When will the Bush ECONOMY bottom

[humbletx]

out?

A simpleton knows the contraction of the US economy started months ago - and will go months/years in to the Obamalama administration.

10 to 11 months?

[Athenian]

The Feds put pressure on the lending institutions to make the loans to unqualifiable buyers, with these loans backed by Freddie and Fannie. The lending institutions bundled these bad loans with some good loans and sold them as a package to other institutions. Plain and simple here - socialism and greed.

The Democrats are to blame for the initiation of the loans to unqualified buyers and the Republicans are to blame for backing off on the regulations.

Bush's bunch should have backed off on the bailout and let the bankrupcy weed out the weakest. The same with GM, Chrysler and possible Ford.

The market is tanking because the economy is artificial and continues to be because of Bush's policies and Obama's polices.

Need a party in power with some common sense and one with no ties to the power brokers.

[Napervol]

agree with most Athenian. It would be nice if President Obama would lead, like he said he would- not cower in fear of Pelosi.

[TennesseeTuxedo]

The Stock Market Since The Obama Stimulus Passed

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/files/2009/03/picture-114.png

[humbletx]

The Feds put pressure on the lending institutions to make the loans to unqualifiable buyers, with these loans backed by Freddie and Fannie. The lending institutions bundled these bad loans with some good loans and sold them as a package to other institutions. Plain and simple here - socialism and greed.

The Democrats are to blame for the initiation of the loans to unqualified buyers and the Republicans are to blame for backing off on the regulations.

Bush's bunch should have backed off on the bailout and let the bankrupcy weed out the weakest. The same with GM, Chrysler and possible Ford.

The market is tanking because the economy is artificial and continues to be because of Bush's policies and Obama's polices.

Need a party in power with some common sense and one with no ties to the power brokers.


Again this is the BUSH economy.. Attempting to blame a specific party for like "initiation of loans to unqualified buyers" - then blaming another for putting the pedal to the metal doesn't fly. (check out the Bush administration monetary policy for example)

back to the "market" Take a long hard look at the "market" performance since the Clinton administration - and what areas were considered "hot' - and what drove that.. If you're attempting to say the "economy is artificial" - well that didn't happen over a 6 months time frame...

[ZippyVol]

The Democrats are to blame for the initiation of the loans to unqualified buyers and the Republicans are to blame for backing off on the regulations.


Just...stop.

You really can not defend Bush on the economy and retain much credibility. You can (and should) defend his foreign policy, but his domestic policy was ass...and it was even worse the last 2+ years when he had essentially checked out on it completely. Sure, the Democrats had a role in the economy tanking. No shit. That doesnt mean Bush did a good job of recognizing the problem (which mostly stems from the housing market), and taking proactive steps to solve or minimize it before it happened. Bush was a leader in foreign policy, he was barely even a follower of the economy.

Now, that said: You do not need to feel the necessity of defending Bush. He is no longer president, Obama is. Regardless of what Obama is left with...he ran for office. He was a senator for a couple years before getting the new job, and he knew what he was getting in to (or, at least, would have had he done something during that term other than run for President...) This is the job he got, and since he is the one in power now...and is not hindered by any opposition in congress...it's his job to fix it. It's on him now, it's on Democrats now. He wanted the job, he got the job.

Obama is doing worse. This is what happens when you elect an ideological, community-organizing, Marxist-leaning hack when you need a rational grown up committed to capitalism.

/rant on

Want to actually fix the economy, Mr Obama? I'll tell you what you could do: Take that trillion plus dollars you are spending to socialize healthcare (or whatever the hell it is your 'stimulus bill' is supposed to do...has anyone actually read it yet?) and dump it into the housing market. Take the money and just flat out pay the down payment for any new home purchase over the next 2 years and help banks absorb the loss when the home sells for less than the current note. Then people will start buying houses again, which gets the 'toxic assets' off the bank sheets and into the hands of people who can afford them. Want to encourage job growth? Give companies tax breaks for new hires, and extend those breaks for a couple of years per hire. Give more grants for new small businesses (and dont tie those damn grants to racial or gender quotas). Pretty frigging simple. Would it work? Hell if I know, but it has a damn better shot than what you are already doing with the money...because what is being done now is entirely counter productive. The stock market is not just another poll; are you really this stupid?

[Polemicvol]

And doesn't "lean marxist". That's just nonsense and makes everything else said in the same post is suspect as similar nonsense.

We have to change our health care delivery system. It is woefully inefficient and doesn't reward preventive medicine. America pours 80% of our health care dollars into the last two years of our life expectancy.

And, most frightenly, if the rise in health care costs aren't capped, by the year 2040 it will amount to 25% of all dollars spent. That's not 25% of the Federal budget. That's 25% of our Domestic Gross National Product. One out of every four dollars spent will be for health care.

That's simply unaffordable for any society. Too many fat cats are feeding at the health care trough and too many Americans have no health insurance. The system is broken and must be fixed.

We've tried to let private enterprise deliver health care affordably to Americans. At present they have failed. I'm willing to listen to why we should give them a second chance to fix the system. But they better have a good argument, or we have to turn the task over to our government.

Public health is too important to be neglected and we can't afford the bloated system we have now.

[ZippyVol]

And doesn't "lean marxist". That's just nonsense and makes everything else said in the same post is suspect as similar nonsense.

We have to change our health care delivery system. It is woefully inefficient and doesn't reward preventive medicine. America pours 80% of our health care dollars into the last two years of our life expectancy.

And, most frightenly, if the rise in health care costs aren't capped, by the year 2040 it will amount to 25% of all dollars spent. That's not 25% of the Federal budget. That's 25% of our Domestic Gross National Product. One out of every four dollars spent will be for health care.

That's simply unaffordable for any society. Too many fat cats are feeding at the health care trough and too many Americans have no health insurance. The system is broken and must be fixed.

We've tried to let private enterprise deliver health care affordably to Americans. At present they have failed. I'm willing to listen to why we should give them a second chance to fix the system. But they better have a good argument, or we have to turn the task over to our government.

Public health is too important to be neglected and we can't afford the bloated system we have now.

Yeah, that's nice. Maybe it needs fixing. Whatever.

Of course, that has virtually nothing to do with what I'm talking about (which, oddly, pretty much makes my point)...but why bother with technicalities when you have no opposition, I suppose.

[TennesseeTuxedo]

And doesn't "lean marxist". That's just nonsense and makes everything else said in the same post is suspect as similar nonsense.

We have to change our health care delivery system. It is woefully inefficient and doesn't reward preventive medicine. America pours 80% of our health care dollars into the last two years of our life expectancy.

And, most frightenly, if the rise in health care costs aren't capped, by the year 2040 it will amount to 25% of all dollars spent. That's not 25% of the Federal budget. That's 25% of our Domestic Gross National Product. One out of every four dollars spent will be for health care.

That's simply unaffordable for any society. Too many fat cats are feeding at the health care trough and too many Americans have no health insurance. The system is broken and must be fixed.

We've tried to let private enterprise deliver health care affordably to Americans. At present they have failed. I'm willing to listen to why we should give them a second chance to fix the system. But they better have a good argument, or we have to turn the task over to our government.

Public health is too important to be neglected and we can't afford the bloated system we have now.

Doesn't lean marxist?:rotfl: :rotfl:

You're a fucking loon Poley. :rotfl:

[humbletx]

The Stock Market Since The Obama Stimulus Passed

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/files/2009/03/picture-114.png

tootsie you raging dumbass - those that actally do something with the "market" took the huge hit last fall.. We did along with alot of other long term "market" investors..

Since you are basically clueless - there are a number of well run national and international companies who were smacked - yet are solid and worth investing in today - regardless of the pussified mood swings you have. So pull those pantys outta your crack, do some research and invest your 2 to 300 bucks.. :yes2:

[humbletx]

Just...stop.

You really can not defend Bush on the economy and retain much credibility. You can (and should) defend his foreign policy, but his domestic policy was ass...and it was even worse the last 2+ years when he had essentially checked out on it completely. Sure, the Democrats had a role in the economy tanking. No shit. That doesnt mean Bush did a good job of recognizing the problem (which mostly stems from the housing market), and taking proactive steps to solve or minimize it before it happened. Bush was a leader in foreign policy, he was barely even a follower of the economy.

Now, that said: You do not need to feel the necessity of defending Bush. He is no longer president, Obama is. Regardless of what Obama is left with...he ran for office. He was a senator for a couple years before getting the new job, and he knew what he was getting in to (or, at least, would have had he done something during that term other than run for President...) This is the job he got, and since he is the one in power now...and is not hindered by any opposition in congress...it's his job to fix it. It's on him now, it's on Democrats now. He wanted the job, he got the job.

Obama is doing worse. This is what happens when you elect an ideological, community-organizing, Marxist-leaning hack when you need a rational grown up committed to capitalism.

/rant on

Want to actually fix the economy, Mr Obama? I'll tell you what you could do: Take that trillion plus dollars you are spending to socialize healthcare (or whatever the hell it is your 'stimulus bill' is supposed to do...has anyone actually read it yet?) and dump it into the housing market. Take the money and just flat out pay the down payment for any new home purchase over the next 2 years and help banks absorb the loss when the home sells for less than the current note. Then people will start buying houses again, which gets the 'toxic assets' off the bank sheets and into the hands of people who can afford them. Want to encourage job growth? Give companies tax breaks for new hires, and extend those breaks for a couple of years per hire. Give more grants for new small businesses (and dont tie those damn grants to racial or gender quotas). Pretty frigging simple. Would it work? Hell if I know, but it has a damn better shot than what you are already doing with the money...because what is being done now is entirely counter productive. The stock market is not just another poll; are you really this stupid?

foreign policy? Hit or miss Zippy - and some of his policy was poorly thought out and executed. Example how many years did it take'em to figure out "we'll be welcomed as liberators" was f*cked up?

[TennesseeTuxedo]

tootsie you raging dumbass - those that actally do something with the "market" took the huge hit last fall.. We did along with alot of other long term "market" investors..

Since you are basically clueless - there are a number of well run national and international companies who were smacked - yet are solid and worth investing in today - regardless of the pussified mood swings you have. So pull those pantys outta your crack, do some research and invest your 2 to 300 bucks.. :yes2:

It is obvious that one of the Bush family members banged a family member of yours. You wear that on your sleeve.

Again....who was in charge of congress the past two plus years?

Again...who said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were just fine in the face of warnings from President Bush, that they were not doing fine and blew off any action

Who was responsible for passing and signing into law, the Community Reinvestment Act?

Who pushed for mortgage companies and banks to give mortgages to poor people and high risk loan applicants?

I'll stop there for now.:nutkick:

[Polemicvol]

The stock market is/has been in free fall for reasons that primarily occurred in the Bush Administration and even before. We are paying for 30 years of economic mismanagement since the beginning of the Reagan revolution of deregulation and union busting and trade imbalances and job losses in America created by foolish trade policies.

Simply said, the value of the stock market is an index based upon the value of a basket of stocks. The value of a particular stock is derived by taking the projected quarterly profits and calculating an annuity to perpetuity. That then become the calculated stock value which is adjusted in trading based upon competing calculations of future profits.

Why are stock values so low? Because those calculating their values have deeply discounted future profits. Why? Because the buying power of the American middle class has been so greatly reduced by outsourcing of jobs, union busting, and high health care and energy costs and drops in earning power over the last 30 years.

Smart people know this and know that future sales in America will be lower than in the past, until policies change and the prosperity of the middle class is restored. That's what Obama is beginning to do. Fix the structural issues, the fuck ups of the conservatives that you now see reflected in the drop in the stock market.

[ONUV]

obama owns this economy now that he's spent trillions of dollars to try and fix it. it started with bush and is now in the hands of obama.

[humbletx]

It is obvious that one of the Bush family members banged a family member of yours. You wear that on your sleeve.

Again....who was in charge of congress the past two plus years?

Again...who said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were just fine in the face of warnings from President Bush, that they were not doing fine and blew off any action

Who was responsible for passing and signing into law, the Community Reinvestment Act?

Who pushed for mortgage companies and banks to give mortgages to poor people and high risk loan applicants?

I'll stop there for now.:nutkick:

Tootsie - you're a fu*ckin' moron.. economy - its the economy you dumbf*ck.

Go back, say to 2006-07 - and look at the stock values of various banks. As to you lame assed *who* was responsible for passing & signing in to law - WTF did the Bush administration do about those laws? Didn't they get your e-mails tellin' em what to do?

Wo pushed various companies to provide loans to unworthy individuals? Stupid f*ck - the various loan officers, managers and directors of said institutions.. Goodness gracious you are clueless.

[aadicof]

Like either one of the parties are exclusively responsible, hell they both are. The only thing that changes is which cronies get rich.

[ZippyVol]

The only thing that changes is which cronies get rich.

No, that doesnt change. They get rich regardless.

The only thing that really changes is who is in power, which changes all the time (relatively speaking). That's pretty much why Obama owns this now. Bush owned it before he did, Clinton before him, whoever gets elected after Obama will own it then, etc.

I've never really understood why people like to pretend we possess a time machine and endlessly quibble over issues/decisions that were made years ago rather than focus on decisions that need to be made today. It makes sense to a degree in the context of elections (I.E. 2004 was a referendum on Bush's first term, which was IMO proper), I guess...but we are not currently involved or discussing one of those today. It can be useful in learning from past mistakes, sure...but the way everyone does it is just from a partisan perspective through revisionist glasses that make the whole thing less than useless. I find it to be entirely unserious.

[Dog of Orangebutt]

How in god's green earth did union busting have anything to do with all this. If I had to put my finger on one thing that has done the most to push business overseas it would be the unions and their blockheaded behavior. Ask all those unemployed Continental Tire folks here in Charlotte who wouldn't play ball and are now not working at all.....

[TennesseeTuxedo]

How in god's green earth did union busting have anything to do with all this. If I had to put my finger on one thing that has done the most to push business overseas it would be the unions and their blockheaded behavior. Ask all those unemployed Continental Tire folks here in Charlotte who wouldn't play ball and are now not working at all.....

Look at what the unions have done to General Motors. That deal made GM financially uncompetitive in the marketplace and is about to force GM to file bankruptcy or even go out of business.

Unions had their place but in todays business world, most of them hurt the workers and the companies they work for and with. They drive up the costs and force business to look elsewhere to increase return on investment.