Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I ... see, I think .........

---

Quote:

---

How many quarters of positive growth you overlook, and 1 bad day, it's all Bush's fault ?

---

Quote:

---

chrisisall contradicts himself : despite the happy happy official numbers...unless you were well off to start, that is. It's been great for billionaires, a whole new crop of 'em have appeared.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Trickle down doesn't work, never has never will. Rich people getting richer, doesn't make everyone richer, it concentrates wealth in the hands of the elite. It's backed by the evidence, where you have tax havens, you have widening gaps between rich and poor, you also have lower social mobility.

---

Quote:

---

In responce proponents of 'trickle down' respond with some vague hand waving about the rich spending more. But if they're getting richer they're spending a lower percentage of what they're makng, it's simple math.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"stunting the steady, healhty growth that has been going on under Bush's 2 terms"

Then why has the stock market been behind inflation all these years ?
Why has China announced it will decrease its dollar holdings ?
Why are there more poor and uninsured after Bush than before ?
Why did the Federal deficit - just beginning to be paid down under Clinton - turn into a record deficit under Bush ?

---

Quote:

---

That having been said, I don't think we can blame Bush for the failing economy. Business failures like Enron, and national insecurity after 9/11 combined to put the economy on weak footing.

---

Quote:

---

Interest rates were lowered to bolster the economy. This all happened at the onset of the Bush reign, and would have likely occurred whoever was in power. The housing crisis developed because banks took advantage of the low rates to grant loans that could not previously be granted, and customers took advantage of the low rates to get loans they shouldn't have been able to get. This also probably would have happened regardless of who was in power.

---

Quote:

---

The housing crunch has hit all financial institutions, and caused additional insecurity in the market.

---

Quote:

---

I can blame Bush for the deficit, but a lot of the economical troubles outside of the deficit would probably have occurred no matter what. Hopefully, we've all learned from these incidents and won't make similar mistakes in the future... but the worst isn't over yet. I suspect the next president, whoever that is, will be eating these problems for their first term.

---

Quote:

---

Dr. Wendy Gramm, in her capacity as chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), exempted Enron's trading of futures contracts in response to a request for such an action by Enron in 1992. At the time, Enron was a significant source of campaign financing for Wendy Gramm's husband, U.S. Senator Phil Gramm.

Six days after she provided Enron the exemption it wanted, Wendy Gramm resigned her position at the CFTC. Five weeks after her resignation, Enron appointed her to its Board of Directors, where she served on the Board's Audit Committee. Her service on the Audit Committee made her responsible for verifying Enron's accounting procedures and other detailed financial information not available to outside analysts or shareholders.

Following Wendy Gramm's appointment to Enron's board, the company became a significant source of personal income for the Gramms. Enron paid her between $915,000 and $1.85 million in salary, attendance fees, stock option sales and dividends from 1993 to 2001. The value of Wendy Gramm's Enron stock options swelled from no more than $15,000 in 1995 to as much as $500,000 by 2000.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Wrong. As usual. The rich keep doing what made them rich in the first place, and that's make smart choices w/ their money. No one has EVER gotten rich by accepting Gov't hand outs and subsidies. Ever.

---

Quote:

---

No, they're investing it more, as they anticipate grown to occur, and lo and behold..we have growth! Instead of 'playing it safe', as is the case when there's no or little growth expected, they see the signs and are willing to losen up their purse strings, invest in growing areas of the economy, and SOMEHOW those who had some $$ before now have MORE $$$ !! What a nutty concept! Except that it works, every single time. And the crap about 'only' the rich making more $$? That's more socialist bullshit. More $$ for investment means more people can start a new business of their own. That means folks who DON'T have the capital can borrow it, earn money, pay back the capital + interest, which gets their businesses started and gives a healthy return to those who risked investing in the 1st place. It's called a WIN/WIN situation.

Trickle Down 101 is now concluded. Thank you for attending.

---

Quote:

---

And the crap about 'only' the rich making more $$? That's more socialist bullshit.

---

Quote:

---

Income inequality worst since 1920s, according to IRS data Nick Juliano
October 12, 2007

Half of US senators are millionaires

The superrich are gobbling up an ever larger piece of the economic pie, and the poor are seeing their share of earnings shrink new IRS data shows the top 1 percent of Americans are claiming a larger share of national income than at any time since before the Great Depression. The top percentile of wealthy Americans earned 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, up from 19 percent in 2004, according to new Internal Revenue Service data published in the Wall Street Journal Friday. Americans in the bottom 50 percent of wage earners saw their share of income shrink to 12.8 percent in 2005, down from 13.4 percent.... the IRS data show income for the median earner fell 2 percent between 2000 and 2005 to $30,881. Earnings for the top 1 percent grew to $364,657 -- a 3 percent uptick

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

If no one did well, then how come there are so many NEW billionaires ? Explain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
year --- DOW close --- inflation adjusted value for 2000
_________________________________________________________
2000 --- 10734.90 ----- 10734.90
2001 --- 10189.13 ----- 11040.36
2002 --- 9226.43 ------ 11214.92
2003 --- 8993.59 ------ 11470.51
2004 --- 10317.39 ----- 11775.97
2005 --- 10547.67 ----- 12174.95
2006 --- 11408.67 ----- 12567.69
In other words (if you can't figure out what the numbers mean) the DOW NEVER closed above the inflation adjusted value for 2000.

---

Quote:

---

Business failures like Enron were promoted by deregulation, which was directly traceable to Bush and friends (specifically Phil Gramm and his wife

---

Quote:

---

"I blame Bush for actively transferring wealth from the poor to the rich."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ummm.. Jong ?

Rich assholes in the immensely corrupt home finance industry realize the hard way that you can't squeeze money out of broke people.

Rich assholes go running to the Gov for a bailout to protect their profits.

Big daddy Gov loots MY paycheck and yours, and gives the money to THEM.

I'd say that fucking qualifies.

-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

If the president had said ... we've been tragically wounded but our future is still bright. We will mourn our losses, and remember for all time our grief, but we will be a strong and free country now and in the future. We will seek justice, we will seek security, we will work with our freinds and allies around the globe to insure a safe and secure world. ...

I think that would have gone down just fine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Those would have been the words of a thoughtful and reasonable President, yes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Those would have been the words of a thoughtful and reasonable President, yes.

---

Not to mention one that couldn't get elected in the US.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"If the president had said, "Eh, ignore them and they'll go away," he'd have been denounced."

If the president had said ... we've been tragically wounded but our future is still bright. We will mourn our losses, and remember for all time our grief, but we will be a strong and free country now and in the future. We will seek justice, we will seek security, we will work with our friends and allies around the globe to insure a safe and secure world. ...

I think that would have gone down just fine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karel:
Providing mortgages to those who should not qualify is nothing new, especially in good times (when merely the fuse is burning).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karel:
Providing mortgages to those who should not qualify is nothing new, especially in good times (when merely the fuse is burning).

---

But haven't you heard. People getting themselves into situations they know they shouldn't have is not really their fault at all. It's somehow all traceable back to the Big Bad Bush. Welcome to the new land of no personal responsibility.

---

Quote:

---

But haven't you heard. People getting themselves into situations they know they shouldn't have is not really their fault at all. It's somehow all traceable back to the Big Bad Bush. Welcome to the new land of no personal responsibility.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
FWIW I think we're facing a "perfect storm", and the mortgage problem is simply a trigger for a larger crisis, just as Black Tuesday (1929) was just a trigger for the Great Depression. And yes, I think this is a real sea-change, of about the same magnitude as the Great Depression.

1) A larger income gap than at any time since 1929.
2) Loss of manufacturing capability in the USA.
3) Massive Federal debt, paid for by Treasuries bought by foreigners.
4) Massive trade debt.
5) Worldwide political ill-will against the USA.
6) A shift from the USA being China's main market to the EU being China's main market.

None of this has to do with mortgages, but what is does is seriously undermine the value of the dollar. Without those factors in place, the mortgage "crisis" would simply be a mortgage blip, just as the S&L crisis of 1982-3 didn't affect the dollar's exchange rates. I'm certain that what we're seeing is the conversion of the USD from being "the" world currency to "a" world currency- and not a particularly valuable one at that.

ETA: And may I add my WELCOME to Karel!

---