Our economic meltdown started when the democrats took over the congress

If war is not the reason of economics downturn, I wanta know where is the money supporting the war from?

reply to post by gdeed

Well a year ago before the congress changed I didn't know anyone who was losing their house. Now a few friends have and they also lost their jobs after they lost their house. The economy has never been this bad, and the turning point seems to have happened when we change the congress.

I think you're all looking at the wrong place, as to what started the problem. Alan Greenspan and the Fed dropped interest rates to the point of ridiculousness over several years, heating up the housing market. People foolishly believed that housing prices would continue to go up, without ever correcting, and extended their mortgages beyond their ability to pay, and when the piper had to be paid, and the fed starting increasing interest rates, a lot of foolish people were stuck with Variable Rate mortgages that were resetting past their ability to cover the monthly payments. Home rrices started falling, equity in houses fell into negative territory, banks started calling in the balance over equity, and viola, a housing crash.

Now, the real question is why did the Fed do what they did? That is another story . In my opinion, this crash was no accident. It was the 9/11 of the American housing market, orchestrated by Greenspan and his cronies. When prices fall enough, he and his rich cronies will buy up the foreclosures at pennies on the dollar, and when balance is restored, they walk away with billions in profit.

reply to post by simmon11

If war is not the reason of economics downturn, I wanta know where is the money supporting the war from?

The money is being printed as you and I speak. The Fed is monetizing the economy, weakening the dollar to a dangerous level, to pay for the war. Who will pay for the war ultimately- your children and mine.

Take a look at my signature, and you'll see that Jefferson was quite a prophet. HE TRIED TO WARN FUTURES GENERATIONS, BUT NO ONE LISTENED.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


The Fed ia a private bank actually, if the Fed system is not good enough, and what is the better? a autarchy centre bank will be better?

The money all come from our children, this is a disaster caused by the president.

reply to post by simmon11

Of course the Fed is a private institution, set up and run by the Rothschilds. That is exactly my point. Apparently, you didn't read my signature. Jefferson warned us of setting up a private banking system. His prediction has come true.
We need to go back to the gold standard, but a lot of blood money will be shed in the transition.

All I know is that the economy was riding high until we voted in a new inexperienced congress and replaced most of the republicans with democrats.

Now the final blow may come when we put a democrat in the white house.

My economic downturn started in 2004 when the President was elected for his second term. But I am not so naive as you to think that it is the presidents fault. Market forces are very complex and varied and to place the blame on any political entity is just plain stupid or trying to bolster an ideology that doesn't allow for actual complexities of the real world.

I once bought a carton of sour milk, that damn cow!!!

See your logic?

[edit on 16-3-2008 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa
My economic downturn started in 2004 when the President was elected for his second term. But I am not so naive as you to think that it is the presidents fault. Market forces are very complex and varied and to place the blame on any political entity is just plain stupid or trying to bolster an ideology that doesn't allow for actual complexities of the real world.

I once bought a carton of sour milk, that damn cow!!!

See your logic?

I admit I'm not the smartest cookie in the cookie jar but logic is not an exact science either. Nor is it applicable to every situation. So I use my gut feeling on things and my gut tells me that the change in the congress is what triggered our rapid decline. This kind of situation never happened before, well perhaps in 1929. I wish the democrats could have helped our economy but I just don't feel it in my bones.

Please tell us exactly what the democratic congress did that has caused a downturn in your financial situation or anyone else's for that matter. Do you have any specifics or just "gut feelings?"

I too have "gut feelings" and one of my big ones is that we are facing an economic meltdown that will rival "29" with bread lines, homeless, violence in the street, food riots, and marshal law with it's accompanying FEMA camps for the rabble. Katrina will look like cub scout cook out.

It won't be caused by the dembs but by the policies of the President and his gang of corrupt, greedy cronies that care much more about their corporate lobbyist/bosses/political donors, than they do about the American citizens.

I also have a gut feeling that what ever happens; you, gdeed will blame it on the Democrats.

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house.

[edit on 16-3-2008 by whaaa]

[edit on 16-3-2008 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa

It won't be caused by the dembs but by the policies of the President and his gang of corrupt, greedy cronies that care much more about their corporate lobbyist/bosses/political donors, than they do about the American citizens.

I don't believe that to be true because come monday there will be many fewer millionaires and billionaires as the market continues it’s downward spiral. These cronies you speak of have no more control of what is happening than the little people like me do. If they did they certainly would not have stacked the cards against themselves.

We Americans did it to ourselves when we voted in a democrat controlled House and Senate. Hopefully the panic will not spread tomorrow and the days ahead, if it does then the party will be over.
Unfortunately many people are looking forward for this to happen but if it does they will regret it.

The soaring cost of oil, is in large part, due to the fact that investors have lost confidence in the stock market, and are putting their money in commodities- oil, corn, gold, you name it.
The law of supply and demand still applies, only when it comes to oil, it is the DEMAND to invest in it, that is driving the price up, not the demand for more oil usage.
I know what I'm about to say is not very popular with the powers that be, but the good old saying "What goes up, must go down" still applies. Putting it in modern-day vernacular, oil's "bubble" will also pop. When that happens is certainly anyone's guess, but at some point, the "value" placed on oil by these rambunctious investors, will far exceed its intrinsic value as a fuel, and once the rout starts, just like the housing market, nothing will stop it.
The money lenders are still in the temple, so to speak. When will a modern-day Messiah come and throw them out?

reply to post by gdeed


Statistically you are correct...

Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)

* The % of families living in poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than 7 out of 8 of Clinton's years in office.

Inflation Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush)
Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: 1.8% Decrease

Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton)
Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: 0.53% Decrease

* The Inflation Rate is lower after three years of GWBush than it was after Bill Clinton's first three years.
* The Inflation Rate declined over three times greater under GWBush than under Bill Clinton.

Source

But you will find so much hate for the President that no amount of statistics or facts will sway those that wish to post personal horror stories or supposition.

The fact is that the economy was doing FANTASTIC before the Dems gained control.

Factual Support of democrat destruction?
Here ya go..

Brian Darling, director of Senate relations for the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Cybercast News Service he is concerned that the Democrats' plan relies so heavily on "investments" and increased government spending, which could lead to higher taxes.

"We have a pretty low degree of taxation in our country, and it's no coincidence that our economy's good," Darling said. "In countries that have high taxation, the economies are terrible.

"If we want to regulate and force businesses to pay people more and tax the rich, that may make for good sound bytes and rhetoric, but it will help to destroy our economy if we're overtaxing individuals who are creating wealth," he noted.

CNS News

More? Sure...

But at the far more expensive level of presidential politics, most Democratic candidates are heavily dependent on Wall Street. In the 1990s, many Democrats were complicit in the financial deregulation that invited Enron and later the sub-prime mess. Leading Democrats who are liberal on other issues, including Sens. Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd, signed a letter warning then-SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt to lighten up or they'd cut his appropriations. The financial meltdown ought to be the perfect issue to distinguish Democrats from Republicans. But just enough Democrats have their fingerprints on it that the issue isn't producing much partisan traction.

Prospect

A little more shall we?

The truth...

For fiscal year 2006, federal revenue as a share of Gross Domestic Product was 18.4%.

The post 1962 average for federal revenue was 18.2% of Gross Domestic Product.

The federal budget deficit for 2006 was $247.7 billion.

This represents 1.9% of the Gross Domestic Product which was 13.1 trillion dollars.

That is below the average for the 1970s, 1980s, and the 1990s.
The deficit as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product for 2006 was 1.9%

The deficit as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product for the 1990s was 2.2%

The deficit as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product for the 1980s was 3.0%

The deficit as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product for the 1970s was 2.1%

Economists state that Democratic tax increases will reduce federal revenue and increase the deficit as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product.

It's Your Times

See the real problem is people arguing emotions, personal tragedies and "friend" references and then attempting to apply them to a "Countries Economic Structure" or even in some cases a Global Economy. That is what the Liberals are really good at; scare tactics that have little to do with gross economics on a national scale. Yet it is effective as we all want to blame someone and the single person at the top gets the nod.

Blaming oil is effective because no one wants to pay 3, 4 or 5 dollars a gallon. Even though in respect to the rise in prices across the board and the rise in the economic status and pay structure, oil has ALWAYS lagged far behind. But if that is finally accepted and understood, the Democrats will have nothing to "Scare" with except maybe to continue to scare the elderly on the issue of privatization of Social Security.

So, you all keep electing those Liberal Democrats and keep blaming the only ones that can pull you out of the mess the Libs create.

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis

So, you all keep electing those Liberal Democrats and keep blaming the only ones that can pull you out of the mess the Libs create.

As a matter of fact, it looks like they already did it to us:
www.cnsnews.com.../Politics/archive/200803/POL20080314a.html

(CNSNews.com) - Both the House and Senate have now passed budget plans that envision tax hikes for most Americans.

On Thursday, most House Democrats -- all but 16 -- voted for a 2009 budget plan that includes the single largest tax increase in the nation's history, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt said.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the "fiscally responsible Democratic budget plan" reflects "our national values."

I love Pelosi's quote that the huge tax hike reflects our national values..yours lady, not mine.

Did the Democrats invent Collateralised Debt Obligations ?

...No

Did the Democrats invent Collateralised Mortgage Obligations ?

...No

But they are the cause of this crash.

Banks were offering so called teasor rates with low interest at first and then climbing later. This type of conduct should have been outlawed.

The conduct of US banks has been rapacious.

Banks are limited by international convention to restrict lending to no more than 14 times their cash holdings, but by getting debts off their books and getting in funds for the sale of those debts (CDO/CMO) banks refinance themselves and expand their cash holdings.

Banks however use CDO and CMO products to take debt off their books.

Banks sell these bundles of debt as CDO or CMO in return for the total value of the debt. In reality it is like banks selling their debts to a credit collection agency.

Securities firms who buy these debts return funds to the bank against which the banks can lend again... but hey wait a minute.

The money the banks were paid by securities firms was not money which the securities firms had collected against those debts. It was money for a future unrealised earning.

So banks enlarged their credit worthiness against unrealised debts removed off their books, so that banks can effectively re-lend money they never had.

This way banks in USA have effectively managed to lend up to 200 times their true worth.

What has happened is this created very easy credit and lending agencies fell over themselves to lend money to people whom they knew could not repay.

There is actually no lack of money available.

There is however total loss of faith in the banking system and so called credit ratings. Some of the securities falling over had so called AAA ratings.

What value triple A ratings if the security is not worth anything ?

It is wishful thinking by people who want to blame others when the finger is pointed at Democrats in Congress.

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Did the Democrats invent Collateralised Debt Obligations ?

...No

Did the Democrats invent Collateralised Mortgage Obligations ?

...No

But they are the cause of this crash.

At one time in America a basic education was required in order to vote.

Now anyone can vote. Unfortunately most voters don't understand anything about economics.

Worse, the people we vote into office often reflect us, they too know little about economics.

Did the democrats invent Collateralized Mortgage Obligations? Heck, how many of them even know what that means?

If you don’t understand economics you certainly cant keep it a float. Higher taxes and economic growth are sworn enemies, if you have one you can’t have the other.

For some reason democrats don’t seem to comprehend that concept and are always quick to raise taxes. Companies go broke, people lose jobs, houses get foreclosed on.

The solution for the mess we are in now was simple but the new congress was asleep at the wheel. They could have put some pressure on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates to stem defaults. But that takes people who understand economics. And with the new democrats in congress there are now far fewer who do.

reply to post by gdeed

The solution for the mess we are in now was simple but the new congress was asleep at the wheel. They could have put some pressure on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates to stem defaults.

I'm afraid that the solution you suggest is not that simple, nor will it help "the mess we are in". In fact, every time that the Fed succumbs to Wall Streets' demands, and lowers interest rates, it devalues the dollar, leading to inflation, and loss of the worlds' confidence of the US dollar. Countries already are refusing the dollar in trade, and theoretically, if all countries did this, the US dollar would become worthless. Since we are not 100% self-sufficient, it would be a disaster unprecedented in the history of our country, making 1929 look like a tea party.

Before you cheer every time the Fed lowers interest rates, stop and think what it is doing to your savings, your investments, and future generations.

The "simple solution" would have been not to pass laws(e.g. the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, revised in 1995 ) forcing banks to lend to people that really cannot afford them, not lowering interest rates in the first place (ala Greenspan for years), and suckering people that don't understand economics into those loans, which were destined to default.

Since we can't "rerun" the last 7-8 years, the next best thing is to learn from the past, and not let it happen again. Continuing to lower interest rates to reward bad behavior only encourages the scoundrels to repeat their villainous deeds.

A nice first step to try to at least partially undo the damage done to the dollar would to to recover $150,000,000,000.00 a year by disengaging from the Iraq war, and not spending it on something else. In a few years, we would actually strengthen the dollar significantly, provided the fed doesn't continue its fire sale on the US dollar.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
I'm afraid that the solution you suggest is not that simple, nor will it help "the mess we are in". In fact, every time that the Fed succumbs to Wall Streets' demands, and lowers interest rates, it devalues the dollar, leading to inflation, and loss of the worlds' confidence of the US dollar. Countries already are refusing the dollar in trade, and theoretically, if all countries did this, the US dollar would become worthless. Since we are not 100% self-sufficient, it would be a disaster unprecedented in the history of our country, making 1929 look like a tea party.

The rest of the world is upset about the low dollar because it makes American goods cheaper, and their goods more expensive. The low dollar is great for America.

China has a booming economy because they keep their currency low.

Before you cheer every time the Fed lowers interest rates, stop and think what it is doing to your savings, your investments, and future generations.

Low rates are not good for people with savings accounts, but they are great for businesses and home owners.

The "simple solution" would have been not to pass laws(e.g. the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, revised in 1995 ) forcing banks to lend to people that really cannot afford them, not lowering interest rates in the first place (ala Greenspan for years), and suckering people that don't understand economics into those loans, which were destined to default.

I don’t think locking millions of low income people out of the housing market is fair nor prudent. They have to live somewhere, and buying a home can be cheaper than renting. Lower interest rates makes that happen.

A nice first step to try to at least partially undo the damage done to the dollar would to to recover $150,000,000,000.00 a year by disengaging from the Iraq war, and not spending it on something else. In a few years, we would actually strengthen the dollar significantly, provided the fed doesn't continue its fire sale on the US dollar.

America had the strongest economy in the world until us Americans voted in a bunch of amateurs last year, and voted out the experts. We did that because our schools don’t teach economics and most voters are illiterate when it comes to voting in the right people.

Voting race, gender and welfare-peddlers into office is what is ruining this country.

reply to post by gdeed

The low dollar is great for America.

You CAN'T be serious? The low dollar is destroying savings, increasing the cost of imported goods, as well as increasing the reluctance of other nations to accept the dollar in trade.

Maybe you haven't heard of the trade imbalance that we have had for decades. I think it would be a good idea for you to read the following:
www.e-thepeople.org...
Here is just a small except of the above, regarding our huge trade deficit:

How do Americans pay for it?

They pay for it by giving up ownership of existing assets--stocks, bonds, companies, real estate, commodities. America used to be a creditor nation. Now America is a debtor nation. Foreigners own $2.5 trillion more of American assets than Americans own of foreign assets. When foreigners acquire ownership of US assets, they also acquire ownership of the future income streams that the assets produce. More income shifts away from Americans.

If you wish to have a serious discussion of the weakening dollar, please bring something to the table, other than "Gut" feeling. Your "gut" feeling is not serving you very well.

Since we have such a huge trade deficit, the small gains from a weak dollar regarding our exports, are overwhelmed by the losses from the HUGE import figures.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
You CAN'T be serious? The low dollar is destroying savings, increasing the cost of imported goods, as well as increasing the reluctance of other nations to accept the dollar in trade.

Yeah, as if Americans are big savers, not, we are big spenders.

With all the problems we have, America remains the strongest nation, and the weak dollar certainly helps in the current crisis that the new House and Senate has brought to us. Lower interest rates will help us avoid the noose that the so-called intellectuals in the new congress placed around our necks via the housing debacle.