. The time comes for the leadership to end the chaos and commit to a path.
ad_icon

We have gone through months of chaos experimenting with ways to introduce stability in our financial system. The goals were to allow the financial institutions to do their jobs and to develop confidence in them. I believe by now, the people are eager for the administration to rein in chaos. But this is not happening.

Until the administration does this, we should not embark on attempting to fix another major part of the economy. Our health-care system may well be ripe for a major overhaul, as are our energy and environmental policies. Widespread recognition that all of these reforms are overdue contributed to Barack Obama's victory in November. But if the chaos that resulted from initiating such an overhaul were piled on top of the unresolved status of the financial system, society and government would become exhausted. Instead, the administration must adopt a discipline; not initiating a second wave of chaos before we have a chance to rein in the first.

[aquaadverse]

The obama campaign had no "nuance" nor "innuendo". obama ran against bush and the bush republican party.

carter ran against the washington establishment, and ran against his own party's establishment. that focus alienated the rest of the democrat party and all but doomed the carter presidency all on its own.

Bull. The number one reason Carter was elected was Nixon and his record. You can keep talking about running against the establishment but Watergate and impeachment and our tail between the legs exit from Vietnam got him elected. If Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon he would have won. If the campaign had lasted a month or so longer Ford would have won. Ford had caught Carter after starting down 33 points.

That election had a new format that saw an increased number of primaries and a larger number of Democrats seeking the nomination than normal. No doubt this was unrelated to the first President to resign to avoid impeachment and had little to do with the odds of success being much greater to the Party.

Carter was an unknown with a fresh face and a record of racial progressiveness as the Governor of Georgia that removed the stigma of the segregationist Southern Pols. He grabbed the early primaries, including finishing second to uncommitted in Iowa. He traveled 50,000 miles, visited 37 states and gave 200 speeches before any of the others started.

The media noticed him and his quirky little Plains family that played well in a nation looking for change. It's true he was anti-Washington establishment figure. It's also true that an ABC, anyone but Carter movement was started by Western and Norther Dems because he was considered too conservative for the Party to grab the election. Ford was a moderate and well respected who decided to use a Rose Garden strategy of Statesman taking care of the peoples business and didn't start hitting the trail until October. It was pretty successful. The more people got familiar with him the further the shine of new tarnished.

Carter killed his own Presidency. Tip O'Neal wanted a much more liberal agenda. Carter was over his head. He got some early support, did some nice early work domestically and went off the rails. He asked for the resignation of his entire cabinet during a time of crisis with no hope of getting new people on board and up to speed. He might as well have setup a printing press in Iran and printed "US-The Great Satan" cards with his handling of The Shah and the hostage situation. He porked our amateur athletes with his stupid boycott of the Olympics to protest the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Panama Canal.

I could keep going for a long time. His party abandoned him because he was inept and they got as far away as possible because they wanted to be reelected.

the economy aided obama, and if mccain had any credibility with the public on his economic credentials it would not have benefitted obama as much.

as mccain didn't have any economic cred, I'm not sure that the timing of the recession would have ever been a positive for mccain.


It wasn't the recession. It was the abrupt crash and knee jerk fear of people losing half the value of their 401Ks that helped Obama. Prior to that he had zero anything but big promises. McCain was gaining ground.

It took a nuclear financial event to move Obama ahead for good. If more time had remained and we started talking about a 1 trillion dollar stimulus bill instead of the 300 billion one he maintained he wanted until after the election he may have lost. Obama ran his whole campaign on the theory you can't prove a negative. He had no record. He had never run a business, he had never served in the military. He became a millionaire writing books and a short political career.

but you said that "pelosi is taking most of the heat", now you're agreeing that she is invisible. a bit contradictory there...



but didn't you just agree that pelosi is invisible? talk about inconsistency...yikes.

Not really. She was front and center during the stimulus bill gyrations and took the heat for the amount and the content. She went away when it passed. She will again be visible when she is cracking the whip ramming legislation through or saying something stupid. This is not a difficult concept.

and? photographers complaining is somehow confirmation of your assertion that "obama has no contact with the press"???? you have got to be joking, right?



easy to refute.
obama press conference feb 9

obama interview on al arabiya

obama interview with nyt

interview on air force one



yeah, those same circumstances didn't exist for bush...wait, they did!....and boy it really helped his popularity, didn't it?



read through the links above, you'll find answers to these questions you want addressed.

it's very apparent you just haven't been listening.

What's obvious is you have difficulty admitting that someone can look at the same situation as you and listen to your opinion and disagree with your conclusions. I tried to counter you points with links and and why I thought my conclusions had merit. You typed condescending comments with vague pronouncements. It would seem you want a food fight. I don't.

Have a nice day.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Bull. The number one reason Carter was elected was Nixon and his record. You can keep talking about running against the establishment but Watergate and impeachment and our tail between the legs exit from Vietnam got him elected. If Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon he would have won. If the campaign had lasted a month or so longer Ford would have won. Ford had caught Carter after starting down 33 points.

why do you believe that the public blamed nixon for vietnam? are you unaware that nixon ran (and won) in 68 as the candidate that would get us out of vietnam?

carter's lead vanished bcause he made public comments about pardoning draft deserters and the famous "lusted in my heart" interview.

ford was just as inept, with the ridiuclous assertion that there was no domination of eastern europe by the soviets.

if the pardon of nixon was the reason ford lost, why then did ford almost catch carter while he was steadfast in saying the pardon was the right thing to do?

It wasn't the recession. It was the abrupt crash and knee jerk fear of people losing half the value of their 401Ks that helped Obama. Prior to that he had zero anything but big promises. McCain was gaining ground.

"it wasn't the recession. It was..people losing half the value of their 401Ks"??? so it wasn't the economy tanking, it was the results of the economy tanking?
okey dokey....that makes a ton of sense.

It took a nuclear financial event to move Obama ahead for good. If more time had remained and we started talking about a 1 trillion dollar stimulus bill instead of the 300 billion one he maintained he wanted until after the election he may have lost. Obama ran his whole campaign on the theory you can't prove a negative. He had no record. He had never run a business, he had never served in the military. He became a millionaire writing books and a short political career.

uh huh, that's why he overcame the clinton machine. right.

Not really. She was front and center during the stimulus bill gyrations and took the heat for the amount and the content. She went away when it passed. She will again be visible when she is cracking the whip ramming legislation through or saying something stupid. This is not a difficult concept.

it's way too difficult to follow you on pelosi, first you say she "Pelosi take the most of the heat while she seems content with the role of keeping the agenda left of center and consistent with traditional Dem values", now you say she "went away".

What's obvious is you have difficulty admitting that someone can look at the same situation as you and listen to your opinion and disagree with your conclusions. I tried to counter you points with links and and why I thought my conclusions had merit. You typed condescending comments with vague pronouncements. It would seem you want a food fight. I don't.

Have a nice day.

surprisingly, you seem to be disturbed that someone challenges your views by providing history and facts.

if you don't like being challenged and defending your comments, you shouldn't post in an online forum. if you want to take your ball and go home, sobeit.

thanks for playing.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

why do you believe that the public blamed nixon for vietnam? are you unaware that nixon ran (and won) in 68 as the candidate that would get us out of vietnam?

carter's lead vanished bcause he made public comments about pardoning draft deserters and the famous "lusted in my heart" interview.

ford was just as inept, with the ridiuclous assertion that there was no domination of eastern europe by the soviets.

if the pardon of nixon was the reason ford lost, why then did ford almost catch carter while he was steadfast in saying the pardon was the right thing to do?



"it wasn't the recession. It was..people losing half the value of their 401Ks"??? so it wasn't the economy tanking, it was the results of the economy tanking?
okey dokey....that makes a ton of sense.



uh huh, that's why he overcame the clinton machine. right.



it's way too difficult to follow you on pelosi, first you say she "Pelosi take the most of the heat while she seems content with the role of keeping the agenda left of center and consistent with traditional Dem values", now you say she "went away".



surprisingly, you seem to be disturbed that someone challenges your views by providing history and facts.

if you don't like being challenged and defending your comments, you shouldn't post in an online forum. if you want to take your ball and go home, sobeit.

thanks for playing.

Cutting and pasting from Wikipedia articles without crediting them is pretty "Bush".

You obviously have no idea of what went on during Nixon-Carter era if you're making comments asking why Nixon was blamed for Vietnam and yammering about Ford pardoning and the effect on the campaign.

There's a reason every single credible account mentions the pardon as the biggest reason Ford was unable to catch Carter. Nixon was hated by many in a way that puts the current W detractors in the irritated category.

I remember being at a friend's when some of the footage from the fall of Saigon and his Mom bursting into tears. My friend's brother was a casualty of that war along with 50,000 others and the way it ended made the deaths pointless. Ford was in the big chair when it ended, but no one mentions him with Vietnam because he couldn't do much about it. Congress refused to approve money for it. The public wouldn't accept carpet bombing which was about all that was left. The pardon didn't just piss people off about Watergate, it also made the prosecution of war crimes impossible.

Hillary had no military, business or executive experience either. The difference is she tried to act like she it. "Ready from day one " and her other slogans implying she was a co-president which was ridiculous. He defeated the Clinton machine because of what he symbolized and having no record to attack. You want to ignore her history and the well documented polarizing effect she had prior to the campaign, fine. He was the highly touted backup quarterback who had never taken a professional snap when the current started was despised

Pelosi was front and center during the Stimulus Bill, flew to Europe when it was done and attention turned to the housing market, the ever falling financial market and Obama being unable to find senior staff and cabinet members who pay their taxes. I really don't see why this is so difficult for you understand. Unless there is legislation being debated or she is attached to something like this stupid time wasting blathering about military aircraft flying her back and forth. It is perfectly logical and consistent to talk about her responsibilities and profile in that context.

I have no problem being challenged and I enjoy discussions where reasonable people debate. You gave me neither.

Yikes.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Cutting and pasting from Wikipedia articles without crediting them is pretty "Bush".

??? earth to space, please come back....what the heck are you referring to? from what I read you are prone to "cut and paste" from wiki, which isn't as much "bush" as exposing your lack of knowledge.

You obviously have no idea of what went on during Nixon-Carter era if you're making comments asking why Nixon was blamed for Vietnam

wow, you're a trip.

you posted

The number one reason Carter was elected was Nixon and his record. You can keep talking about running against the establishment but Watergate and impeachment and our tail between the legs exit from Vietnam got him elected.

to which I pointed out that nixon was elected in '68 on a platform of getting the us OUT of vietnam, so no, just the opposite, nixon was not "blamed for vietnam",

and yammering about Ford pardoning and the effect on the campaign.

ok, let's review...

you posted

Ford pardoning Nixon sealed a loss. and also Ford pardoning Nixon sealed a loss.

yet when comfronted with the clear contradiction of that statement by the fact ford almost made up his poll deficit by election day IN SPITE OF not backing off, and refusing to address the pardon (that means the public didn't really put the pardon high on the reasons to not support ford), all you do is ignore history and call my facts "yammering"??

you're a piece of work...

There's a reason every single credible account mentions it as the biggest reason he didn't.

no, that isn't true.

Hillary had no military, business or executive experience either. The difference is she tried to act like she it. He defeated the Clinton machine because of what he symbolized.

"what he symbolized"? so his policies, which were different than clinton's, his extraordinary talents in communincatin, thise didn't matter...it was just obama's symbolism that brought him th nomination?

bs. it wasn't due to clinton "tried to act like she it" (whatever that means) obama won because he ran a well coordinated campaign with strong policy positions the voters gravitated to, he gave a sense of comfort to the voters based on his candor and communication skills.

Pelosi was front and center during the Stimulus Bill, flew to Europe when it was done and attention turned to the housing market, the every falling financial market and Obama being unable to find senior staff and cabinet members who pay their taxes.

uh, the stimulus bill was passed because of "the housing market, the every falling financial market", so they are interrelated. pelosi is still around, but it was YOUR statement that "Obama is....letting Pelosi take the most of the heat while she seems content with the role", and when mentioned that she is "invisible" you do a backtrack.

I have no problem being challenged and I enjoy discussions where reasonable people debate. You gave me neither.

Yikes.

when you are challenged you huff and puff like a child, and when shown to be in error you either a) ignore the facts (like when shown the multiple obama interviews), b) backtrack (such as on pelosi), or c) dig in your heels with your position, refusing to answer the contradictions shown (such as nixon on vietnam and ford on the pardon).

you may truly believe you "enjoy...debate", but you don't actually debate. you just offer your opinions in lieu of facts. that is not debate, that's self promotion.

the emporer has no clothes....

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

very selective timeframe isn't it? the dow reached 13,028 on May 20, 2008, and closed at 6626 today.

the dow declined much more during the bush term than during obama's term (the dow was at 7949 when obama took office...)

but hey! no matter the facts and inaccuracies, blame obama!

The Dow began to plummet more precipitously the week Obama won the Democratic nomination.

Most figured accurately that the real race for the POTUS was the Dem primary race.

So, the slide took off at that point...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The Dow began to plummet more precipitously the week Obama won the Democratic nomination.

Most figured accurately that the real race for the POTUS was the Dem primary race.

So, the slide took off at that point...

seems like you want to cherry pick the date to start with, it was evident months before the dnc that obama would be the nominee.

are you suggesting that investors were not aware that obama would be the nominee until the dnc? that would be ridiculous.

the dow has reacted to news on banks, bankruptcies, etc., not to obama's election.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

seems like you want to cherry pick the date to start with, it was evident months before the dnc that obama would be the nominee.

are you suggesting that investors were not aware that obama would be the nominee until the dnc? that would be ridiculous.

the dow has reacted to news on banks, bankruptcies, etc., not to obama's election.

you can attach whatever start point you like to the crash. It is Obama's mess and he owns it.

The ongoing failure is inevitable because his policies are flawed.

He will own the disaster. He will own the failure to "right the ship". And, many attach the sinking to his policies in the first place. Others fix the sinking to Bush or even to Reagan (which is ridiculous). But, he owns it at this point. And, at the very least, he will own the failure to "right the ship".

He will fail because his policies have never worked anywhere in the world in the past.

[fluid.forty.one]

the markets are loving obama right now

if he gets all the blame, he gets the credit too, right?

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

you can attach whatever start point you like to the crash. It is Obama's mess and he owns it.

The ongoing failure is inevitable because his policies are flawed.

....

sorry man... but you sound like an idiot saying that less than 2 months into a new administration. And unfortunately this seems to be the Republican party-line mantra.

I want my old GOP of cold-hearted competence back... not this screwy current mess.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

you can attach whatever start point you like to the crash. It is Obama's mess and he owns it.

The ongoing failure is inevitable because his policies are flawed.

He will own the disaster. He will own the failure to "right the ship". And, many attach the sinking to his policies in the first place. Others fix the sinking to Bush or even to Reagan (which is ridiculous). But, he owns it at this point. And, at the very least, he will own the failure to "right the ship".

He will fail because his policies have never worked anywhere in the world in the past.

the thing is... is that the markets will rebound no matter WHO is in office. Reagan enjoyed the benefit of Volker killing inflation, beginning at the end of the carter admin. Clinton got to cash the check of budgets returning towards surplus, (plus the tech boom, which was unrelated). Carter and Bush senior began the tough policy actions... but after they ate the poop, their successors got to cash the popularity checks.

Bush jr didn't take ANY of the needed touch economic medicine, but the economic crash still occurred on his watch, and will still have a cleansing effect, and Obama will get to cash the check of the economic recovery in 2 or so years. You can say this whether you love his policies, or you hate them. No matter what, the US economy is a strong and dynamic beast.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

you can attach whatever start point you like to the crash. It is Obama's mess and he owns it.

The ongoing failure is inevitable because his policies are flawed.

He will own the disaster. He will own the failure to "right the ship". And, many attach the sinking to his policies in the first place. Others fix the sinking to Bush or even to Reagan (which is ridiculous). But, he owns it at this point. And, at the very least, he will own the failure to "right the ship".

He will fail because his policies have never worked anywhere in the world in the past.

this is one of the most inane, ridiculous posts you have ever written.

not only do you put out a position that the prior economic mess obama inherited should be blamed on obama ("he owns it"), you are also saying as fact it is "inevitable" the economy is not going to improve but be a "disaster" going forward.

you've become not only chicken little but a partisan hack at the same time.

congratuations. who would have thought one could acheive so much in just one small post?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

the thing is... is that the markets will rebound no matter WHO is in office. Reagan enjoyed the benefit of Volker killing inflation, beginning at the end of the carter admin. Clinton got to cash the check of budgets returning towards surplus, (plus the tech boom, which was unrelated). Carter and Bush senior began the tough policy actions... but after they ate the poop, their successors got to cash the popularity checks.

Bush jr didn't take ANY of the needed touch economic medicine, but the economic crash still occurred on his watch, and will still have a cleansing effect, and Obama will get to cash the check of the economic recovery in 2 or so years. You can say this whether you love his policies, or you hate them. No matter what, the US economy is a strong and dynamic beast.

No president since Roosevelt has pushed towards socialism in the middle of an economic recession/depression (pick which word you like). Roosevelt tried it for a long time and it did not work and it prolonged the Depression. We exited the Depression due to massive industry to support the war effort. WWII got us out of the Depression.

Your list of examples above basically says that presidents inherit problems and blessings from the prior president and that their policies might not produce problems or blessings until the next president. Nothing wrong with your idea. But, what Obama is doing is quite different and radical. He has spent more money (that we don't have) in two months than Bush spent in 8 years. Obama makes the war effort and the other spending of Bush look like chump change. And, Obama is bending the nation into a Socialism (albeit a Democratic Socialism).

And, yes, Obama will own the failure to right the ship.

Yes, the beginning of the crash happened on Bush's watch. The problem, however, was not Bush. It was the subprime mortgage collapse. Bush and McCain and others warned about this earlier and the Congress ignored it. It was a Democrat controlled Congress who ignored the subprime disaster.

So, fine. You want to pin the collapse on Bush? Doing so is not accurate. But, if you do that, then the least you can admit is that Obama will own failing to right the ship.

From Rasmussen,

Support for the Democratic Congressional candidates fell to a new low over the past week, allowing the GOP to move slightly head for the first time in recent years in the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% said they would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 39% would choose the Democrat.

Investors now favor Republicans by a 46% to 36% margin, while non-investors would vote Democratic by a 45% to 33% margin.

Democrats began the year holding a six or seven point lead over the GOP for the first several weeks of 2009. Over the past month, the gap has been smaller, with Democrats holding a two-to-four point lead.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ssional_ballot

It only took Obama 2 months to destroy the mega wave he was riding...

So, you can see that Americans are blaming the Democrats for the fatally flawed politics that are emerging...

The Return of the Jedi (Reagan Conservatism) is coming.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

this is one of the most inane, ridiculous posts you have ever written.

not only do you put out a position that the prior economic mess obama inherited should be blamed on obama ("he owns it"), you are also saying as fact it is "inevitable" the economy is not going to improve but be a "disaster" going forward.

you've become not only chicken little but a partisan hack at the same time.

congratuations. who would have thought one could acheive so much in just one small post?

I am concerned about the nation. Am I a chicken little? Fine. I'm a chicken little on this economy run by this Master Obama.

Am I a partisan hack? Yes. Thank you for the compliment.

However, I am a conservative and a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist at that. I am a Federalist. Those labels are more accurate than calling me a Republican. You may recall that I don't like McCain either...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

the markets are loving obama right now

if he gets all the blame, he gets the credit too, right?

The markets are loving that CitiBank reported a profit. Has nothing to do with Obama.

Wait and see. This market is not determined at this point. Even crashes show upward spikes while falling

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The markets are loving that CitiBank reported a profit. Has nothing to do with Obama.

Wait and see. This market is not determined at this point. Even crashes show upward spikes while falling

well ffone, you've got the answer.....

see, in williams world, the bush administration gets no blame, nada, for what happened while they were in office, nor for the consequences of their policies, which we are now seeing unfold.

likewise, all that is bad, all that is wrong, is obama's fault. anything positive that happens is not due to obama, it is in spite of obama. problems of the past and present are all the work of obama.

and some people thought his supporters were unrealistic...they have nothing on the detractors.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

well ffone, you've got the answer.....

see, in williams world, the bush administration gets no blame, nada, for what happened while they were in office, nor for the consequences of their policies, which we are now seeing unfold.

likewise, all that is bad, all that is wrong, is obama's fault. anything positive that happens is not due to obama, it is in spite of obama. problems of the past and present are all the work of obama.

and some people thought his supporters were unrealistic...they have nothing on the detractors.

All right, I'll put the ball in your court.

1)Did the subprime mortgage crisis cause the economic crash? If Yes, how is Bush responsible for it? If no, then give me your logic for the problem and how it is Bush's fault.

2)Did not the Bush tax cuts stimulate the economy up until the subprime mortgage crisis? If yes, then why do we think moving in the opposite direction under Master Obama will work? If you do not think the Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy effectively up until the subprime mortgage crisis, then detail your logic for the failure of the tax cuts.

Time to stop whining and start explaining

[Mavdog]

1) your preoccupation with "subprime" shows your lack of understanding of the economic crisis we find ourselves in. subprime class mortgages have never been the largest block of loans made, and it is only a part of the issue. debt swaps, derivatives, off balance sheet lending, arms...

google "bush ownership society" and educate yourself.

2) the tax cuts coupled with huge deficits contributed to an overstimulated economy, along with cheap money and easy leverage. the result is a breakdown in the markets.there's an inabilty to understand true value of assets.

we'll know in the next few quarters if the increase in money supply is going to solve the issue, at this point it's uncertain.

one thing for sure, there's going to be a huge bill due when it's over.

and a large part of the blame for our country's situation falls squarely on the lap of the bush administration.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

1) your preoccupation with "subprime" shows your lack of understanding of the economic crisis we find ourselves in. subprime class mortgages have never been the largest block of loans made, and it is only a part of the issue. debt swaps, derivatives, off balance sheet lending, arms...

google "bush ownership society" and educate yourself.

2) the tax cuts coupled with huge deficits contributed to an overstimulated economy, along with cheap money and easy leverage. the result is a breakdown in the markets.there's an inabilty to understand true value of assets.

we'll know in the next few quarters if the increase in money supply is going to solve the issue, at this point it's uncertain.

one thing for sure, there's going to be a huge bill due when it's over.

and a large part of the blame for our country's situation falls squarely on the lap of the bush administration.

The mortgage crisis was the cause of the breakdown in the economy. Pointing out that there were more categories than the subprime category does not change the point really. Bush had nothing to do with the causes of the mortgage crisis.

As to the ownership society, from Wikipedia:

Ownership society is a slogan for a model of society promoted by former United States President George W. Bush. It takes as lead values personal responsibility, economic liberty, and the owning of property. The ownership society discussed by Bush also extends to certain proposals of specific models of health care and social security.

History
The term appears to have been used originally by President Bush (for example in a speech February 20, 2003 in Kennesaw, Georgia) as a phrase to rally support for his tax-cut proposals (Pittsburgh Post - Gazette, Bush OKs Funding Bill for Fiscal '03, Feb 21, 2003 Scott Lindlaw). From 2004 Bush supporters described the ownership society in much broader and more ambitious terms, including specific policy proposals concerning medicine, education and savings.

The idea that the welfare of individuals is directly related to their ability to control their own lives and wealth, rather than relying on government transfer payments, is a longstanding one, particularly in British conservatism.

In a modern form its implementation was developed as a main plank of Thatcherism, and is traced back to David Howell, before 1970, with help from the phrase-maker Peter Drucker.

In political practice under Margaret Thatcher's administration, it was implemented by measures such as the sale at affordable prices of public housing to tenants, and privatization.


[edit] Ownership and control
As formulated by the Cato Institute (see original quote and external link below), the desiderata are that

patients have control of [decisions on] their personal health care,
parents control [i.e. have power over] their children's education, and
workers control [i.e. have some responsibility for the investment of, or explicit property rights in] their retirement savings.
Here the comments in brackets are an interpretation or paraphrase, consistent with a generalised idea of ownership. The conceptual link here is by means of the idea that private property, the most familiar and everyday form of ownership, is being extended. Control is closely associated with ownership in that sense.

This Cato Institute formulation is not, however, in terms of positive policies. It is more accurately a definition of ownership by taking the state out of the loop. So, for example, in health care ownership is not being defined just on the basis of informed consent.

There is no real originality, politically speaking, in the connection made between individual ownership of property and political stake-holding. This was an idea discussed in Europe and America in the eighteenth century. (For example that the franchise should only be for property holders.)

The novelty of the Cato Institute formulation would lie in the extrapolation. In the case of savings, for example, the extension would be an assertion of property rights in money held in savings or collected tax revenues.

The first desiderata was part of John McCain's campaign platform as the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. McCain's website says, "John McCain believes [that] the key to health care reform is to restore control to the patients themselves."[1]


[edit] Political consequences and unexpected consequences
Consistently with the basic tenet, proponents of an ownership society usually support inherited wealth, and oppose inheritance taxes and wealth taxes. They are also likely to favour a pattern of property ownership based on the purchase, rather than rental, of accommodation.

The consequences for health and education are heavily dependent on details of implementation. For example, ownership in one's child's education, for a parent, might be in the form of an education voucher, a vote in the running of a school, influence on the school curriculum, or a generalised 'right' to have a child educated in line with one's own values.

One example from the UK of an unexpected or unintended consequence of government policy favouring direct share ownership, through some oversubscribed privatisation issues, was the holding of small parcels of shares by individuals numbered in millions. This broad-based ownership created an administrative overhead, for example in relation to every shareholder vote.


[edit] Quotations
We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew, with the past cut off and the future ignored. - John Major conference speech 1991.

...if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country. - President George W. Bush, June 17, 2004

We're creating... an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property. - President George W. Bush, October 2004. [2]

Individuals are empowered by freeing them from dependence on government handouts and making them owners instead, in control of their own lives and destinies. In the ownership society, patients control their own health care, parents control their own children's education, and workers control their retirement savings. - Cato Institute

Many people don't have the time, inclination, or expertise necessary to take full responsibility for their own well-being in areas that are so complex as assuring they have sufficient income for retirement or choosing a health plan appropriate for their circumstances. - Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.

...the key to health care reform is to restore control to the patients themselves. - John McCain's campaign website, 2008

Now, I see nothing in the idea of an ownership society that we can blame for the mortgage crisis. Bush nor any other conservative said that we should give houses to persons who can't afford them.

If you want to research the policies of providing housing mortgages to persons who can't afford them and who could not obtain them under the usual rules of credit qualifications, then your research will take you back to Bill Clinton. The changes to assure mortgages were changes instituted from the top in that time period with Freddie and Fannie Mac buying the bad paper in a form of guarantee.

Bush and McCain both warned of the impending crisis and a Dem Congress ignored them...

Is Bush at fault for not doing more in regards to the running of Freddie and Fannie Mac? I won't argue with you if you make that stance.

But, it is disgusting how the people than ran Freddie and Fannie left with millions in bonuses (not subject to the AIG 90 percent tax rate on bonuses) and joined up on Obama's Cabinet/staff/etc. throughout his administration.

The ideal of providing houses to persons who could not generally get them was a Democrat party push and creation.

The idea of an ownership society is not an idea of the government giving people ownership that they can't afford...

+++++++++++++++++

2) the tax cuts coupled with huge deficits contributed to an overstimulated economy, along with cheap money and easy leverage. the result is a breakdown in the markets.there's an inabilty to understand true value of assets.

we'll know in the next few quarters if the increase in money supply is going to solve the issue, at this point it's uncertain.

one thing for sure, there's going to be a huge bill due when it's over.

I have several problems with this statement...

1)an overstimulated economy????
You think that an overstimulated economy caused a market breakdown due to altered valuations in products/goods/etc???

Bush's tax cuts came in response to 911 economic contraction, the later crash/contraction of the spring of 2002, and the later difficulties associated with high oil prices...

There was no over stimulation. That is a crazy idea.

2)But, if we follow your logic and accept it, then you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are calling the stimulus package an increase in money supply. Again this is flawed logic, but I will follow with you a minute. If the stimulus package is an increase in money supply, then it will "over stimulate". Same logic for which you assailed Bush...

3)Now, the stimulus bill is not an increase in money supply. Most of it is scheduled to be released gradually over time. Most of it hits in 2010 to 2011. That is funny since the optimists in the system think we will out of the recession by then.

It is also not an increase in the money supply to print money and the Fed admitted they were printing a new one trillion dollars. That is a false increase in money supply which spells "over stimulation" (to use your logic) and produces inflation eventually if not sooner.

It is not an increase in money supply to borrow money and spend it. That doesn't work in your own home economics and it does not work anywhere else either.

The only entities that create true new money/wealth are industry and enterprise in the market.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The mortgage crisis was the cause of the breakdown in the economy. Pointing out that there were more categories than the subprime category does not change the point really. Bush had nothing to do with the causes of the mortgage crisis.

huh? your exact quote was 1)Did the subprime mortgage crisis cause the economic crash?, and the answer (as i correctly pointed out) is no, subprime mortgages" were not the cause, overleveraging was the cause.

please try to at least be consistent in your approach.

Now, I see nothing in the idea of an ownership society that we can blame for the mortgage crisis. Bush nor any other conservative said that we should give houses to persons who can't afford them.

there is no obligation, there is not a single law or regulation in america, that says a lender must give a loan "to persons who can't afford them".

to make like conservatives were immune from the lending binge is not only inaccurate it is dishonest.

If you want to research the policies of providing housing mortgages to persons who can't afford them and who could not obtain them under the usual rules of credit qualifications, then your research will take you back to Bill Clinton. The changes to assure mortgages were changes instituted from the top in that time period with Freddie and Fannie Mac buying the bad paper in a form of guarantee.

again, there is no law, no regulation, either during bill clinton's term or beyond, that requires a lender to give a loan to an borrower 'who can't afford them".

the lebders gave loans because they made money doing such. lenders approved a borrower on their own volition. period.

Bush and McCain both warned of the impending crisis and a Dem Congress ignored them...

but bush approved the policies that allowed the leverging to exceed its limits,

Is Bush at fault for not doing more in regards to the running of Freddie and Fannie Mac? I won't argue with you if you make that stance.

But, it is disgusting how the people than ran Freddie and Fannie left with millions in bonuses (not subject to the AIG 90 percent tax rate on bonuses) and joined up on Obama's Cabinet/staff/etc. throughout his administration.

such as...just who are you referring to?

The ideal of providing houses to persons who could not generally get them was a Democrat party push and creation.

The idea of an ownership society is not an idea of the government giving people ownership that they can't afford...

the idea of the mortgages being handed out like candy to anybody who wanted one is neither a democrat or republican policy, it is the policy of the lenders who made the loans.

again, there is no law, no regulation of any kind, that forced a lender to fund a loan to a person who is unqualified and cannot repay that loan.

the reason the lenders made the loans is twofold: first, they made barrells of money doing it, and second because the mbs were inadequately regulated and underwritten, the lender making the loan didn't own it when it went south.

I have several problems with this statement...

1)an overstimulated economy????
You think that an overstimulated economy caused a market breakdown due to altered valuations in products/goods/etc???

Bush's tax cuts came in response to 911 economic contraction, the later crash/contraction of the spring of 2002, and the later difficulties associated with high oil prices...

There was no over stimulation. That is a crazy idea.

go look at when the bush tax cuts were proposed, it was not in reaction to the above. the tax cuts were mentioned in his first state of the union address.

they had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with high oil prices.

you seem to have a problem with history.

2)But, if we follow your logic and accept it, then you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are calling the stimulus package an increase in money supply. Again this is flawed logic, but I will follow with you a minute. If the stimulus package is an increase in money supply, then it will "over stimulate". Same logic for which you assailed Bush...

again, you fail to have a grasp of history.

the bush tax cuts were given in an economic situation that has no, absolutely NO, analogy to what the usa faces today.

why is it "flawed logic" that the money supply has increased 30% over the last 24 mos? it's reality.

the affect of the increased m1 can be a problem if not resolved in the irght way. as recovery (please, please may we have recovery soon..) is seen in employment and production increases, the fed needs to react. if they don't, we'lll see the return of inflation.

3)Now, the stimulus bill is not an increase in money supply. Most of it is scheduled to be released gradually over time. Most of it hits in 2010 to 2011. That is funny since the optimists in the system think we will out of the recession by then.

funny, there isn't the phrase "stimulus bill" in my response. why do you interject it now? nice try.

It is also not an increase in the money supply to print money and the Fed admitted they were printing a new one trillion dollars. That is a false increase in money supply which spells "over stimulation" (to use your logic) and produces inflation eventually if not sooner.

It is not an increase in money supply to borrow money and spend it. That doesn't work in your own home economics and it does not work anywhere else either.

The only entities that create true new money/wealth are industry and enterprise in the market.

are you serious? wow, I had no idea you knew so little about economics.

money supply does not equate to wealth. completely different. in fact, they can be in opposition. too much money in circulation erodes wealth. it lessens the value of the currency.

yes, the fed has increased the money supply in order for it to put all the $ out they have committed to spend. it IS an increase in the money supply when the fed prints new currency, after all who the heck do you think the fed would "borrow money and spend it" from? the answer is themselves!

money supply data

[chumdawg]

winn, the crux of Bush's "ownership society" had to do with people owning their homes. This was clear in the speeches he gave--regardless what you think of his policies.

[wmbwinn]

Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House. One is from Chicago, another is from Tennessee, and the third is from Minnesota.
All three go with a White House official to examine the fence. The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the
Job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me."
The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me."
The Chicago contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, "$2,700."
The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?"
The Chicago contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence."
"Done!" replies the government official.

And that, my friends, is how the new stimulus plan will work.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House. One is from Chicago, another is from Tennessee, and the third is from Minnesota.
All three go with a White House official to examine the fence. The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the
Job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me."
The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me."
The Chicago contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, "$2,700."
The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?"
The Chicago contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence."
"Done!" replies the government official.

And that, my friends, is how the new stimulus plan will work.

It sounds so romantic, when you say it that way.

[wmbwinn]

I am going to have to post a lot of stuff to educate you. It is clear that a simple response is not going to work. Your responses show a great depth of ignorance about how Fannie and Freddie work and what happened in the mortgage crisis. So, you will have to give me some time to gather enough data to teach you what is going on.

Here is a start. This article was posted in the New York Post in the summer of 2008 long before the "November Surprise" of the economic collapse.

+++++++++++

The stock of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell sharply this week. The drop not only shows how far they've fallen in investors' esteem - it calls into question both how the government regulates the companies and plans in Congress to milk the two to cover other housing outlays.

Fannie and Freddie were originally chartered by the federal government - and that's a big reason they've prospered for decades. Both buy mortgages from lenders and package them into securities that are sold around the globe, and also invest in mortgages and mortgage-related securities. But their borrowing costs are greatly lowered because it's assumed that the feds stand behind their debt.

But the subprime crisis has investors nervous about any mortgage-linked investment. Triggering Monday's sudden sell-off was a research report suggesting that an accounting-rule change would force both to raise tens of billions of dollars of new capital.

The drop was brutal: The two companies lost roughly 20 percent of their value. Then Jim Lockhart, the head of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, stepped in to calm the fears. He pointed out that his agency decides whether Fannie and Freddie are adequately capitalized - and the stocks regained about half their losses the next day.

But the real damage has been done. Investors are starting to see what some have warned about for years - namely, that both Fannie and Freddie are far riskier propositions than many, especially in Congress, have thought.

This "revelation" is long past due. Together, these entities underwrite about 80 percent of the mortgage-backed securities market. The failure or severe mismanagement of either one could have major consequences for the rest of the economy.

Why have years of warnings about Fannie and Freddie's financial condition largely fallen on deaf ears? Mainly because the two have built auras as invincible, all-knowing and essential parts of the economy. Their lobbying muscle is legendary in Washington. Even a series of major accounting scandals, which forced senior managers in both companies to resign, failed to really dent this image.

Increased investor scrutiny and regulatory oversight is long past due, and we can all be grateful if Monday's panic leads to this. The one good part of the Senate's housing bill would impose a stronger oversight of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which now is even more important if the two are to regain investor confidence.

Monday's price drop also shows how foolish it is for Congress to rely upon the two to pay for a deeply flawed housing bailout. Both the House and Senate are working on bills that impose a small fee on the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie hold in their investment portfolio. The Senate wants to use the money to refinance about 500,000 bad mortgages into ones with a federal guarantee; the House wants it for low-income housing programs.

Lawmakers were figuring the Freddie/Fannie investors wouldn't miss the money. But with investor confidence quite shaky after Monday, that looks like a terrible bet.

Instead of relying on those funds, Congress should modernize and strengthen both firms' regulator. That improved oversight would help to reassure the markets that future housing problems won't develop into crises that could threaten the viability of either firm or require a massive bailout with taxpayer dollars.

Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are behemoths whose financial health is fairly precarious. As the market knows, both need tens of billions of dollars more in capital than they have. Monday's stock-price drop is a warning.

David C. John is a senior research fellow in economic-policy studies at The Heritage Foundation.

First appeared in the New York Post
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed071408a.cfm

++++++++++++++++++++++

OK, so note a few facts that can be gleaned from this article:

1)Fannie and Freddie were chartered by the Federal Government as pseudo "private" entities under heavy federal control.
2)Fannie and Freddie underwrite at least 80 percent of all home mortgages in the nation
3)The government oversight was failing
4)the government was so clueless about the impending disaster that they actually thought they could take more money that was in Fannie/Freddie and use that to arrange a sort of bail out/buy out of bad papers on bad mortgages in the market place. So, it is clear that the government and Wall Street knew that the bad paper/mortgage problem was out there. But, the government who oversees Freddie/Fannie was clueless about the weakness of Freddie/Fannie because they thought Freddie/Fannie could bail the system out.

"Monday's price drop also shows how foolish it is for Congress to rely upon the two to pay for a deeply flawed housing bailout. Both the House and Senate are working on bills that impose a small fee on the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie hold in their investment portfolio. The Senate wants to use the money to refinance about 500,000 bad mortgages into ones with a federal guarantee; the House wants it for low-income housing programs.

Lawmakers were figuring the Freddie/Fannie investors wouldn't miss the money. But with investor confidence quite shaky after Monday, that looks like a terrible bet."

The article's author was right. Not only was there no money in Freddie/Fannie, the Fed had to do what it had promised: Back up Freddie/Fannie. The Fed had to pump money into Freddie/Fannie rather than taking money from there to fix the problem...

Clueless goverment oversight....

5)"Fannie and Freddie were originally chartered by the federal government - and that's a big reason they've prospered for decades. Both buy mortgages from lenders and package them into securities that are sold around the globe, and also invest in mortgages and mortgage-related securities. But their borrowing costs are greatly lowered because it's assumed that the feds stand behind their debt."

The Feds stand behind the debts of Fannie and Freddie. That is terribly important to understand

6)"Then Jim Lockhart, the head of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, stepped in to calm the fears. He pointed out that his agency decides whether Fannie and Freddie are adequately capitalized - and the stocks regained about half their losses the next day."

"Increased investor scrutiny and regulatory oversight is long past due, and we can all be grateful if Monday's panic leads to this. The one good part of the Senate's housing bill would impose a stronger oversight of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which now is even more important if the two are to regain investor confidence."


Again, you can see good evidence that there is a government agency set up to monitor this and oversee Freddie and Fannie. Freddie and Fannie are goverment puppets.

7)"Monday's price drop also shows how foolish it is for Congress to rely upon the two to pay for a deeply flawed housing bailout. Both the House and Senate are working on bills that impose a small fee on the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie hold in their investment portfolio. The Senate wants to use the money to refinance about 500,000 bad mortgages into ones with a federal guarantee; the House wants it for low-income housing programs."

Quoted again to focus on another issue:

The Senate wanted to use Freddie/Fannie money to knock out 500,000 bad mortgages (toxic paper) into one bail out of sorts and have shock/toxicity swallowed by Fannie/Freddie. Why is that important to understand? You have to understand that Fannie/Freddie serve this purpose. They are used to insure the housing mortgage system.

Now, the House wanted to use the money they thought was available in Freddie and Fannie to use for "low income housing programs". Now, we are getting to one of the issues I noted that caused some heated disagreement:

The government uses Freddie/Fannie to guarantee loaning programs for the poor who otherwise can't get a home mortgage. This was started in the days of Bill Clinton. I will have to do some more digging for you for references on that starting time period.

So, when I say that they were forcing banks to make loans to people who can't pay them, this is what is meant:
1)Freddie/Fannie get a government mandate to guarantee mortgage loans made to poor people who normally can't get a home mortgage.
2)Freddie/Fannie and Government regulators go to banks with the program.
3)Some banks look at it as easy money: make the loans to a big eager population. sell the notes off to various programs which eventually ends up as bundled financial products that are owned by Freddie/Fannie OR which are insured/backed by Freddie/Fannie.

Now, I will have to do some more homework for your benefit. I need to find the issue of Clinton starting this program of "affordable housing for all Americans" and I need to find the names of all the crooks who left Freddie/Fannie with big bonuses and ended up in Obama's cabinet/administration.

[wmbwinn]

"why is it "flawed logic" that the money supply has increased 30% over the last 24 mos? it's reality.

the affect of the increased m1 can be a problem if not resolved in the irght way. as recovery (please, please may we have recovery soon..) is seen in employment and production increases, the fed needs to react. if they don't, we'lll see the return of inflation."

increasing the money supply in this example is taking money that is either borrowed or printed.

If borrowed, then it is not an increase in the money supply. If I take a home improvement loan for 100K then I have 100K to spend. But, I owe 100K plus interest and so the effect is to shrink my money supply.

If printed, then the money supply has been increased but inflation is the cost. The only way to avoid the inflation cost would be to retract the printed money (reduce the money supply) before the inflationary run occurs.