500
Well, the Dow has now lost over 500 points since the election of Scott Brown.
Of course, the Republicans who tried to blame the fall of the stock market on Obama until it started zooming upward, when strangely enough, he had nothing to do with it, will deny to their dying breath that the current mini-collapse is in any way related to Scott Brown.
Well, here's what I think: The market collapsed in 2008 due to the miserable Republican "management" of our economy. All of a sudden, people are afraid that what seemed impossible could very well happen: that the stupid American electorate can be gulled into giving control of our country back to the very people who caused all of the damage. It didn't seem possible that Americans could be so self destructive, but now investors are beginning to worry. And most businesses have figured out that nothing could have done more for them than for the government to take the burden of providing health care off of their backs; but now something that benefits almost nobody and hurts almost everybody looks like it might just happen. And if voters are that willing to collaborate in their own destruction, on an issue so obvious, God knows what else they can be conned into supporting. It is an ugly prospect.
Of course, the Republicans who tried to blame the fall of the stock market on Obama until it started zooming upward, when strangely enough, he had nothing to do with it, will deny to their dying breath that the current mini-collapse is in any way related to Scott Brown.
Well, here's what I think: The market collapsed in 2008 due to the miserable Republican "management" of our economy. All of a sudden, people are afraid that what seemed impossible could very well happen: that the stupid American electorate can be gulled into giving control of our country back to the very people who caused all of the damage. It didn't seem possible that Americans could be so self destructive, but now investors are beginning to worry. And most businesses have figured out that nothing could have done more for them than for the government to take the burden of providing health care off of their backs; but now something that benefits almost nobody and hurts almost everybody looks like it might just happen. And if voters are that willing to collaborate in their own destruction, on an issue so obvious, God knows what else they can be conned into supporting. It is an ugly prospect.
Comments
He was pushing legislation, and passing it, that spent too much to do too little. Scott Brown has yet to propose any legislation, nor has he passed anything. He just now got to Washington.
"The market collapsed in 2008 due to the miserable Republican "management" of our economy."
Who was in charge of the legislature in 2007 and 2008?
"but now investors are beginning to worry."
Even when 49% of voters nationally favored Brown while only 34% favored Coakley? There is the big fat hole in your argument. Americans, investors included, are largely hopeful about Brown, preferring him largely over Coakley.
It couldn't have been the bankruptcies, the loan restraints put on Chinese banks, nor the low fourth quarter profits, right? Of course not, because in GE's fantasy land, everything negative is the fault of Republicans.
Of course, the end of the middle class and feudal servitude is what the Republicans have been shooting for every since Reagan was instructed to introduce his Piss Down Your Back and Tell You Its Raining Theft of the Wealth of Nations economy model.
Well I can agree that rampant inflation definitely hurt the economy and helped cause the recession, but that doesn't really help your liberal cause as your buddy Barry O has spent more money in one year than Bush did in an entire 8 years. Not to mention he has borrowed more, and added a ton to the national debt.
The root causes, those within the housing/lending industries, seem to be the forced lending to low income families, started by the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter, expanded under Clinton. People like GE and those on the left continually say that these banks gave loans to people who couldn't afford them because they were greedy, but this must include the premise that they were too dumb to forsee the consequences. Banks, when they give to many bad loans, lose money, and it is a relatively simple model to find the line. The Federal government force banks over this line, causing their downfall.
Note that the Democrats filibustered a bill, presented by Republicans, that would have eliminated this practice, thus saving us from such economic despair.
Who receives the most money from the lending/housing industries in terms of lobby money? Specifically, Fannie and Freddie?
Ridiculous.
Not the Trillions borrowed for a jaunt on over to Iraq. Not the Fuck you transfer of 700 Billion to Banks by Bush. Not the price gouging by Oil Companies when Bush let gas reach almost $5 per gallon.
Nope. It's those people stealing the Rich peoples 80k for a house.
And Obama hasn't spent more than Bush that's a out right lie.
The Right is comprised of sick evil people.
First of all, there is no such thing as the Community Redevelopment Act. There is a bill, enacted in 1977, called the "Community Reinvestment Act." Here is a description of that bill from Wikipedia:
"Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining"
So, the act did not force anyone to loan money to minorities. What it did do was make it illegal to engage in the racist practice of holding minorities to higher standards to get loans.
Virtually none of the massive lending that lead us to our current disastrous situation had anything to do with loans made under the provisions of this act. In fact, what caused this problem was the destruction, under Reagan, of federal regulations governing the real estate and lending industries; and in particular, something which is virtually never mentioned in current discussions, the Reagan decision to detach lending approval from the absorption rate of the SMSA in which the building was to take place. This was the primary cause of the savings and loan collapse and is a major factor in the current real estate collapse.
Derek continues:
"People like GE and those on the left continually say that these banks gave loans to people who couldn't afford them because they were greedy, but this must include the premise that they were too dumb to forsee the consequences."
No, Derek, they were not too dumb to foresee the consequences. They rigged the loans so they got their money up front, and they just didn't care what happened to the people (us) left holding the bag. This is the sort of irresponsible management of the economy that was a crime until Reagan and the conservatives decided that it was just fine. It has destroyed our economy, and it will continue to do so, unless we make it clear that the result of this sort of behavior will be a lifetime in prison.
As usual, Derek's claims have absolutely no grounding in the actual facts, and are just a pack of Republican lies to keep the gullible at their mercy.
It's not the poor's fault, it is the government's fault. They are doing the forcing aren't they?
"Not the Trillions borrowed for a jaunt on over to Iraq."
Trillions? We've spent just under $1 trillion dollars in Iraq thus far. That'd be 5-6% of our total tax revenue since the beginning of the war.
"Not the Fuck you transfer of 700 Billion to Banks by Bush"
And dems. Note that I disagreed with the bailout. So you don't believe the banks were too big to fail? We agree!
"the price gouging by Oil Companies when Bush let gas reach almost $5 per gallon. "
The oil companies had nothing to do with it. it was all speculative buyers hoping to make a semi-quick buck.
"And Obama hasn't spent more than Bush that's a out right lie."
More deficit spending he has.
Bush: 1.3 trillion in 8 years
Obama: 1.4 trillion in one year
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg
"So, the act did not force anyone to loan money to minorities."
Never said anything about minorities, and you are reading an initial description of a bill on wikipedia. Should banks not comply with the CRA, they face financial penalties, protests by CRA activists, and compromised mergers and expansions all due to the bill. The banks had little choice, it was obey or commit suicide.
"They rigged the loans so they got their money up front, and they just didn't care what happened to the people (us) left holding the bag."
So the banks were never in any real trouble? Interesting perspective.
"Derek's claims have absolutely no grounding in the actual facts"
Says the person who's understanding on the matter comes from a quick skim of a wikipedia intro.
No, the government is not to blame. The speculative buyers who borrowed billions from the banks because the Republicans eased and destroyed Government regulations caused the housing bubble.
So the government is not to blame, this is also the cause for the fast buck makers in the oil market. Deregulation by republicans always unscrupulous Republican supporters to gouge the public, same root cause as before Republican destruction of Government.
And yes it was Trillions for Iraq, you are correct that 1 Trillion was allocated specifically for Ops in the country but you blindly forget the 500 Billion plus annually spent on the DoD budget and the special allocation for HOA and Afghanistan which adds up to over 5 Trillion dollars spent by Bush on War
I'm getting a mixed message from you. Is it the excessive spending, foreign debt, speculative buyers, or oil companies that caused the recession according to you?
"because the Republicans eased and destroyed Government regulations"
What regulations specifically? Point me to where Republicans deregulated and said deregulation caused the recession. This argument assumes that the banks were too dumb to foresee that the bad loans would cause their destruction as well. This is something I have yet to see an explanation for.
"500 Billion plus annually spent on the DoD budget"
We will have that much every year regardless of our current wars. Are you suggesting we don't have an army, navy, air force? Also note that Obama is spending just as much, if not more.
"5 Trillion dollars spent by Bush on War"
No, a little over $1 trillion on war, $4 trillion on defense. The defense spending is nearly unavoidable.
"Point me to where Republicans deregulated and said deregulation caused the recession."
I did just that in my comment here, when I talked about Reagan removing regulations that tied commercial real estate lending to the ability to absorb new construction.
Apparently, Derek, not only do you do nothing but repeat long-discredited Republican talking points, but you don't even read the material you are supposedly reacting to.
Doesn't say much for your potential as a political thinker, Derek.
Additionally, as I understand from Fox News Obama is "literally tearing this country apart" and "is choosing the terrorists over the military" and "dithering about Afghanistan".
Fox has made it clear Obama as a Radical Leftist is out to destroy the US Military So there is no way he has spent as much as Bush on the misnomered DoD.
And this did what to lending? Nothing. It was fine for 25 plus years. Does it not seem more logical to say the loans which brought down the industry were to blame, therefore what caused those loans is to blame?
"you don't even read the material you are supposedly reacting to."
I do, it simply was so irrelevant and illogical I wrote it off. Note that you got your information about the CRA from wiki.
"Reagan, McCain, Phil Graham, Tom DeLay."
Pulled us out of an enormous recession and sent us into the longest economic expansion period in US history, and one who foresaw this downfall in 2005 when he called out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Don't care about Graham or DeLay.
"Fox has made it clear Obama as a Radical Leftist is out to destroy the US Military So there is no way he has spent as much as Bush on the misnomered DoD."
It's not all spending you know. His withdrawl date and pandering to terrorists here at home are the reasons for those statements, not the spending.
You are a deeply unintelligent person, who is apparently incapable of understanding the most basic facts of economics or of real estate finance.
The Reagan deregulation, as I said before, caused two collapses in real estate; the savings and loan crisis and the current collapse of real estate prices, by artificially increasing construction far beyond what was needed. This was deliberately done by the Reagan administration to help create the impression of a strong economy during his time in office; he left the American people to pay the trillion dollar bill after he was gone. Just like Enron or the banks today, all that counted was short term appearances, and we paid the price for allowing this to be done under the guise of conservative "economic theory," which was in reality nothing but a thinly disguised justification for plundering the economy.
As to your statement:
"it simply was so irrelevant and illogical I wrote it off."
Actually, Derek, this is what I was taught in a Harvard Business School graduate sequence on real estate finance at the time it was all happening. I think I will stick with their opinions, over those of a college freshman who thinks he knows everything about everything.
I've talked about your other lies already, so I think I will just ignore them this time.
Are you suggesting those houses were left empty? Also, I, as well as the rest of the business world, was under the impression that defaulted loans brought down the housing industry.
"was in reality nothing but a thinly disguised justification for plundering the economy."
I see, you use this as a way of discrediting the evidence that fiscal conservatism works. Clever, I guess.
"I think I will stick with their opinions"
That isn't their opinion now.
"freshman"
Junior =]
The speculators and those who profited off of the Reagan deregulation are responsible.
You were allowed to build/buy/lease homes prior to Reagan. Just thought you should know.
"you don't have a clue what you are talking about"
I know what I talk about, I rarely know what you are talking about. Hence all my questions. If you feel your time is too valuable to make your point clear then that is your choice.