The Second Bush Depression

[Adam]

This thread is to discuss what is a depression and what are the political interests in labelling an economic crisis as merely a recession or as not even a recession.
The thread title is not intended as a statement of fact that the current mortgage meltdown, credit crunch at banks, lay-offs and announcements of huge future lay-offs, and massive write-offs of billions of dollars in losses, is itself a depression. It does take for granted that this is a least a recession, but opens a discussion on the political motivations for refusing to label it as such. Included is openness to discussion that the reasons for timidity on labelling it a recession is for our own public good, to avoid a snowball effect of further lowering of consumer confidence that obviously cuts spending and that further exacerbates the recession.
The thread title needs explanation. The first Bush regime (the father's) in 1989-1993 ended in an acknowledged recession, which is open to the case being made that it was actually a depression that for political expediency of the last 60 years is never named as such. The second Bush regime is similarly ending in a recession (at least) that seems headed to be quite severe by the time Bush-43 leaves office January 20, 2009. Thus this would be the second time "under a Bush" that they have brought about (at least) a recession, and it is the second Bush as POTUS who has brought it about.
Adam

[rogue06]

This thread is to discuss what is a depression and what are the political interests in labelling an economic crisis as merely a recession or as not even a recession.
The thread title is not intended as a statement of fact that the current mortgage meltdown, credit crunch at banks, lay-offs and announcements of huge future lay-offs, and massive write-offs of billions of dollars in losses, is itself a depression. It does take for granted that this is a least a recession, but opens a discussion on the political motivations for refusing to label it as such. Included is openness to discussion that the reasons for timidity on labelling it a recession is for our own public good, to avoid a snowball effect of further lowering of consumer confidence that obviously cuts spending and that further exacerbates the recession.
The thread title needs explanation. The first Bush regime (the father's) in 1989-1993 ended in an acknowledged recession, which is open to the case being made that it was actually a depression that for political expediency of the last 60 years is never named as such. The second Bush regime is similarly ending in a recession (at least) that seems headed to be quite severe by the time Bush-43 leaves office January 20, 2009. Thus this would be the second time "under a Bush" that they have brought about (at least) a recession, and it is the second Bush as POTUS who has brought it about.
Adam

I don't think you have the slightest clue what constitutes a depression in the economic sense, especially in light of your attempt to label that mild blip at the end of the elder Bush's presidency a depression :no:

[Adam]

I don't think you have the slightest clue what constitutes a depression in the economic sense, especially in light of your attempt to label that mild blip at the end of the elder Bush's presidency a depression :no:
Maybe it was particularly bad here in California.
All during the crummy job I held from 1990 to 1992, I kept telling myself, "I'm hiding out here until this "mild blip" (your words) is over." Then in 1992-93 I suffered through repeated bouts of unemployment between one lousy job and another.
It was so bad here that my wife sold her hand-crafts at trade fairs to make money. Nothing alarming in that, as she had done that for years before for the fun of it to make some money on the side from her hobby. The alarming [blip] of it was that everybody was so desperately poor or fearful of becoming poor that she could not get as much money as she had paid for her booth at the show. So she stopped trying.
That was some [blip]
Adam
(Worried I'm going to get modded and get points for [blip] profanity)

[TyRockwell]

Maybe it was particularly bad here in California.
All during the crummy job I held from 1990 to 1992, I kept telling myself, "I'm hiding out here until this "mild blip" (your words) is over."

So, you want people to feel sorry for you. Where did you go during the Clinton recession, Las Vegas?

Then in 1992-93 I suffered through repeated bouts of unemployment between one lousy job and another.

You pick bad jobs that don't last, or you can't hold down. They don't make a pill for that, yet.

It was so bad here that my wife sold her hand-crafts at trade fairs to make money. Nothing alarming in that, as she had done that for years before for the fun of it to make some money on the side from her hobby. The alarming [blip] of it was that everybody was so desperately poor or fearful of becoming poor that she could not get as much money as she had paid for her booth at the show. So she stopped trying.

You don't want to work, you want to live like a king.
But the big bad world doesn't owe you a thing. Get over it!

The Eagles, from Hell Freezes Over

[Adam]

So, you want people to feel sorry for you. Where did you go during the Clinton recession, Las Vegas?
You pick bad jobs that don't last, or you can't hold down. They don't make a pill for that, yet.
You don't want to work, you want to live like a king.
But the big bad world doesn't owe you a thing. Get over it!
The Eagles, from Hell Freezes Over
Seeing "Ty Rockwell" pop up, I said to myself, "Oh, goody, this will be easy."
So easy it doesn't even require a reply to such thoughtless ill will. This is supposed to be "Political Science 301", not the "Boiler Room" or "T/G Locker Room" bantering of personal insults.
I won't even ask the Mods to remove it, it's so obviously pathetic a post that it tells more about the maker than it does about me.
Adam

[Adam]

OK, OK,
I promise to be nicer to anyone else who posts in this thread. All is forgiven, all skate.
Adam

[Sheepdog]

So, in what manner can Bush be blamed for banks making really irresponsible choices like handing out subprime loans like candy?

Granted, the Government as the cosmic sugar daddy has helped lead to such irresponsibility (don't worry, we'll bail you out!), but that's the case whether the the President wears an R or a D.

[Adam]

So, in what manner can Bush be blamed for banks making really irresponsible choices like handing out subprime loans like candy?

Granted, the Government as the cosmic sugar daddy has helped lead to such irresponsibility (don't worry, we'll bail you out!), but that's the case whether the the President wears an R or a D.
Because he plunged us $3 trillion deeper in debt so rich people could buy more yachts?'
Because he manufactured phony evidence to launch a failed war of aggression that at current estimates will cost us $3 trillion in itself eventually?
That therefore the FRB had to lower interest rates to cover his profligate deficit spending?
(Whereas Bill Clinton was piling up a surplus as he left.)
Adam

[rogue06]

Maybe it was particularly bad here in California.
All during the crummy job I held from 1990 to 1992, I kept telling myself, "I'm hiding out here until this "mild blip" (your words) is over." Then in 1992-93 I suffered through repeated bouts of unemployment between one lousy job and another.
It was so bad here that my wife sold her hand-crafts at trade fairs to make money. Nothing alarming in that, as she had done that for years before for the fun of it to make some money on the side from her hobby. The alarming [blip] of it was that everybody was so desperately poor or fearful of becoming poor that she could not get as much money as she had paid for her booth at the show. So she stopped trying.
That was some [blip]
Adam
(Worried I'm going to get modded and get points for [blip] profanity)
Perhaps the old adage that it's a recession when my neighbor loses his job and a depression when I lose my job comes into play here.

[TyRockwell]

Seeing "Ty Rockwell" pop up, I said to myself, "Oh, goody, this will be easy."
So easy it doesn't even require a reply to such thoughtless ill will. This is supposed to be "Political Science 301", not the "Boiler Room" or "T/G Locker Room" bantering of personal insults.
I won't even ask the Mods to remove it, it's so obviously pathetic a post that it tells more about the maker than it does about me.
Adam

The thoughlessness is on the part of people that think the government should assure them a job and an economy that they didn't earn.

You only have to look at how much the economy has prospered in the last seven years, then subtract the down-turn from the housing bubble to see that the standard of living, and the unemployment rate is still far better than it was under Clinton.

We've had whiners complaining all the while that it was a bad economy, even though it was not true. A broken clock is going to be right two times a day. When whiners keep on saying the economy is bad, and something changes into a less properous situation, then the whiners claim they were right all along, without validity.

[nickcopernicus]

The thoughlessness is on the part of people that think the government should assure them a job and an economy that they didn't earn.

You only have to look at how much the economy has prospered in the last seven years, then subtract the down-turn from the housing bubble to see that the standard of living, and the unemployment rate is still far better than it was under Clinton.
Nick:
Emphasis mine. Would you care to quantify this outrageous claim with some sources?
In case you did not notice, one reasons for the so called "sucess" of the last 7 years was the housing bubble. The Stock market bounced back from the 9/11 falls partially as a result of Bush's request to lower interest rates. Don't you remember all this "0%" financing?
TyRockwell:
We've had whiners complaining all the while that it was a bad economy, even though it was not true. A broken clock is going to be right two times a day. When whiners keep on saying the economy is bad, and something changes into a less properous situation, then the whiners claim they were right all along, without validity.
Nick:
I haven't seen much of your past posts, but based on limited information, you seem to be a conservative who watches too much Fox News and votes for McCain. Your denial of the state of the economy....has been duly noted. I wish you the best of times in the next coming years.

Cheers,

Nick

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, in what manner can Bush be blamed for banks making really irresponsible choices like handing out subprime loans like candy?

Granted, the Government as the cosmic sugar daddy has helped lead to such irresponsibility (don't worry, we'll bail you out!), but that's the case whether the the President wears an R or a D.Word is deregulation helped this happen.
(http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/paulsons-lament-deregulation-has-been/story.aspx?guid=%7B4AEF15AC-3966-4656-8108-C96712A88D68%7D)
The mortgage industry ended up being a hens being guarded by a wolf who was being guarded by a panther who was being guarded by a grizzly bear. In the end, all that was left was the big fat bear.

Deregulation is a huge Republican thing.

As my saying goes, don't trust the government, but trust the people even less and trust businesses even less than that.

[themuzicman]

Maybe it was particularly bad here in California.
All during the crummy job I held from 1990 to 1992, I kept telling myself, "I'm hiding out here until this "mild blip" (your words) is over." Then in 1992-93 I suffered through repeated bouts of unemployment between one lousy job and another.
It was so bad here that my wife sold her hand-crafts at trade fairs to make money. Nothing alarming in that, as she had done that for years before for the fun of it to make some money on the side from her hobby. The alarming [blip] of it was that everybody was so desperately poor or fearful of becoming poor that she could not get as much money as she had paid for her booth at the show. So she stopped trying.


Well, that's what's known as "anecdotal data". There was a slowdown in the early '90s (mainly due to a tax cut that Bush41 promised he wouldn't sign), but it certainly wasn't a depression.

This time around, Michigan has not recovered well from the Clinton recession, due to the Detroit 3 automakers ineptitude combined with the ongoing demands of Unions to be overpaid for jobs that can be done at less than 1/3 of the wages elsewhere. But it's not a depression. (Although Gov. Aunt Jenny is trying to turn it into that by raising taxes.)

The credit crunch resulted from a lot of banks making dumb decisions, and it's really unfortunate that we didn't let all this sort itself out rather than devaluing our dollar to bail them out. This kind of thing tends to build some institutional memory.

Still, there are good sectors and bad sectors. I think it remains to be seen whether a recession is underway.

Michael

[Macgawd]

Word is deregulation helped this happen.

No, greed helped this happen, tied with poorly devised regulations based on faulty data, which suggested that delving into the credit history of certain minorities was an act of racism.

The mortgage industry ended up being a hens being guarded by a wolf who was being guarded by a panther who was being guarded by a grizzly bear. In the end, all that was left was the big fat bear.

Not exactly sure who or what you're accusing of "winning" here, but the only people coming out on top here are those few who managed to sell off their Bear Stearns stock before the bottom fell out.

Deregulation is a huge Republican thing.

Yeah, and draconian regulation is huge Democratic thing--also not good for the economy, as it tends to cause stagflation as seen in the recession of the 1970's. in fact, the deregulation of several key industries in the US helped move us out of that stagflation period.

Michael

[JusticeMachine]

Maybe it was particularly bad here in California.
All during the crummy job I held from 1990 to 1992, I kept telling myself, "I'm hiding out here until this "mild blip" (your words) is over." Then in 1992-93 I suffered through repeated bouts of unemployment between one lousy job and another.
It was so bad here that my wife sold her hand-crafts at trade fairs to make money. Nothing alarming in that, as she had done that for years before for the fun of it to make some money on the side from her hobby. The alarming [blip] of it was that everybody was so desperately poor or fearful of becoming poor that she could not get as much money as she had paid for her booth at the show. So she stopped trying.
That was some [blip]
Adam
(Worried I'm going to get modded and get points for [blip] profanity)

From 90 to 92, I moved from working at a restaurant to working in Banking. I didn't have a problem at all; in fact things were improving for me.

Maybe it was your location. I was in Phoenix AZ, which didn't seem to have any trouble attracting businesses. Could be due to the political party the controlled the state made it advantageous for business to move here from other states (CA) that were much less corporative.

Things that make you go hhhmmm.

[JusticeMachine]

This thread is to discuss what is a depression and what are the political interests in labelling an economic crisis as merely a recession or as not even a recession.
The thread title is not intended as a statement of fact that the current mortgage meltdown, credit crunch at banks, lay-offs and announcements of huge future lay-offs, and massive write-offs of billions of dollars in losses, is itself a depression. It does take for granted that this is a least a recession, but opens a discussion on the political motivations for refusing to label it as such. Included is openness to discussion that the reasons for timidity on labelling it a recession is for our own public good, to avoid a snowball effect of further lowering of consumer confidence that obviously cuts spending and that further exacerbates the recession.
The thread title needs explanation. The first Bush regime (the father's) in 1989-1993 ended in an acknowledged recession, which is open to the case being made that it was actually a depression that for political expediency of the last 60 years is never named as such. The second Bush regime is similarly ending in a recession (at least) that seems headed to be quite severe by the time Bush-43 leaves office January 20, 2009. Thus this would be the second time "under a Bush" that they have brought about (at least) a recession, and it is the second Bush as POTUS who has brought it about.
Adam

Just out of curiosity, is the entire US government considered a regime or just if the person in office doesn't agree with your political views? I mean, you wouldn't be deliberately trying to sensationalize your opinion of certain US governments with no evidence to back it up would you?

[JusticeMachine]

So, you want people to feel sorry for you. Where did you go during the Clinton recession, Las Vegas?



You pick bad jobs that don't last, or you can't hold down. They don't make a pill for that, yet.



You don't want to work, you want to live like a king.
But the big bad world doesn't owe you a thing. Get over it!

The Eagles, from Hell Freezes Over

I love that song. It isn't one of their best, but still good.

[JusticeMachine]

So, in what manner can Bush be blamed for banks making really irresponsible choices like handing out subprime loans like candy?

Granted, the Government as the cosmic sugar daddy has helped lead to such irresponsibility (don't worry, we'll bail you out!), but that's the case whether the the President wears an R or a D.

If anything, you can lay some of the blame at the feet of the party that pushes for over regulation like, HMDA and the community reinvestment act that sometimes pushes companies to make quotas rather that do good loans. I'll bet you can guess where a lot of that type of legislation originated.

[Adam]

Just out of curiosity, is the entire US government considered a regime or just if the person in office doesn't agree with your political views? I mean, you wouldn't be deliberately trying to sensationalize your opinion of certain US governments with no evidence to back it up would you?
Tit for tat.
The Bush regime insists on calling any government they don't like a "regime", so I am simply returning the favor. You prefer hypocrisy?
Adam

[Chuck Lee]

I'm happy to blame Bush for running up the debt big time. I won't blame him for a recession though. It's hard to predict something like that in advance, and I don't recall any financial experts preaching doom in advance.

I was preaching doom on the mortgage industry well in advance, but I'm not a financial expert. If the financial experts didn't see it coming, there was no reason for Bush and company to see it.

[$cirisme]

So, in what manner can Bush be blamed for banks making really irresponsible choices like handing out subprime loans like candy?

The administration held back oversight of the banking industry because Bush saw subprime lenders as helping create his "ownership society". (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/business/18subprime.html)

Granted, the Government as the cosmic sugar daddy has helped lead to such irresponsibility (don't worry, we'll bail you out!), but that's the case whether the the President wears an R or a D.

And if the current President wore a D, you'd be right there blaming him too. As well you should. There is plenty of blame to go around.

[$cirisme]

Still, there are good sectors and bad sectors. I think it remains to be seen whether a recession is underway.

Michael


Which ones are the good sectors? As far as I can tell, there are really bad sectors, and some not so bad sectors. These "good" sectors are few and far between afaics.

[Adam]

Perhaps the old adage that it's a recession when my neighbor loses his job and a depression when I lose my job comes into play here.
Good point, Rogue.
As I said, it may have been particularly bad here in California.
However, it wasn't just me (as I already showed). My wife had developed a new career as a realtor. The value of housing and the volume of sales dropped so sharply, she could not maintain her foothold in the business. She found work at lower and lower positions for the next several years. It's not that she's unemployable--for the last twelve years she has worked steadily as an accountant with the exception of a major bank merger that eliminated all administrative staff. Even I have been able to keep my nose clean at one job steadily for the last ten years.
It was at the very least a recession here in Northern California.
Adam

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, greed helped this happen, tied with poorly devised regulations based on faulty data, which suggested that delving into the credit history of certain minorities was an act of racism. So when the Republican Secretary of the Treasury says deregulation was the problem, he's just full of it?

Not exactly sure who or what you're accusing of "winning" here, but the only people coming out on top here are those few who managed to sell off their Bear Stearns stock before the bottom fell out. And I think a lot of investigations need to be done to see who is winning here. There are some people who are making a fortune on these deals.

Yeah, and draconian regulation is huge Democratic thing--Another instance of the Moore-Coulter postulate. I say "deregulation" is a Republican thing. I didn't add any negative qualification. It's a true statement. Republicans typically look towards deregulation. In response, the conservative says Democrats are for "draconian" regulation. Whatever. dude.

also not good for the economy, as it tends to cause stagflation as seen in the recession of the 1970's. in fact, the deregulation of several key industries in the US helped move us out of that stagflation period. Well that's a nice unsupported assertion there.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm happy to blame Bush for running up the debt big time. I won't blame him for a recession though. It's hard to predict something like that in advance, and I don't recall any financial experts preaching doom in advance.Actually, there was uncertainty regarding where the housing bubble would take us.

I was preaching doom on the mortgage industry well in advance, but I'm not a financial expert. If the financial experts didn't see it coming, there was no reason for Bush and company to see it.That's the bull part. Everyone saw it coming. Talk of a housing bubble has been around since 2001.

[Jimmy Higgins]

This time around, Michigan has not recovered well from the Clinton recession, due to the Detroit 3 automakers ineptitude combined with the ongoing demands of Unions to be overpaid for jobs that can be done at less than 1/3 of the wages elsewhere. But it's not a depression. (Although Gov. Aunt Jenny is trying to turn it into that by raising taxes.)
The "Clinton recession" occurred entirely during 2001. So let's look at the numbers shall we.
Ford Profits (http://www.ford.com/about-ford/investor-relations/company-reports/annual-reports):
2000 : $3.4 billion
2001 : -$5.4 billion
2002 : -$1 billion
2003 : $0.5 billion
2004 : $3.5 billion
2005 : $1.4 billion
2006 : -$12.6 billion

So from the above numbers, we'll notice that Ford's profits did go back up ("recover") after the "Clinton Recession." What did hurt Ford a bunch? Health care, rising steel costs and companies like Toyota and Honda getting a larger share of the global market (http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0501/21/autos-65497.htm). Then we saw gas prices jump up quickly, which led to people moving away from the SUVs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6218-2005Apr20.html). In 2006, they saw their "revenue" drop 9% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6218-2005Apr20.html), which was a decent main component in the 2006 loss, as were managing issues that led to $9.9 billion of the loss. You can blame unions and Clinton all you want, when people buy your products at a lesser rate, your profits drop.

Granted, you said Michigan's economy, but as the auto industry goes, so does Michigan.

[shadowmaster]

That's the bull part. Everyone saw it coming. Talk of a housing bubble has been around since 2001.

If "everyone saw it coming", why did everyone buy housing in

2002
and

2003
and

2004
and

2005
and

2006?

More impeccable logic from Jimmy Higgins who will make up any stupid idea in order to justify his biggoted positions.

[Jimmy Higgins]

If "everyone saw it coming", why did everyone buy housing in When I say everyone, I was hoping you wouldn't take it so literally.

I'm speaking of the corporations and a decent number of people. Next time I'll be more careful wording things for you.

These corporations had to make grandiose economic predictions in order to approve certain loan conditions. They had to of known it wasn't possible.

FYI, 2005 reference (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1186906&highlight=housing+bubble#post1186906) at Tweb. 2003 reference at IIDB (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=53206).

The bubble was coming and a lot of people knew it. The deflation point wasn't known, but people knew the bubble was growing for a while.
More impeccable logic from Jimmy Higgins who will make up any stupid idea in order to justify his biggoted positions.Bigoted? You've got to be kidding.

[shadowmaster]

Bigoted? You've got to be kidding.

Definition

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Yup! That fits.

[TyRockwell]

Nick:
Emphasis mine. Would you care to quantify this outrageous claim with some sources?
In case you did not notice, one reasons for the so called "sucess" of the last 7 years was the housing bubble. The Stock market bounced back from the 9/11 falls partially as a result of Bush's request to lower interest rates. Don't you remember all this "0%" financing?

The operative point is that, quoting you, "the stock market bounced back." Lower interest rates were good. Too many people were foolish and accepted the idea of extra low interest rates that were "adjustable." I knew better than to do that, and refinanced at a lower fixed rate.

Nick:
I haven't seen much of your past posts, but based on limited information, you seem to be a conservative who watches too much Fox News and votes for McCain. Your denial of the state of the economy....has been duly noted. I wish you the best of times in the next coming years.

Cheers,

Nick

You seem to be a socialist, who wants to deprive people who earned their money of their God given rights to be free from confiscation of their personal property. You probably agree with the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post, and would gladly vote for Lenin and Stalin if you had the chance. The economy is free market thank God, who blesses all who do his will.

Jesus is Lord, not government,

Ty

[Chuck Lee]

The bubble was coming and a lot of people knew it.

I'd think that a lot of people knew it, but I didn't hear anybody predicting it. I've been expecting it for more than a decade, myself. Yet real estate folks kept moving property at consistently higher prices, property value kept increasing faster than payrolls, and financial institutions continued to happily provide mortgages to practically anybody who wanted a house. Eventually we had to reach a point where the average family could no longer really afford the average price of a home, while still getting long term mortgages, and that already happened years ago.

I can't say that people are just now realizing it. From the sound of it in the media, you'd just think the real estate problems were just caused by mismanagement.

It seems to me like a problem that's ingrained in our culture, and not anything that the current government's responsible for bringing about. Mind you, I'm happy to blame many ills on the current governement, but not this one.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I can't say that people are just now realizing it. From the sound of it in the media, you'd just think the real estate problems were just caused by mismanagement.It was lack of regulation on sub-prime mortgages on a couple fronts. First was the ability to create a loan that the borrowers couldn't possibly handle if they didn't sell the house before the rate popped up. Second was the improper selling of the mortgages as AAA-bonds, when in fact some of them were no better than junk bonds.

It seems to me like a problem that's ingrained in our culture, and not anything that the current government's responsible for bringing about. Mind you, I'm happy to blame many ills on the current governement, but not this one.I remember getting an estimate for windows on my home. The guy played with numbers, not understanding that I, even if I couldn't exactly know what the magic trick was, I still would get the gut feeling of being misled. I happily explained to him how the windows didn't just pay themselves off in x number of years because if you took the principle instead of buying the windows, invested, got a small return of... etc... I knew better, but only because my mind works very well with numbers.

Marketing people are trained to fool, even lie to people. To blame some people for not knowing better... that isn't exactly fair. Especially when these people getting the mortgages wouldn't have got the mortgage to begin with if the sub-prime company couldn't sell the junk mortgage off as a AAA-bond.

I have no idea why some people think that other people should be able to fend for themselves on everything. Numbers can be manipulated for those not good with numbers. Investments can be painted as being better than they really are. Buyer beware, but an economy can not be self-sustaining if businesses are allowed to police themselves. This hundreds of billions in write-offs by the banks is evidence of that. We all are feeling the crunch from this, even if we bought into mortgages that were reasonable because our stocks are all falling, the economy is slowing because people are not confident in the economy (which is critical because we are a consumer driven economy)... which makes it a matter for the government.

[Macgawd]

So when the Republican Secretary of the Treasury says deregulation was the problem, he's just full of it?

No, just oversimplifying. I'm not a proponent of laissez faire capitalism--I think that some regulation is necessary to prevent the very thing that has happened to the housing market. Part of the problem with the housing bubble was in how lenders were regulated, and who they were allowed to lend to. Creating regulations that prevent lenders from looking into the credit history of certain minorities while simultaneously allowing those lenders to write risky or questionable loans is certainly a recipe for disaster, don't you agree?

And I think a lot of investigations need to be done to see who is winning here. There are some people who are making a fortune on these deals.

Yes, and and many who have lost fortunes. I'm simply not as quick to cry foul over it.

Another instance of the Moore-Coulter postulate. I say "deregulation" is a Republican thing. I didn't add any negative qualification. It's a true statement. Republicans typically look towards deregulation. In response, the conservative says Democrats are for "draconian" regulation. Whatever. dude.

The negative connotation was clearly implied, but feel free to backpedal if you wish. Whether you like it or not, the Democratic Party has historically run on a platform of big government regulation, whether it's business, the environment, or "cradle-to-the-grave" universal health care.

Well that's a nice unsupported assertion there.

It's not my job to do your history homework for you, JH. Perhaps you're just too young to remember the 1970's.

Michael

[Macgawd]

And right on cue, the leading Democratic Presidential candidate thinks that government regulation is the answer to all our economic woes:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/27/obama-economy-speech-calls-for-tighter-regulations-government-reforms/

They never learn, and the rest of us pay the price.

Michael

[$cirisme]

And right on cue, the leading Democratic Presidential candidate thinks that government regulation is the answer to all our economic woes:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/27/obama-economy-speech-calls-for-tighter-regulations-government-reforms/

They never learn, and the rest of us pay the price.

Michael
Considering significant blame can be laid to the government for not being vigorous enough in regulating banks, I think more regulation is a good idea. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if a bank admits that it screwed up and needs the feds to bail them out, they should be required to submit to regulation since it's obvious they couldn't do it right the first time.

Will it save our economy this time? Nope, it's too late. But we shouldn't stand to let banks do what they did and let them get off free for next time either.

[Macgawd]

Considering significant blame can be laid to the government for not being vigorous enough in regulating banks, I think more regulation is a good idea.

It isn't lack of regulations that is the problem, but the kind of regulations, and how they're enforced. For example, Government regulations required banks and lenders to be less scrupulous about looking into the credit histories of certain lower income borrowers in order to make owning a home more "affordable". This had the effect of creating the housing "bubble" by driving up demand, which in turn artificially inflated home prices to the point where they were ridiculously overvalued. Once the market becomes over-saturated, collapse is inevitable.

Too much regulation is bad for business, and bad for the consumer, as it stifles competition. We don't need more regulation, we need better.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that if a bank admits that it screwed up and needs the feds to bail them out, they should be required to submit to regulation since it's obvious they couldn't do it right the first time.

Personally, I think that the Government should butt out, and allow the normal economic forces of capitalism to run their course, rather than bail out businesses that engaged in questionable practices.

Will it save our economy this time? Nope, it's too late. But we shouldn't stand to let banks do what they did and let them get off free for next time either.

I wouldn't say they're getting off free--Bear Stearns--a global company with assets in the billions--was sold off for less than the market value of its NY headquarters, and the vast majority of its stockholders lost everything.

Michael

[TyRockwell]

There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some
exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the prof noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime.

In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a
strange question. He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?" The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said that it was no joke.

"You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and
putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate
in the last side.. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to
come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the
gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom.

They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity."

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees
happening in America . The 'progressives' keep pushing us toward
Communism/Socialism and keep spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax cuts, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc..
While we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.

If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life, God help you when the gate slams shut!

The only thing I can add to this is .....Democratic candidates are most anxious to spread around the free corn, and what might their motives be?

Think about it..

[Nicholas]

There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some
exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the prof noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime.

In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a
strange question. He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?" The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said that it was no joke.

"You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and
putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate
in the last side.. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to
come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the
gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom.

They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity."

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees
happening in America . The 'progressives' keep pushing us toward
Communism/Socialism and keep spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax cuts, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc..
While we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.

If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life, God help you when the gate slams shut!

The only thing I can add to this is .....Democratic candidates are most anxious to spread around the free corn, and what might their motives be?

Think about it..

Oh great, a conpsiracy theorist.... Let me guess, they're working for the illuminati, aren't they?

[TyRockwell]

Oh great, a conpsiracy theorist.... Let me guess, they're working for the illuminati, aren't they?

Are you so blind that you can't see that the Democrats want to remake our republic into a democratic/socialist state?

In the story in the previous post I made, the lesson is that it takes place incrementally. The 'progressive' may even be a Christian who thinks, "No, we would never take it that far." What they don't realize, is that satan is subtle. He'll tell you that you are doing a good deed, while he greases the slippery slope.

[Nicholas]

Are you so blind that you can't see that the Democrats want to remake our republic into a democratic/socialist state?

In the story in the previous post I made, the lesson is that it takes place incrementally. The 'progressive' may even be a Christian who thinks, "No, we would never take it that far." What they don't realize, is that satan is subtle. He'll tell you that you are doing a good deed, while he greases the slippery slope.

If you hadn't noticed, I'm one of those evil progressives you're raving about. I'm about as cynical as the next guy, but to say that there is some sort of grand conspiracy to erode our freedoms is absurd.

Oh, and as to Satan, since I don't believe he exists, arguing that he's involved won't make your conspiracy theory any more plausible.




Now, if you don't mind, I have to go and call in the Black Helicopters so that our enforcers can erase those silly notions about our non-existent plans from your mind. But don't worry, it won't hurt a bit.

[TyRockwell]

If you hadn't noticed, I'm one of those evil progressives you're raving about. I'm about as cynical as the next guy, but to say that there is some sort of grand conspiracy to erode our freedoms is absurd.

To say that there is not a concerted effort to turn our democratic republic into a democratic socialistic state is willfull blindness.

Oh, and as to Satan, since I don't believe he exists, arguing that he's involved won't make your conspiracy theory any more plausible.

Arguing that democratic socialism should be the preferred means of governing and economic policy is even worse than your disbelief in the existence of the head of your party, satan.

Now, if you don't mind, I have to go and call in the Black Helicopters so that our enforcers can erase those silly notions about our non-existent plans from your mind. But don't worry, it won't hurt a bit.

The black helicopters would be inconsistent with your usual subtlety.

[Nicholas]

To say that there is not a concerted effort to turn our democratic republic into a democratic socialistic state is willfull blindness.



Arguing that democratic socialism should be the preferred means of governing and economic policy is even worse than your disbelief in the existence of the head of your party, satan.



The black helicopters would be inconsistent with your usual subtlety.

You honestly believe all of that, don't you?

[Mark F]

Reading some of the posts here you'd think that any act of compassion or regulation by the government was some satanic communist plot. It's rhetoric like that which, along with support of a war of aggression, that keeps me away from the right wing in politics. And no, I'm not left wing either. It's just that some democratic control of the market is necessary to make the system work optimally of an optimal amount of people. Especially when considering the constraints to growth set by natural resources, etc.

Jesus is Lord, not government,

What should His lordship mean in economics? Based on His teachings, I don't think He would have had much respect for those who use the free market to accumulate material wealth with no regard for their poor neighbors.

"Gather not treasures on earth."
"Give to those who ask from you."
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

[TyRockwell]

Reading some of the posts here you'd think that any act of compassion or regulation by the government was some satanic communist plot. It's rhetoric like that which, along with support of a war of aggression, that keeps me away from the right wing in politics. And no, I'm not left wing either. It's just that some democratic control of the market is necessary to make the system work optimally of an optimal amount of people. Especially when considering the constraints to growth set by natural resources, etc.

When you simply pay attention to the proposed policies of the demoncratic (sic) party, you should find it easy to see their priorities. To call them satanic or communistic, or socialistic plots, is an abbreviation, a short-hand for real, problematic agendas.

To the uninformed, who think the proposed 'solutions' they wish to term 'compassion,' are really that, remember that the freedoms we are enjoying in these forums, could be harmed in the socialist vision espoused by both Hilary and Obama. Already, there is a movement by the thought police to re-imposed the so-called, and quite unfair "Fairness Doctrine" on talk radio.

The very rhetoric you used which I highlighted in bold type above shows an inclination on your part of intolerance of valid positions one has a constitutional right to hold.

AM radio was a nearly forgotten media when it became revived by people struggling to get an alternative message out, because the vast majority of mainstream radio, television and news organizations are dominated by the baised, lock-stepped, goose-stepping liberals who want to criminalize opinions contrary to their own, calling them, 'hate speech.'

Now they want to force political opinion broadcasters to give equal time to present the opposition's views, when control of the affore mentioned mainstream 'news' outlets remains dominated by left-slanted idealogues who attempt to shape public perception to advance their agendas. They feel threatened by the fact that consevatives, though holding onto only a few old radio stations, and finally one cable news outlet, have had so much success, in that huge numbers of people have turned to them to get what they, the people, know and believe is 'the other side of the story,' that they were being denied beforehand.


What should His [Jesus'] lordship mean in economics? Based on His teachings, I don't think He would have had much respect for those who use the free market to accumulate material wealth with no regard for their poor neighbors.

"Gather not treasures on earth."
"Give to those who ask from you."
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus was giving spiritual instructions to people who would be "called out," the ecclesia, the church, about how they are to live in the world, though not being of it.

Jesus was not advocating government policy. The principles he gave were to be individually acted on as principles He set forth to be willingly followed, not forced upon people.

Jesus does not want 'compassion' legislated. Government takings are not the same as the people's giving. Neither was Jesus proposing that government replace people's need of blessings that come only directly from Him or through His people. He would rather there be poor, sick people in need of Him, than people relieved of their need of Him. The end does not justify the means.

[Adam]

You honestly believe all of that, don't you?
Thanks for supporting me, Nicholas.
Yes, when I saw Ty was my main opponent, I knew the Bushies had no case.
Giving this thread a bump now that all rational observers agree we're in a recession or headed for one. And as I said at the start, "recession" is just the nicey-nice word for "depression".

[Jaltus]

Recession is defined on MSNBC as three consecutive quarters of loss of GDP and on Wikipedia as 2 consecutive quarters. A depression (IIRC) must also have a certain amount of job losses (which has not happened in a long time, with unemployment under Bush being better than it was under Clinton) combined with sustained negative GDP.

[Jaltus]

Oh, and prior to 2001, the last recession was in 1991, not in 1993. Sorry, Adam, but you do not have an historic leg to stand on.

[$cirisme]

Oh, and prior to 2001, the last recession was in 1991, not in 1993. Sorry, Adam, but you do not have an historic leg to stand on.
Adam thinks that the plural of anecdote is data.

[Adam]

Oh, and prior to 2001, the last recession was in 1991, not in 1993. Sorry, Adam, but you do not have an historic leg to stand on.
Sorry, Jaltus.
But that was the same "recession". It lasted a long time.
Nice that you chose the date "1991". So you're not denying the First Bush Depression (recession) took place under Bush I. He was in office Jan. 1989 to Jan. 1993. Thank you for your help. Yes, things were really bad under Bush I in 1991. I remember. Why do you think he got under 40% of the vote in 1992 (Perot got 20%, putting Clinton in office.)
And employment has not been "better" under Bush II than under Clinton. We still had good jobs then (though I readily fault Clinton for undermining us by NAFTA--I supported Perot), Manufacturing and IT jobs have fallen precipitously under Bush II, leaving just low-paying service jobs, and many of them going to illegals. I can remember the days when most men could expect to support their families on just their one job. Nowadays even with two jobs many families are going under. I suppose you don't blame Bush for gas approaching $5 a gallon? I suppose you don't blame Republicans for sleeping through the housing bubble that has now burst on us. Going into debt hundreds of billions a year due to an illegal and immoral war and running up trillions in trade deficits wasn't going to hurt us? What were Republicans thinking? Do they care about the welfare of any of us but CEOs?
Adam

[Rubia Warren]

Are you so blind that you can't see that the Democrats want to remake our republic into a democratic/socialist state?

If only that were true. *sigh*

What they don't realize, is that satan is subtle. He'll tell you that you are doing a good deed, while he greases the slippery slope.

Why, that explains the root of capitalism's "successes" perfectly.....

[Michelle]

Rubia! :joy:

[themuzicman]

Let's review the history of the world for the last, oh, 200 years:

Capitalism: Wealth and Freedom
Socialism: Tyranny and misery.

Which do you prefer?

Michael

[Bill the Cat]

If only that were true. *sigh*



Why, that explains the root of capitalism's "successes" perfectly.....

Roobz!!!!!!! :shimmy:

[Rubia Warren]

Hahahaha...
BILL!
Michelle-- w00t.

[Jaltus]

Sorry, Jaltus.
But that was the same "recession". It lasted a long time.
Nice that you chose the date "1991". So you're not denying the First Bush Depression (recession) took place under Bush I. He was in office Jan. 1989 to Jan. 1993. Thank you for your help. Yes, things were really bad under Bush I in 1991. I remember. Why do you think he got under 40% of the vote in 1992 (Perot got 20%, putting Clinton in office.)
And employment has not been "better" under Bush II than under Clinton. We still had good jobs then (though I readily fault Clinton for undermining us by NAFTA--I supported Perot), Manufacturing and IT jobs have fallen precipitously under Bush II, leaving just low-paying service jobs, and many of them going to illegals. I can remember the days when most men could expect to support their families on just their one job. Nowadays even with two jobs many families are going under. I suppose you don't blame Bush for gas approaching $5 a gallon? I suppose you don't blame Republicans for sleeping through the housing bubble that has now burst on us. Going into debt hundreds of billions a year due to an illegal and immoral war and running up trillions in trade deficits wasn't going to hurt us? What were Republicans thinking? Do they care about the welfare of any of us but CEOs?
Adam


Do you know how to read? You completely missed the definition of Depression I gave but cherry-picked the one thing you wanted to hear/read. There is currently no recession and there certainly has not been a depression in the last 30 years.

Personally, for the housing market and gas prices I blame congress. If the legislative branch does not pass laws (due to gridlock, a Rep in the WH and a Dem controlled Congress), there really is not much we the voter can do but vote out the people who are stalling. In this instance, I think the gas price issue is one that comes from a failed diplomatic angle (blame the Reps) and a failed domestic angle (blame the Dems for not allowing the US to use its own resources). I see a lot of blame to go around.

The war is neither illegal (Congress voted for it, that is all it takes to make it legal) nor immoral. I admit it is not well planned or well run, but that has nothing to do with legality or morality, it comes across more as sour grapes on the part of those who voted for the war and wanted blood for the tragedy of 9/11 and now regret the decision so they blame Bush. We the American people called for war, so don't blame our politicians for following our lead on this.

The recession under the first Bush lasted for 8 months, and no longer.

[Adam]

Jaltus,
Did you know that Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 counts of impeachment against Bush yesterday, June 9th? In any case there is hundreds of times the impeachable offenses chargeable against Bush as compared to any previous POTUS.
You're even more narrow-minded in politics than you are in theology, which figures, since your expertise is in New Testament. There's no point in arguing against your blather here--For the lasts eight years the Democrats have had no opportunity to get anything of theirs into law, because Bush vetoes everything. He vetoed nothing of what the old Republican Congress approved. So yes, blame Congress all right--the Republican Congress that altogether abdicated oversight of this monstrous presidency and rubber-stamped everything the tyrant wanted. And their worst fault was in failing to impeach him.
Adam

[TyRockwell]

Jaltus,
Did you know that Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 counts of impeachment against Bush yesterday, June 9th? In any case there is hundreds of times the impeachable offenses chargeable against Bush as compared to any previous POTUS.
You're even more narrow-minded in politics than you are in theology, which figures, since your expertise is in New Testament. There's no point in arguing against your blather here--For the lasts eight years the Democrats have had no opportunity to get anything of theirs into law, because Bush vetoes everything. He vetoed nothing of what the old Republican Congress approved. So yes, blame Congress all right--the Republican Congress that altogether abdicated oversight of this monstrous presidency and rubber-stamped everything the tyrant wanted. And their worst fault was in failing to impeach him.
Adam

Jaltus is right. And you don't have any understanding of politics.
-Politically motivated 'charges' are not even equal to an indictment. It is all for show to the Democratic base.

-Bush didn't really start using his veto until the Democrats became the majority party in the 2006 elections. That's one thing that got him in trouble with his base. He should have vetoed much more of the spending bills sent to him.

-McCain would have done so to hold the line on government spending.

-Bill clinton should have been impeached. George Bush has done nothing criminal.

-The news media doesn't tell you the truth. You only hear the propaganda of Bush-haters. I bet you don't even know we are winning in Iraq, with an all volunteer army, that every month meets its re-enlistment goals, do you?

[Jaltus]

Jaltus,
Did you know that Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 counts of impeachment against Bush yesterday, June 9th? In any case there is hundreds of times the impeachable offenses chargeable against Bush as compared to any previous POTUS.
You're even more narrow-minded in politics than you are in theology, which figures, since your expertise is in New Testament. There's no point in arguing against your blather here--For the lasts eight years the Democrats have had no opportunity to get anything of theirs into law, because Bush vetoes everything. He vetoed nothing of what the old Republican Congress approved. So yes, blame Congress all right--the Republican Congress that altogether abdicated oversight of this monstrous presidency and rubber-stamped everything the tyrant wanted. And their worst fault was in failing to impeach him.
Adam

Narrow-minded because I think BOTH parties are at fault?

I guess that proves my contention that you really do not know how to read. Here, try this (http://www.rif.org/).

[Adam]

Narrow-minded because I think BOTH parties are at fault?
I guess that proves my contention that you really do not know how to read. Here, try this (http://www.rif.org/).
Idiotic will do.
You hold that both parties are equally to blame, when one party (the Republicans) has been in control of Congress since 1994 until 2006, and in lock-hold of the Presidency since 2001. As I said before (and you seem to agree, hoping against hope that McCain won't be Bush III), Bush never vetoed any Republican legislation (though adding his unconstitutional signing statements), vetoes any Democratic legislation he doesn't like so the Dems have been powerless in spite of controlling Congress.
If you insist on blaming the Dems, blame them for being too Republican, not even carrying out their constitutional duty to impeach Bush.
In contrast the Repubs readily impeached Clinton for trivia, ignoring Clinton's true treason in selling computer technology to Red China. That was a non-issue because the Repubs are much worse traitors and would have sold the goods to the Commies even quicker. The Dems are so cowed by runaway Republican monsters that they don't impeach Bush for hundreds of times the crimes Clinton did. Blame the Dems, but blame them for being Republicans-light.
Adam

[TyRockwell]

Idiotic will do.
You hold that both parties are equally to blame, when one party (the Republicans) has been in control of Congress since 1994 until 2006, and in lock-hold of the Presidency since 2001. As I said before (and you seem to agree, hoping against hope that McCain won't be Bush III), Bush never vetoed any Republican legislation (though adding his unconstitutional signing statements), vetoes any Democratic legislation he doesn't like so the Dems have been powerless in spite of controlling Congress.
If you insist on blaming the Dems, blame them for being too Republican, not even carrying out their constitutional duty to impeach Bush.
In contrast the Repubs readily impeached Clinton for trivia, ignoring Clinton's true treason in selling computer technology to Red China. That was a non-issue because the Repubs are much worse traitors and would have sold the goods to the Commies even quicker. The Dems are so cowed by runaway Republican monsters that they don't impeach Bush for hundreds of times the crimes Clinton did. Blame the Dems, but blame them for being Republicans-light.
Adam

You've obviously been indoctrinated with twisted propaganda. An intelligent person, on the other hand, realizes the partisan agendas of his sources and gives proper attention to finding the other side's perspective, or at least an objective interpretation.

[Adam]

You've obviously been indoctrinated with twisted propaganda. An intelligent person, on the other hand, realizes the partisan agendas of his sources and gives proper attention to finding the other side's perspective, or at least an objective interpretation.
Good advice, Ty,
And I hope you will take it.
It's a principle of psychology that preachers preach against sins they don't commit, never preach against sins they know they do commit, but preach loudest and longest against sins they so innately commit that they have blocked from their minds that they do them. They are subconsiously aware of their sinful nature, and they keep this consciousness suppressed by consciously telling themselves over and over again that they should do what they actually don't do or not do what they actually do.
As Shakespeare said, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Adam

[TyRockwell]

Good advice, Ty,
And I hope you will take it.
It's a principle of psychology that preachers preach against sins they don't commit, never preach against sins they know they do commit, but preach loudest and longest against sins they so innately commit that they have blocked from their minds that they do them. They are subconsiously aware of their sinful nature, and they keep this consciousness suppressed by consciously telling themselves over and over again that they should do what they actually don't do or not do what they actually do.
As Shakespeare said, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Adam

Your response steered far off the topic of whether a small economic downturn, after years of positive growth should be called a depression, when the slowdown in the growth of the economy resides in a context of ongoing overall growth of the economy.

The preachers who preach false prophecy with an agenda are the mainstream media, who are committed to their 'enlightened' ideas. They are allied with the leftist, liberal 'progressives,' in spirit, and thought, though there will not be much evidence of planned collusion. Its a mind-set. It is a way of thinking they both share, derived from a liberal education system that takes its job literally.

It is obvious when people adopt their way of thinking. They repeat opinion as if it were fact. The preach, broadcast, write and televise from a perspective that colors their reporting. Objectivity, to them is a failure to reach the people with "what they need to know." The people who absorb their output without checking it out are the kind of people who say things like you just posted.

[Adam]

Well, Ty,
TWeb bios don't tell much about us, and even following all my posts you wouldn't get my political "testimony", so here goes.
In high school in the late 50's I persuaded both my parents to switch from Democrat to Republican. Yes, I was more of a "Modern Republican", but by 1960 I was an idealogue libertarian, the next step farther right from laissez faire capitalist. In 1961 I went farther right and joined the John Birch Society and sent not one, but three, 3,000 word essays in their competition, "Why Chief Justice Earl Warren Should be Impeached."
I "got religion" in 1962 and abandoned politics, but that was as much my cynicism that poeple could ever be persuaded to do the right thing (particularly from an original thinker like me) as from my new-found Christianity. Nevertheless, I remained "on board" and eagerly cast my first Presidential vote for Barry Goldwater.
I enlisted for Army Officer Candidate School during the Viet Nam War in 1966, a naive patriot who became even more "strike" during my training. However, two hours of sleep a night and virtually nothng to eat didn't agree with a beanpole like me, so I flunked out of OCS because I couldn't stay awake in class. Reduced to ordinary enlisted "GI Joe", I soon rebelled against being treated like an animal, and though I rose to E-5 (Sergeant level) I left the Army the next thing to a pacifist. A year of "flower-power" ideology (though I was never a "hippie") soon wilted, however, and I was back to my Rightist roots, particularly after I converted from Methodist to Roman Catholic in 1969. From 1970 to 1977 I was Legitimist Monarchist, than which there is nothing farther right than Nazi.
In 1977 I "got religion" again and got the Baptism in the Spirit and joined the Charismatic Renewal in the Roman Catholic Church. For fifteen years I was convinced we had all the answers and that none of it was politically Liberal. I always voted, but always third party, because I considered the Republican Party far too liberal, just part of the two-party conspiracy against the true American Way.
Continuing my third party ways, I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996. However, when I found out just before the election in 2000that Bush II was a three-time loser (a rowdy, a drunk, a drunk driver) I voted for Gore in protest of the Republicans putting up such an awful candidate. By 2004 Bush had turned me into a Liberal, and I voted for Kerry after my candidate Dennis Kucinich had lost badly. And in 2008 Kucinich quit just before I had a chance to vote for him here in California.
Do I sound like a brain-washed Liberal Democrat, Ty?
And in a prior post you implied that I was not intelligent. Ty, my IQ is 145. And that's rare enough in TWeb (probably only Jezz and Justin are similarly "intelligent") to explain why I am so disliked.
Adam

[TyRockwell]

And you are still going downhill. :teeth:

[shadowmaster]

Well, Ty,
TWeb bios don't tell much about us, and even following all my posts you wouldn't get my political "testimony", so here goes.
In high school in the late 50's I persuaded both my parents to switch from Democrat to Republican. Yes, I was more of a "Modern Republican", but by 1960 I was an idealogue libertarian, the next step farther right from laissez faire capitalist. In 1961 I went farther right and joined the John Birch Society and sent not one, but three, 3,000 word essays in their competition, "Why Chief Justice Earl Warren Should be Impeached."
I "got religion" in 1962 and abandoned politics, but that was as much my cynicism that poeple could ever be persuaded to do the right thing (particularly from an original thinker like me) as from my new-found Christianity. Nevertheless, I remained "on board" and eagerly cast my first Presidential vote for Barry Goldwater.
I enlisted for Army Officer Candidate School during the Viet Nam War in 1966, a naive patriot who became even more "strike" during my training. However, two hours of sleep a night and virtually nothng to eat didn't agree with a beanpole like me, so I flunked out of OCS because I couldn't stay awake in class. Reduced to ordinary enlisted "GI Joe", I soon rebelled against being treated like an animal, and though I rose to E-5 (Sergeant level) I left the Army the next thing to a pacifist. A year of "flower-power" ideology (though I was never a "hippie") soon wilted, however, and I was back to my Rightist roots, particularly after I converted from Methodist to Roman Catholic in 1969. From 1970 to 1977 I was Legitimist Monarchist, than which there is nothing farther right than Nazi.
In 1977 I "got religion" again and got the Baptism in the Spirit and joined the Charismatic Renewal in the Roman Catholic Church. For fifteen years I was convinced we had all the answers and that none of it was politically Liberal. I always voted, but always third party, because I considered the Republican Party far too liberal, just part of the two-party conspiracy against the true American Way.
Continuing my third party ways, I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996. However, when I found out just before the election in 2000that Bush II was a three-time loser (a rowdy, a drunk, a drunk driver) I voted for Gore in protest of the Republicans putting up such an awful candidate. By 2004 Bush had turned me into a Liberal, and I voted for Kerry after my candidate Dennis Kucinich had lost badly. And in 2008 Kucinich quit just before I had a chance to vote for him here in California.
Do I sound like a brain-washed Liberal Democrat, Ty?

Nope. Just a very confused old man who cannot spell.
And in a prior post you implied that I was not intelligent. Ty, my IQ is 145. And that's rare enough in TWeb

Heck Adam, even Shadowmaster is higher than that and he does not feel above the intellectual level of numerous others on Tweb. You need to look around more.

.... Maybe you should have some fun on the spam threads to lighten up and reduce your inflated ego with some fun exercise.

heh heh heh


shadowmaster

[Adam]

Nope. Just a very confused old man who cannot spell.
heh heh heh
shadowmaster
"Sergeant" is the correct spelling. The diminutive "Sarge" causes most people to misspell it. Did I spell "Kucinich" wrong? The fact that the corporate media refused to report that he introduced 35 counts of impeachment this week makes it harder to keep in mind the spelling of his unusual name.
Adam

[shadowmaster]

"Sergeant" is the correct spelling. The diminutive "Sarge" causes most people to misspell it. Did I spell "Kucinich" wrong? The fact that the corporate media refused to report that he introduced 35 counts of impeachment this week makes it harder to keep in mind the spelling of his unusual name.
Adam

It is "people" that you spelled wrong.

Well, Ty,
I "got religion" in 1962 and abandoned politics, but that was as much my cynicism that poeple could ever be persuaded to do the right thing (particularly from an original thinker like me)

shadowmaster

[Adam]

It is "people" that you spelled wrong.
shadowmaster

OK, shadowmaster,
You got me.
Twice.
At least I proved that I can ordinarily spell well without using Spell-Checker (did I spell that right?).
Or that I've got such a big ego that I think I don't need Spell-Checker, even though I do?
Adam

[Jaltus]

OK, shadowmaster,
You got me.
Twice.
At least I proved that I can ordinarily spell well without using Spell-Checker (did I spell that right?).
Or that I've got such a big ego that I think I don't need Spell-Checker, even though I do?
Adam

I have a big ego, but I have web browser-enabled spell checker (thank you Mozilla).

My IQ is also rather above 145.

[shadowmaster]

I have a big ego, shadowmaster never doubted it. but I have web browser-enabled spell checker (thank you Mozilla). shadowmaster never doubted it.

My IQ is also rather above 145.

shadowmaster never doubted it.

[rogue06]

"Sergeant" is the correct spelling. The diminutive "Sarge" causes most people to misspell it. Did I spell "Kucinich" wrong? The fact that the corporate media refused to report that he introduced 35 counts of impeachment this week makes it harder to keep in mind the spelling of his unusual name.
Adam
(Emphasis Added by rogue06)

May I suggest that you do a Google news check with the key words "Kucinich" and "Impeachment" I saw 917 hits.

[Adam]

(Emphasis Added by rogue06)

May I suggest that you do a Google news check with the key words "Kucinich" and "Impeachment" I saw 917 hits.
Glad to hear that.
I didn't see it in any of my papers.
But I wouldn't believe anything I read in the corporate-controlled media, anyway.
Adam

[rogue06]

Glad to hear that.
I didn't see it in any of my papers.
But I wouldn't believe anything I read in the corporate-controlled media, anyway.
Adam

Including that Kucinich introduced 35 counts of impeachment against Bush? :ahem:

[Adam]

Including that Kucinich introduced 35 counts of impeachment against Bush? :ahem:
No. no, I got that from my "sources" even before he went to the floor of the House. I gave $100 to www.ImpeachBush.com a few months ago, they want more money from me now, so they keep me up to date.
Adam

[Jaltus]

No. no, I got that from my "sources" even before he went to the floor of the House. I gave $100 to www.ImpeachBush.com a few months ago, they want more money from me now, so they keep me up to date.
Adam

The info was on CNN, Fox News, etc. You really did not need to look very far.

[shadowmaster]

The info was on CNN, Fox News, etc. You really did not need to look very far.

No IQ>145 watches CNN.

[Adam]

The info was on CNN, Fox News, etc. You really did not need to look very far.
That's good, but I went back again through all my newspapers from last week and found nothing. I get both the Sacramento and Vacaville papers. I can't find Wednesday June 11th, however, and that was the most likely day for it to appear. Yet the vote approving sending it to the Judiciary Committee I would think came later.
Adam

[Jaltus]

No IQ>145 watches CNN.

We have to know what the <145 are seeing and believing.

[shadowmaster]

We have to know what the <145 are seeing and believing.

O.K.

[Adam]

That's good, but I went back again through all my newspapers from last week and found nothing. I get both the Sacramento and Vacaville papers. I can't find Wednesday June 11th, however, and that was the most likely day for it to appear. Yet the vote approving sending it to the Judiciary Committee I would think came later.
Adam
Still the same as June, no newspaper reports on impeaching Bush. That darned-old conservative bias again. That's what got us so enthused about the Iraq Fiasco, remember?
Meanwhile, people are still very likely to disagree with me about the Bush Depression of my OP in March.
Yes, now it's worse than a depression, it's the Bush Meltdown.
I had a job of ten years in which I was making $16.50 an hour. Since May I have been unemployed, only this coming week starting a temporary job at $14 an hour (inflation adjusted $10 or $11, I guess).
Here in California the unemployed have tripled in a year.
Adam

[Adam]

I notice that no one has yet challenged my thesis, saying instead that this is the First Bush Depression, since the 1990-92 downturn was only a recession. The debate now seems to be only about how bad this Depression will be, everyone now conceding that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression of the 1930's.
Adam

[Philosophickle]

I notice that no one has yet challenged my thesis, saying instead that this is the First Bush Depression, since the 1990-92 downturn was only a recession. The debate now seems to be only about how bad this Depression will be, everyone now conceding that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression of the 1930's.
Adam

Our economy has been worse at least two other times since the Great Depression. This is a financial crisis, not yet a full blown economic crisis. If unemployment goes through the roof like it did in the 30's, then we can talk about a depression. But I seriously doubt we will get to 25% unemployment. I have a hard time seeing 15%.

[Sheepdog]

Still the same as June, no newspaper reports on impeaching Bush. That darned-old conservative bias again. That's what got us so enthused about the Iraq Fiasco, remember?

yeah, and ever since they have been blaming everything on him from the housing bubble burst to the existence of hurricanes.

Meanwhile, people are still very likely to disagree with me about the Bush Depression of my OP in March.
Yes, now it's worse than a depression, it's the Bush Meltdown.
I had a job of ten years in which I was making $16.50 an hour. Since May I have been unemployed, only this coming week starting a temporary job at $14 an hour (inflation adjusted $10 or $11, I guess).

just a thought. maybe it's a good time to polish your resume and consider getting into a field with a higher demand.


anyways, as the Dopes has pointed out, it can get far worse, and it would have to before we'd call it a depression.

[Adam]

Our economy has been worse at least two other times since the Great Depression. This is a financial crisis, not yet a full blown economic crisis. If unemployment goes through the roof like it did in the 30's, then we can talk about a depression. But I seriously doubt we will get to 25% unemployment. I have a hard time seeing 15%.

It's about time for me to remind you guys that I called this right, it's a Depression that can only be compared to the Great Depression of the 1930's. None on the intervening recessions have caused everyone to lose faith in free enterprise (that encouraged all the CEOs to take all the money and run).
Adam

[Jaltus]

Sorry, still waiting for the unemployment to be high enough for it to be called a Depression. you will note that not a single TV station, not a single newspaper, not a single expert has called this a depression, and of course it would take more than one person's opinion to make it so anyway.

[Adam]

Sorry, still waiting for the unemployment to be high enough for it to be called a Depression. you will note that not a single TV station, not a single newspaper, not a single expert has called this a depression, and of course it would take more than one person's opinion to make it so anyway.
But they're all acknowledging it to be the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression. And it's hardly started.
Numbers? The Devil's in the details. The Bush Regime phonied up the way of counting unemployment to make them look less bad. Plus the people who have given up looking and those who havn't started looking because of dim job prospects (like people otherwise would not have who are going to college or grad school) never were counted.
And double it for people who don't count because they're working part-time or who are under-employed in a job below what they had before.
Adam

[Sheepdog]

But they're all acknowledging it to be the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression. And it's hardly started.

who are "they"? Obama and Co.?

Numbers? The Devil's in the details. The Bush Regime phonied up the way of counting unemployment to make them look less bad. Plus the people who have given up looking and those who havn't started looking because of dim job prospects (like people otherwise would not have who are going to college or grad school) never were counted.
And double it for people who don't count because they're working part-time or who are under-employed in a job below what they had before.

How are they using numbers differently from prior admins?

Anyways, Obama owns this recession now. He payed $800B in tax payer funny-money for it. It's his baby now. So perhaps this should be named the Obama Depression?

[Adam]

who are "they"? Obama and Co.?
How are they using numbers differently from prior admins?
Anyways, Obama owns this recession now. He payed $800B in tax payer funny-money for it. It's his baby now. So perhaps this should be named the Obama Depression?
I've given up for Lent the type of response this post calls for.
Adam

[Ex Nihilo]

I've given up for Lent the type of response this post calls for.
Adam

Hmm. Didn't you and I talk a while back about something similar to this? You are a Californian, right? So doesn't this mean your 10 year tenure was at some place like the Gap or something?

Seriously, if you are so fiscally responsible you would not be suffering right now. You seem to believe that somehow your leftist Californian mindset should matter above and beyond the fact that you are well represented in government now.

But then I don't see any posts by you criticising the absurd earmarks in this new Obama budget. 7.7 billion. A penny drop in the bucket of absurd spending now done by BOTH sides. Red 800/ Blue 800 and counting.

I don't care about color, I care about the fact that these people are collectively driving us and our children into a tax burden that we may not be able to repay. And for what? The simulus-"stimulus" in this case is not a stimulus at all, it's an establishment of the democratic (aka boarderline communist ideal that we are supposed to take care of those less fortunate with our money. No way man, you go bail out on your own dime, I worked hard to make a lot more money that you in a state that pays a lot less.

And ironically... it doesn't seem to matter which president is in office...

[joel]

None on the intervening recessions have caused everyone to lose faith in free enterprise

This one has not "caused everyone to lose faith in free enterprise". Strangely enough, both supporters of free markets and those who are less of a fan of free markets are saying "see, I told you so." (Of course, they can't both be right.)


(that encouraged all the CEOs to take all the money and run).
What does it mean for a CEO to "take all the money and run"? I'm not sure what you mean by this, or what it has to do with the preceding statement.

[Adam]

This one has not "caused everyone to lose faith in free enterprise". Strangely enough, both supporters of free markets and those who are less of a fan of free markets are saying "see, I told you so." (Of course, they can't both be right.The deflationof the Greenspan Bubble led even Alan Greenspan to call for government intervention, thus repudiating his Libertarianism.

What does it mean for a CEO to "take all the money and run"? I'm not sure what you mean by this, or what it has to do with the preceding statement.
Havn't been reading the papers, have you? The same CEOs who took hundreds of millions in salaries and bonuses supposedly for making their companies successful next took as much or more for driving their companies into the ground. "Heads I win, tails you lose." They rewarded themselves as much for failure and bad behavior as they did for whatever their part was in fraudulently raising reported earnings above actual and setting up trillions of dollars in losses for investors when the over-priced stocks necessarily tumbled.
Adam

[Adam]

Ex Nihilo--
You are very lucky it's Lent! Allow me to at least say that you are confusing me with someone else. I'm in California, and I lost my job of ten years, but I do accounting only in small businesses, not the Gap. I have a long history as an extreme Rightist, then Perot supporter, never a Democrat before 2000.
Adam

[joel]

The deflationof the Greenspan Bubble led even Alan Greenspan to call for government intervention, thus repudiating his Libertarianism.

Yeah, Greenspan isn't much of a Libertarian. Maybe he was back in the 50's or 60's, but he grew to love big government over time. He's been a fan of social programs, including socialized medicine. He's been a fan of central planning of banks, money, and interest rates. He has now blamed free markets for his failures. He claims that he is baffled and doesn't know what's going on--why we are in this crisis. If anything, this only strengthens my belief that free markets work. Only the (laissez-faire) 'Austrian' economists seem to know what's going on and warned us of this crisis years ago.


Havn't been reading the papers, have you? The same CEOs who took hundreds of millions in salaries and bonuses supposedly for making their companies successful next took as much or more for driving their companies into the ground. "Heads I win, tails you lose." They rewarded themselves as much for failure and bad behavior as they did for whatever their part was in fraudulently raising reported earnings above actual and setting up trillions of dollars in losses for investors when the over-priced stocks necessarily tumbled.
They rewarded themselves? If you are talking about severance packages, then they didn't "take the money and run"; rather it means that they were fired. In retrospect the shareholders lost money because they put in place someone who would lose them a bunch of money, and they promised them a hefty severance package. The shareholders made a big mistake, and paid for it. If the CEO committed fraud (or was negligent or whatever), then the shareholders ought to press charges or sue.

[Sparko]

So if its all Bush's fault and Obama is gonna fix everything cuz thats whut democrats do!

....then why does the "depression" get worse and worse, the more Obama talks or does anything?

As soon as Obama opens his mouth, the stock market drops some serious pointage.

perhaps we can end this recession just by gagging Mr. Obama?

[Adam]

Yeah, Greenspan isn't much of a Libertarian. Maybe he was back in the 50's or 60's, but he grew to love big government over time. He's been a fan of social programs, including socialized medicine. He's been a fan of central planning of banks, money, and interest rates. He has now blamed free markets for his failures. He claims that he is baffled and doesn't know what's going on--why we are in this crisis. If anything, this only strengthens my belief that free markets work. Only the (laissez-faire) 'Austrian' economists seem to know what's going on and warned us of this crisis years ago.
They rewarded themselves? If you are talking about severance packages, then they didn't "take the money and run"; rather it means that they were fired. In retrospect the shareholders lost money because they put in place someone who would lose them a bunch of money, and they promised them a hefty severance package. The shareholders made a big mistake, and paid for it. If the CEO committed fraud (or was negligent or whatever), then the shareholders ought to press charges or sue.
Sparko, huh?
I thought I'd have to invoke my Lenten privilege to spare you a blistering retort. After all, you're on my "Dirty Dozen" list (which also means I pray for you each day). But I largely agree with your response, I am as disgusted with the Big Money system we have had in this country ever since Reagan took office. I have not had my money in stocks for a very long time, except for what was involuntarily there in my 401-k. And of course that system is not going to go out and punish the guilty as you suggest is right (and it is), it settles for punishing the innocent (like you and me).
Laissez-faire didn't work very well in preventing or dealing with the Great Depression.
Adam

[Ex Nihilo]

Ex Nihilo--
You are very lucky it's Lent! Allow me to at least say that you are confusing me with someone else. I'm in California, and I lost my job of ten years, but I do accounting only in small businesses, not the Gap. I have a long history as an extreme Rightist, then Perot supporter, never a Democrat before 2000.
Adam

Yet when you swung left you went waaaaaay left. The irrational left is just as bad as the irrational right.

So you should probably consider changing you political alignment to "irrational"

[joel]

Sparko, huh?

:huh:


I thought I'd have to invoke my Lenten privilege to spare you a blistering retort. After all, you're on my "Dirty Dozen" list
Have we spoken prior to this thread? I don't know what your list is or how I got on it.


Laissez-faire didn't work very well in preventing or dealing with the Great Depression.
That's because laissez-faire wasn't used in dealing with the Great Depression. Hoover immediately rejected the recommendations of the laissez-faire economists and began to implement (what was later known as) big-government Keynesianism. That is probably one of the reasons it was so bad and lasted so long. And the inflationary boom that likely was the primary cause of the Depression was the result of the Federal Reserve's rapidly inflating the money supply through bank credit expansion--not laissez-faire. (Also the high tariffs during the 20's and 30's helped make a bad situation.) Again, the 'Austrian' economists knew in the 20's that things were going bad, while everyone else thought they were great.

[Jimmy Higgins]

So if its all Bush's fault and Obama is gonna fix everything cuz thats whut democrats do!

....then why does the "depression" get worse and worse, the more Obama talks or does anything?

As soon as Obama opens his mouth, the stock market drops some serious pointage.

perhaps we can end this recession just by gagging Mr. Obama?Just for persepctive, the DOW started it's fall (http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart1:symbol=%5Edji;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined) in October of 2007.

Between October 2007 and October 2008, ie, the election even happened, the market had dropped 40%. Between Oct '07 and Jul '08, it had dropped 20%.

[Adam]

:huh:
Have we spoken prior to this thread? I don't know what your list is or how I got on it.
I don't know you from "Adam". I was replying to Sparko, who knows quite well that a year or so ago I named him as a charter member of the "Dirty Dozen" along with Apologia Phoenix, FlimFlamBoyant, jason, jordanriver, JPHolding, LPOT, Little Shepherd, Mountain Man, OneFollowing Him, Sparko, Turgonian, and Vigilante. Ten of them made the list for their brutal interpretation of OT horrors, JPH and LPOT for continual truculence.
Later I dropped Jason (who had quit TWeb) and Turgonian (who seemed like a nice guy after all, whose youth had led him temporarily astray) and replaced them with Jack Bauer and Darth Executor (whose youth just keeps leading him more and more astray, so I stopped giving him a pass).
Nominations for inclusion in the Dirty Dozen I welcome, as well as suggestions for whom to drop from the list for either leaving TWeb or showing sufficient signs of humanity.

That's because laissez-faire wasn't used in dealing with the Great Depression. Hoover immediately rejected the recommendations of the laissez-faire economists and began to implement (what was later known as) big-government Keynesianism. That is probably one of the reasons it was so bad and lasted so long. And the inflationary boom that likely was the primary cause of the Depression was the result of the Federal Reserve's rapidly inflating the money supply through bank credit expansion--not laissez-faire. (Also the high tariffs during the 20's and 30's helped make a bad situation.) Again, the 'Austrian' economists knew in the 20's that things were going bad, while everyone else thought they were great.
Your beliefs are incorrect. True, Hoover instituted programs like the RFC, but they were precursors of Bush43 programs that benefitted only wealthy big business entities--Keynes has not even published while Hoover was POTUS. The Great Depression lasted so long because FDR was not a Keynesian and improperly tried to balance the budget while the Depression was still severe.
But you are right about the guilt of the Federal Reserve Bank. They facilitated the Mellon Bubble of the 1920's and precipitated the Great Depression by reversing course.
Adam

[Bill the Cat]

Does anyone else find it funny that Adam hasn't changed his tag line?

[Bill the Cat]

Just for persepctive, the DOW started it's fall (http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart1:symbol=%5Edji;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined) in October of 2007.

Between October 2007 and October 2008, ie, the election even happened, the market had dropped 40%. Between Oct '07 and Jul '08, it had dropped 20%.

And?? Eisenhower (R) presided through 3 recessions and still had the Dow increase over 100% while LBJ (D) had the Dow at over 1000 in the beginning of 1966, only to see it drop to just above 700 in 8 months (a 30% drop), and Gerald Ford (R) had the Dow improve from 530 to over 1000 in a matter of 1 1/2 years.

[Adam]

If you're talking about my Title, Bill, I took until today to find where I could change it from "Impeach Bush". Since "Prosecute Bush" is unlikely to happen or at least not of our first priority in digging ourselves out from the pit Bush dug for us, I chose to go back to my original aspiration that the the "Captain Kirk" whe would unify the Apostolic Succession adherents in a coherent bloc against the Dirty Dozen types. (A forlorn hope, as not even any discussion continues any more in the Ecclesiology 201 forum.)
If you mean my signature, "Save the Constitution" still applies, as Bush can still be tried for his crimes against it.
Adam

[Bill the Cat]

If you're talking about my Title, Bill, I took until today to find where I could change it from "Impeach Bush".

It was that. And I like the new one BTW! :thumb:

Since "Prosecute Bush" is unlikely to happen or at least not of our first priority in digging ourselves out from the pit Bush dug for us,

:ahem:

I chose to go back to my original aspiration that the the "Captain Kirk" whe would unify the Apostolic Succession adherents in a coherent bloc against the Dirty Dozen types. (A forlorn hope, as not even any discussion continues any more in the Ecclesiology 201 forum.)

It's the ebb and flow of forum life...

If you mean my signature, "Save the Constitution" still applies, as Bush can still be tried for his crimes against it.
Adam

He committed no crime (like Clinton did)

[Sparko]

Just for persepctive, the DOW started it's fall (http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart1:symbol=%5Edji;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined) in October of 2007.

Between October 2007 and October 2008, ie, the election even happened, the market had dropped 40%. Between Oct '07 and Jul '08, it had dropped 20%.

an overall decline is not what I was talking about. I am speaking of a direct link between Obama making one of his speeches and the very next day the stock market tumbles a significant amount. On at least two occasions.

[Jimmy Higgins]

an overall decline is not what I was talking about.I understand that... which is why I thought I'd add the rather significant truth that the market had dropped 40% (since its high) before the election even happened.
I am speaking of a direct link between Obama making one of his speeches and the very next day the stock market tumbles a significant amount. On at least two occasions.Can you cite the two dates of these occasions? Thanks.

[Adam]

Regarding my Post #99 (too late to edit after 30 minutes), my main criteria for placing TWebbers on the Dirty Dozen list was not their insensitivity regarding OT catastrophes (I agree that bad things can happen to bad people), but that they revel in the eternal punishment in Hell for bad people (as I reason that God being God could have prevented people from being bad or could have rehabilitated them or at least not imposed infinite punishment on a finite crime).
Adam

[Adam]

I understand that... which is why I thought I'd add the rather significant truth that the market had dropped 40% (since its high) before the election even happened.
Can you cite the two dates of these occasions? Thanks.
I'm on your side, Jimmy, but I remember and acknowledge that the market dropped the day after Pres. Obama gave his State of the Union speech in February. But that could be explained as a momentary result of the pro-Obama people listening to and admiring his speech while the anti-Obama people were planning which stocks to sell. Or just assume that some institutional investors were Republicans (an easy assumption) and they wanted to make Obama look bad by selling fund stocks (not even their own money!) and choosing that day to do it.
Adam

[Sparko]

Regarding my Post #99 (too late to edit after 30 minutes), my main criteria for placing TWebbers on the Dirty Dozen list was not their insensitivity regarding OT catastrophes (I agree that bad things can happen to bad people), but that they revel in the eternal punishment in Hell for bad people (as I reason that God being God could have prevented people from being bad or could have rehabilitated them or at least not imposed infinite punishment on a finite crime).
Adam

HMMM?? Where have I ever reveled in anyone going to Hell for eternity? I dread that anyone will go there, but that is what I believe the bible teaches. Believing in hell doesn't mean I LIKE the idea or "revel" in the idea.

you put me on your "dirty dozen" list because your feelings were hurt because you got nominated for the screwball awards so often. see the link in my signature.

[joel]

I don't know you from "Adam". I was replying to Sparko.

No, you replied to me (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2601094&postcount=95). Perhaps you misread the name.


Keynes has not even published while Hoover was POTUS.
True he had not yet published the General Theory (though he published other things before and during Hoover's administration). That's why I said "what was later known as". (The ideas that Keynes espoused were around before his General Theory; he just came up with a new rationalization for them.) Perhaps Hoover and FDR's administrations did not exactly match your interpretation of Keynes. I don't care. My main point still stands that laissez-faire was not to blame for (e.g., for 'not working very well in preventing or dealing with') the Great Depression.

[Adam]

HMMM?? Where have I ever reveled in anyone going to Hell for eternity? I dread that anyone will go there, but that is what I believe the bible teaches. Believing in hell doesn't mean I LIKE the idea or "revel" in the idea.
you put me on your "dirty dozen" list because your feelings were hurt because you got nominated for the screwball awards so often. see the link in my signature.
Technically, you're probably correct. One would have to be particularly cruel to enjoy telling all his opponents that they're going to suffer horribly for eternity.
As I recall it was the Curmudgeon who alerted me to the fact that I had been nominated (and won?--I don't recall) "Screwball of the Month". Note that he is not on my Dirty Dozen list and was never even considered at all "worthy" of same.
In the bigger picture, however, Sparko, you are equally combative as JPHolding always was (when he had time to post routinely all through TWeb--I never look at his Tektonics section anymore, so I wouldn't even know if I had been nominated again in the last year and a half). If I were to drop you from the Dirty Dozen because you don't "like" eternal punishment in Hell, I would have to add you back for the same reason JPH and LPOT are on the list--they (and you) insult and denigrate people and (far as I can tell) enjoy doing so.
Adam

[Sparko]

Technically, you're probably correct. One would have to be particularly cruel to enjoy telling all his opponents that they're going to suffer horribly for eternity.
As I recall it was the Curmudgeon who alerted me to the fact that I had been nominated (and won?--I don't recall) "Screwball of the Month". Note that he is not on my Dirty Dozen list and was never even considered at all "worthy" of same.
In the bigger picture, however, Sparko, you are equally combative as JPHolding always was (when he had time to post routinely all through TWeb--I never look at his Tektonics section anymore, so I wouldn't even know if I had been nominated again in the last year and a half). If I were to drop you from the Dirty Dozen because you don't "like" eternal punishment in Hell, I would have to add you back for the same reason JPH and LPOT are on the list--they (and you) insult and denigrate people and (far as I can tell) enjoy doing so.
Adam

Actually no I don't enjoy denigrating people. I do have a sarcastic nature that comes across a little "meaner" in text than I like sometimes, but Adam, you are just as ornery as I am. Just look at how you responded to me (technically joel) here in this thread. I made a comment about Obama and you instantly made a personal attack against me.

But I enjoy being on your list, so please don't take me off.

Loves, hugs and kisses from your enemy,

Sparko.
:flowers:

[Adam]

No, you replied to me (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2601094&postcount=95). Perhaps you misread the name.

You are correct. Sparko's very short post was right above your post and I misread your post as his.
Just like me to find some redeeming grace in Sparko where there was none. I should have known your post was not Sparko's, because Sparko never concedes any ground, he just attacks and rarely even bothers defending. You had something worth saying (whether wrong or not), unlike Sparko's usual.
Adam

[Sparko]

You are correct. Sparko's very short post was right above your post and I misread your post as his.
Just like me to find some redeeming grace in Sparko where there was none. I should have known your post was not Sparko's, because Sparko never concedes any ground, he just attacks and rarely even bothers defending. You had something worth saying (whether wrong or not), unlike Sparko's usual.
Adam

I am sure glad you never make ad hominems or insult people personally. It makes you such a better person than I am. :yes:

[Jimmy Higgins]

an overall decline is not what I was talking about. I am speaking of a direct link between Obama making one of his speeches and the very next day the stock market tumbles a significant amount. On at least two occasions.I understand that... which is why I thought I'd add the rather significant truth that the market had dropped 40% (since its high) before the election even happened.
Can you cite the two dates of these occasions? Thanks.
Could I please get an answer to this?

[shadowmaster]

Could I please get an answer to this?

google.com

[Sparko]

Could I please get an answer to this?

Jimmy, I can't find the exact dates of his "stimulus" speeches/press conferences, I spent an hour looking. But I clearly remember the next day at work, checking my stocks on ebay and going "Holy crapola!" and hearing on the news how the stock market took a large hit. and the second time it was said to be one of the largest drops in recent history. I think the second time was around the end of February.

On the second big drop, I actually went in and BOUGHT some stock, thinking that the market would recover from the speech pretty quick and I could think of it as a "sale" price.

[shadowmaster]

Could I please get an answer to this?

The Shadowmaster provides the following chart. The big drop in October 2008 came about at the time of the 700 billion dollar bailout bill. The market has not liked all of these measures, for what it is worth.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jimmy, I can't find the exact dates of his "stimulus" speeches/press conferences, I spent an hour looking. But I clearly remember the next day at work, checking my stocks on ebay and going "Holy crapola!" and hearing on the news how the stock market took a large hit. and the second time it was said to be one of the largest drops in recent history. I think the second time was around the end of February.

On the second big drop, I actually went in and BOUGHT some stock, thinking that the market would recover from the speech pretty quick and I could think of it as a "sale" price.Thanks for actually trying to find the dates. I do appreciate the effort. So lets check the numbers, shall we.

Obama's State of the Union address was on 2/24/09. Below are the DOW numbers for the week.

Mon 2/23/09 - Open: 7115 Close: 7351. Up 236 pts
Tues 2/24/09 - Open: 7351 Close: 7271. Down 80 pts
Wed 2/25/09 - Open: 7271 Close: 7182. Down 89 pts
Thur 2/26/09 - Open: 7182 Close: 7063. Down 119 pts
Fri 2/27/09 - Open: 7063 Close: 6763. Down 300 pts

So with Obama's speech on the evening of the 24th, we see a that the market had already gone down 80pts, before he talked. The following day, it went down 89 pts. So that isn't exactly what I'd consider a huge drop. Later in the week, we'd see a big fall. But what was that fall about? The Citigroup (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090227/na_us_stocks_premarket.html?.v=3) deal, not Obama's speech.
Stocks are pointing to a sharply lower open as investors worry about Citigroup Inc.'s plans to give a bigger stake to the government and as data show the economy stumbled more than expected in the final three months of 2008.
I fear that many are looking at the stock market in an Obama bubble as if the only thing affecting the market are the words coming solely from Obama's mouth... and not the economic realities that are happening day after day.

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Shadowmaster provides the following chart. The big drop in October 2008 came about at the time of the 700 billion dollar bailout bill. The market has not liked all of these measures, for what it is worth.
Partisan Troll Timeline:

2001 - 2006: World great.
2007 - 2008: Economy starts to buckle once Democrats take majorities in Congress.
Oct. 2009: For no reason at all, Congress passes a huge $700 billion, but up to over $1+ trillion deficit bill.
Next Day: Market goes to heck in a hand basket because of reckless, non-instigated deficit bill.
Any Time Obama Talks: Market goes down because Obama is an evil commie bastard.

[Sparko]

Thanks for actually trying to find the dates. I do appreciate the effort. So lets check the numbers, shall we.

Obama's State of the Union address was on 2/24/09. Below are the DOW numbers for the week.

Mon 2/23/09 - Open: 7115 Close: 7351. Up 236 pts
Tues 2/24/09 - Open: 7351 Close: 7271. Down 80 pts
Wed 2/25/09 - Open: 7271 Close: 7182. Down 89 pts
Thur 2/26/09 - Open: 7182 Close: 7063. Down 119 pts
Fri 2/27/09 - Open: 7063 Close: 6763. Down 300 pts

So with Obama's speech on the evening of the 24th, we see a that the market had already gone down 80pts, before he talked. The following day, it went down 89 pts. So that isn't exactly what I'd consider a huge drop. Later in the week, we'd see a big fall. But what was that fall about? The Citigroup (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090227/na_us_stocks_premarket.html?.v=3) deal, not Obama's speech.

I fear that many are looking at the stock market in an Obama bubble as if the only thing affecting the market are the words coming solely from Obama's mouth... and not the economic realities that are happening day after day.

Thanks Jimmy but it wasn't the state of the union speech I am thinking about. The record drop I am remembering came on March 2 when the dow dropped 300 points and fell below 7000 for the first time in 12 years. I believe that Obama had some press conference jus the day before, clarifying his stimulus package, and that is the news conference I can't find. Perhaps I am misremembering it but I don't think so. I clearly remember thinking that next day that Obama should just shut up and the economy would do better.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Thanks Jimmy but it wasn't the state of the union speech I am thinking about. The record drop I am remembering came on March 2 when the dow dropped 300 points and fell below 7000 for the first time in 12 years.Okay... based on a March 2nd date, we had this news....
As in the U.S. and Europe, investors across the region were shaken after figures Friday showed gross domestic product in the world's largest economy shrank at a 6.2 percent annual pace at the end of last year.
link (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090301/world_markets.html?.v=6)

Also the market went up on March 3rd by 150 points.

I believe that Obama had some press conference jus the day before, clarifying his stimulus package, and that is the news conference I can't find. Perhaps I am misremembering it but I don't think so. I clearly remember thinking that next day that Obama should just shut up and the economy would do better.When data comes out that the economy dropped an annual rate of 6+% in a quarter... the market is going down.

You seem to be looking at Obama and the market in a bubble.

[Sparko]

Okay... based on a March 2nd date, we had this news....

link (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090301/world_markets.html?.v=6)

Also the market went up on March 3rd by 150 points.

Like I said. I thought of it as a "sale" - I figured it was a kneejerk reaction to Obama's claims regarding the stimulus "spend us out of a hole" talk. And it was. that was my point. He speaks, the market drops.

the asian markets dropped in response to OUR market dropping. And Our Market dropped right after Obama talked.

looking at the charts the drop started on Friday the 27th and continued through on Monday the 2nd.




When data comes out that the economy dropped an annual rate of 6+% in a quarter... the market is going down.tomato, tomahto. Obama talks, the market dropped. If you want to blame the fall on something else, then fine. I see it as Obama scaring the crap out of anyone who has any sense left.



You seem to be looking at Obama and the market in a bubble.and you seem to be excluding Obama and the democrats from any blame.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Like I said. I thought of it as a "sale" - I figured it was a kneejerk reaction to Obama's claims regarding the stimulus "spend us out of a hole" talk. And it was. that was my point. He speaks, the market drops.

the asian markets dropped in response to OUR market dropping. And Our Market dropped right after Obama talked.*sigh*

Dude, on Friday, the US announced that the GDP shrunk by an annual rate of 6.2% over the past quarter. THAT is what the market reacted to. The Asian Market fell because it was already the weekend in Asia. On Monday, it reacted to the terrible GDP report.

tomato, tomahto. Obama talks, the market dropped. If you want to blame the fall on something else, then fine. I see it as Obama scaring the crap out of anyone who has any sense left.Are you honestly trying to tell me that you honestly think that the news of the GDP shrinking by 6.2% in the previous quarter would have barely any affect on the economy?! The market dropped 300 pts on Feb 27th because of the GDP numbers. To blame Obama opening his mouth seems terribly misaimed.

[Sparko]

*sigh*

Dude, on Friday, the US announced that the GDP shrunk by an annual rate of 6.2% over the past quarter. THAT is what the market reacted to. The Asian Market fell because it was already the weekend in Asia. On Monday, it reacted to the terrible GDP report.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that you honestly think that the news of the GDP shrinking by 6.2% in the previous quarter would have barely any affect on the economy?! The market dropped 300 pts on Feb 27th because of the GDP numbers. To blame Obama opening his mouth seems terribly misaimed.

Jimmy, in case you haven't caught on yet, my comments are about as accurate as the OP is at blaming Bush for the depression.

My initial quip was in reaction to the dumbass idea that Bush caused the depression, so I said "Obama did it"

Yes I do think that Obama's constant "reasurring" of the people that he can cure our ills by spending more does affect the stock market negatively, but NO I do not think that he is the primary or sole cause of the economic downfall we have seen recently in the stock market.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jimmy, in case you haven't caught on yet, my comments are about as accurate as the OP is at blaming Bush for the depression. Dude, you want to set the bar that low for yourself? Of course, had you ever argued that the recession that started very early in Bush's 1st term was a "Clinton Recession"? Just curious.

My initial quip was in reaction to the dumbass idea that Bush caused the depression, so I said "Obama did it"

Yes I do think that Obama's constant "reasurring" of the people that he can cure our ills by spending more does affect the stock market negatively, but NO I do not think that he is the primary or sole cause of the economic downfall we have seen recently in the stock market.If that is the case, then maybe you should have said that earlier. My point was to take whatever speeches or comments he gave, to actually look at the stock market, then fish for the news stories that day to see how much of the market movement was due to Obama and due to the economic news.

I just want the truth. Also should note, there are certainly conservatives running around saying that Obama and his mouth is the reason the economy is tanking.

Did Bush create this Depression? Not really. The seeds were sown by Phil Graham and signed off by Congress and President Clinton. Of course, Bush was bragging about housing being higher in '04 than in '96, as evidence as him having a better first term than Clinton. So the whole idea that W didn't like the housing "boom", is ridiculous. Furthermore, the housing market was the only thing driving the economy for a while, so there was no way he was going to put the brakes on that. Some conservatives like to say that Bush wanted reforms to keep Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in line, but this stuff was well after the point of no return, in addition Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae weren't as much the issue as the complete lack of enforced regulation of the bonds being packaged and rated. That could be a Bush issue, I really don't know. The regulatory agencies for the housing market have done such a bad job, I have no idea who is to blame for that, other than probably Government as a whole.

Ultimately, most knew that there were bubbles everywhere... what no one knew was the extent of how intertwined all of these markets and invisible markets were and how bad it would get.

[Sparko]

Jimmy, there is no depression.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jimmy, there is no depression.Umm.... well, that may be a bit of a slip in the keys for me. I meant recession... however, the depth of this thing may end up being a depression. Look at the market. It has lost 55% of its value in less than 18 months. Unemployment is increasing rather quickly. And there doesn't appear to be a bottom yet.

[Sparko]

If I had liquid cash, I would be dumping it into the market. It's like a sale. The market will eventually climb back up, and even higher.

This is like the pre-dotcom bubble market prices.

I usually invest in index funds (funds that follow the market itself) rather than individual stocks.

but right now I am wanting to take advantage of the low cost of buying a house right now. The prices are down and the interest rates are down. Its bargain time!

[Jimmy Higgins]

If I had liquid cash, I would be dumping it into the market. It's like a sale. The market will eventually climb back up, and even higher. Technically, that doesn't refute I just said. You know... just saying. Besides I don't have that confidence in the market at all. Why not?

1) Have no idea, other than WWE, which companies will exist in 5 years.

2) Don't want to buy a company at $15 a share now (perhaps at $30 months ago), watch it go to $7 and then they get bought out at $10.

3) While during the downturn I have up'd my retirement contributions, there is no guarantee that the stock market will return to 10,000 in the next 20 years. Or 8,000 for that matter. I gauge that what I'm doing is a risk, but the upside is better than the downside, at least what I'm investing now. Simply put, a few weeks ago, I saw stocks that I wanted to take advantage of, but held off. Those deals have gotten even sweeter now. The market keeps dropping.

but right now I am wanting to take advantage of the low cost of buying a house right now. The prices are down and the interest rates are down. Its bargain time!Not a bad time to buy a house if you have the capital, for sure. My home right now is the only investment that isn't tanking on me right now. And it seconds as my home... or is that firsts... bah...

[Sheepdog]

Partisan Troll Timeline:

2001 - 2006: World great.

while the post-9/11 economy was lackluster, we were recovering from the 2001 recession.

2007 - 2008: Economy starts to buckle once Democrats take majorities in Congress.

this is not the "Partisan Troll Timeline," it's the fact. As the The National Bureau of Economic Research pointed out, inexplicably late, we've been in a recession since Dec. 2007.


Oct. 2009: For no reason at all, Congress passes a huge $700 billion, but up to over $1+ trillion deficit bill.

Sorry. you liberals and moderates lost the right to complain about deficits.
62705

Next Day: Market goes to heck in a hand basket because of reckless, non-instigated deficit bill.
Any Time Obama Talks: Market goes down because Obama is an evil commie bastard.

Well, that and he seeps pessimism regarding the economy.

[Jimmy Higgins]

How in the world does a troll manage to become a moderator?

What I find funny is that I've already noted many times here that I'm not particularly for the Obama budget. Of course, you just want to broad brush me because it makes it easier for you to look "right".

As far as the 2001 to 2006 economy... maybe you hadn't noticed it, but all that growth was called back by the economy, so it really was never real.

[shadowmaster]

Partisan Troll Timeline:

2001 - 2006: World great.
2007 - 2008: Economy starts to buckle once Democrats take majorities in Congress.
Oct. 2009: For no reason at all, Congress passes a huge $700 billion, but up to over $1+ trillion deficit bill.
Next Day: Market goes to heck in a hand basket because of reckless, non-instigated deficit bill.
Any Time Obama Talks: Market goes down because Obama is an evil commie bastard.

Shadowmaster posts real data.

Jimmy posts usual Liberal bullcrap and then wonders why others mock him.

[Adam]

I am sure glad you never make ad hominems or insult people personally. It makes you such a better person than I am. :yes:
Mea culpa. And it being Lent and all.
That's what's so good about being Catholic. I can sin and be forgiven after confessing. (Then I can sin again.)
Actually, I quit RC in 1992. But I consider myself "Catholic" even though I'm now a Lutheran. (The Augsburg Confession in 1530 was supposed to be a reformed version of Roman Catholicism.)
Adam

[Sparko]

Technically, that doesn't refute I just said. You know... just saying. Besides I don't have that confidence in the market at all. Why not?

1) Have no idea, other than WWE, which companies will exist in 5 years.

2) Don't want to buy a company at $15 a share now (perhaps at $30 months ago), watch it go to $7 and then they get bought out at $10.

which is why I invest in index funds (ETFs - Exchange Traded Funds). Like IVV which follows the S&P500. They are similar to mutual funds, in that they are conglomerate stocks of various companies that the index uses to track the market. The companies change from time to time, but it is transparent to you. I have relatively few single company stocks. Usually they are just companies I like and want to feel like I am a part of, not to get rich on, although it would be nice to be in on the ground floor of a stock like Microsoft once.


Not a bad time to buy a house if you have the capital, for sure. My home right now is the only investment that isn't tanking on me right now. And it seconds as my home... or is that firsts... bah...

true.

[Sparko]

How in the world does a troll manage to become a moderator?

Good looks?

yeah that's it. Good looks. :smug:

[djdavo]

[quote=Adam;2282586]This thread is to discuss what is a depression and what are the political interests in labelling an economic crisis as merely a recession or as not even a recession.
The thread title is not intended as a statement of fact that the current mortgage meltdown, credit crunch at banks, lay-offs and announcements of huge future lay-offs, and massive write-offs of billions of dollars in losses, is itself a depression. It does take for granted that this is a least a recession, but opens a discussion on the political motivations for refusing to label it as such. /quote]

apparently, you ALREADY LABELED IT AS THE SECOND BUSH DEPRESSION.

much of this crisis was largely caused by DEMOCRATS thinking it'd be a good idea to legislate that BANKS should loan people money for MORTGAGES that don't deserve mortgages (see bill clinton,barney frank)

[Sheepdog]

How in the world does a troll manage to become a moderator?

What I find funny is that I've already noted many times here that I'm not particularly for the Obama budget. Of course, you just want to broad brush me because it makes it easier for you to look "right".

i just assume you voted for Obama. you goons want to put Bush around my neck because I voted for him (lesser of two evils, both times) i'll make you an Obama necklace.

As far as the 2001 to 2006 economy... maybe you hadn't noticed it, but all that growth was called back by the economy, so it really was never real.

so it really was never real? please. please, tell me you don't believe that, had gas prices not exploded and the housing market not imploded, that we'd be in the same place today.

two can play at this game. the economy under Clinton was not real because it was based on a tech bubble which popped shortly after his admin. even i'm not that partisan: there were some good things that came forth under his admin.

[Sheepdog]

Good looks?

yeah that's it. Good looks. :smug:

They call me "coffee". I grind so fine.

[Jimmy Higgins]

i just assume you voted for Obama. you goons want to put Bush around my neck because I voted for him (lesser of two evils, both times) i'll make you an Obama necklace.I voted for Obama. Thing is, Obama has been in charge for a couple months... you are judging him as if his second term is nearing an end.

so it really was never real? please. please, tell me you don't believe that, had gas prices not exploded and the housing market not imploded, that we'd be in the same place today. The housing market wasn't real. Lots of money has been lost there.

two can play at this game. the economy under Clinton was not real because it was based on a tech bubble which popped shortly after his admin. even i'm not that partisan: there were some good things that came forth under his admin.First off, haven't blamed the housing bubble on Bush. So right off the bat, the partisan charge is baseless.

There is also another difference. The Internet bubble bursted... but there was still a new industry, the Google's, eBay's, Amazon's to show for it. A whole new wave of interaction was solidified. The housing bubble, a lot of people lost money and there is nothing to show for it.

[Ex Nihilo]

There is also another difference. The Internet bubble bursted... but there was still a new industry, the Google's, eBay's, Amazon's to show for it. A whole new wave of interaction was solidified. The housing bubble, a lot of people lost money and there is nothing to show for it.

I just want to address this little part. The latin phrase for this situation is pretty clear and obviously very old...

caveat emptor

Part of the problem is that for some reason people began to think that their houses were intrest proof investments. Houses are a good investment because the usually appreciate while you are spending your money on something you will need anyway.

The process of people speculating on houses to turn a profit is a dangerous game. These people deserved to lose their money. Why? Because they weren't good enough to see it coming, or they weren't buying up properly. In poker if you play in a game to big, it's not a theory, it's a fact that you will go broke. Why? Because you are going to have a downswing eventually. It will happen, it's only a matter of time. This is much the same way. If you only had two houses, but you paid for them in cash, then right now you are golden because you own them and are likely renting one (or both) at a profit over what you paid for them in cash.

The process of people buying too much house and then leveraging their future earnings to pay for something they could barely afford? Sorry, I feel no pity for those people either. It's not my fault that they are dumb, and they deserve to lose their money as well.

Now for the people that are losing their jobs because of these sorts of mentalities? I do feel for them on some level. A lot of the job loss is centered around fear. If people would allow the market to correct somewhat, drive prices down and watch that money that never really existed evaporated into the ether it came from, then maybe we could get on with our lives.

But that's a non-economist talking.