If you believe Bush is responsible for the economy....please read.

[Shellbell]

TO ALL MY FRIENDS...LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE...FYI only. George Bush has been
in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high 2) Regular gasoline sold
for $2.19 a gallon 3) The unemployment rate was 4.
5% 4) The DOW JONES hit a record high-- 14,000 + 5) American's were buying
new cars, taking Cruises, vacations overseas, living large!

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic
Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right.
In the PAST YEAR: 1) Consumer confidence has plummeted 2) Gasoline is now
over $4 a gallon And climbing!
3) Unemployment is up to 5.
5% (a 10% increase)
4) Americans have seen their home equity Drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS And
prices are still dropping 5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure 6) as I
write, THE DOW is probing another Low ~~ $2.
5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! REMEMBER THE
PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS DOES. AND
WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS?ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE
US CHANGE, AND HE HAS THE BACKING OF A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!! JUST HOW MUCH
MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?

[Atlmetroguy]

Hey Shellbell....please email me at atlmetroguy@yahoo.com because I would like to ask you a question...thanks

[nonesuche]

Shellbell- you stated it well, this isn't about the President but about Congress.

Many in Congress are no better than the corporate fat greed cats, they aren't in this for public service but for personal gain and at times like Pelosi, for power alone.

Electing Obama will just be a catalyst to hasten the destruction of our country. I didn't have children to bring them into a world such as this, full of avarice, greed, and lack of ethics or servant leadership.

[islandmonkey]

TO ALL MY FRIENDS...LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE...FYI only. George Bush has been
in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high 2) Regular gasoline sold
for $2.19 a gallon 3) The unemployment rate was 4.
5% 4) The DOW JONES hit a record high-- 14,000 + 5) American's were buying
new cars, taking Cruises, vacations overseas, living large!

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic
Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right.
In the PAST YEAR: 1) Consumer confidence has plummeted 2) Gasoline is now
over $4 a gallon And climbing!
3) Unemployment is up to 5.
5% (a 10% increase)
4) Americans have seen their home equity Drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS And
prices are still dropping 5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure 6) as I
write, THE DOW is probing another Low ~~ $2.
5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! REMEMBER THE
PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS DOES. AND
WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS?ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE
US CHANGE, AND HE HAS THE BACKING OF A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!! JUST HOW MUCH
MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?

Oh Shell, you forgot Congress did pass a bill declaring August as National Watermelon Month", beyond that ZERO !!! Great post>

[crazybabyborg]

I'm copying the bulk of this post from my post in the bailout thread because it has relevence to this "economy" thread as well

There is general concensus across party lines that this particular crisis was a direct result of 2 markets that government has had a big impact with: First and foremost is the Housing Market. The other, less in the spotlight at the moment, is oil. I'm not going to spend time bolstering that premise, because all leading economists, political and otherwise, cite practices within those markets as directly responsible for what's going on.

Let me ask something. In which party would the philosophy of "every American should be middle class and be entitled to home ownership and our government has a moral obligation to aid that objective" be expected? All together now, "Democrats".  Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac were cruising along with pressure from democrats to make loans to low income borrowers for home mortgages. Things like welfare and unemployment were being allowed to count as income in order to qualify for a mortgage loans. A good sprinkling of overextended speculators who had made a lot of money flipping houses, jumped on the bandwagon as well to capture low interest loans to buy even more. It all worked as long as the housing market was greased by the price of houses going up, up, and up. There was built in protection because even with ridiculous loan criteria, if the owner defaulted, the bank could seize the house and sell it for a profit. It began tumbling down when the housing bubble burst, and defaulted loans left the bank with an asset worth less than the loan. Similarly, homeowners found themselves paying for a mortgage bigger than the value of their house, and they so took the loss, and purposefully defaulted. Others couldn't make the payments consistently because the unemployment ran out, or in essence, found themselves in a reality situation where they had simply qualified for a loan that they shouldn't have.

Where were Republicans while these banking practices, influenced by Democrats, were going on? Traditionally, Republicans have the philosophy of "Keep government out of free enterprise and let the free market, not regulation, dictate markets and business practices." OK, except for one thing.........Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac weren't following free market principles. These giants were government sponsored and were responsive to government influence to begin with. They weren't created under Bush and the underlying rules of operation that allowed for government influence weren't laid in this administration. It did came to a problem under this administration. In fairness, not partisanship, the Bush administration did send legislation to the banking committee in late 2004 as a result of it's investigation into Freddy and Fannie that would bring tough regulations on lending practices, and hearings were held within that committee and later sent to the full house where democrats took a strong stand that the Bush administration was trying to rob poor people of the American Dream. By that time, Fannie and Freddy had also become steeped in corrupt practices and CEOs were taking obscene advantages to line their own pockets, and the pockets of politically friendly members of congress. I'm honestly not trying to present a partisan argument here, but take a look at the what has been recorded within the hearings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2NFa3w&feature=related.

Republicans were taking an untraditional stance calling for more strict regulations amidst a united wave of democratic social views. The point has been made that Republicans controlled both houses of congress, but that argument does not account for the fact that the margins between parties were so narrow that the 60% majority required was unobtainable. In 2005, in the wake of the Bush legislation failure, McCain cosponsored the following bill to regulate Fannie and Freddy: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190

What happened to the bill? It never made it out of committee.  Chris Dodd, then the ranking member of the Banking Committee and now its chair, was in the middle of receiving preferential loan treatment from Countrywide Mortgage, one of the companies gaming the system in the credit crisis.  Meanwhile, Barack Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lobbyists McCain mentions in this speech, making him the #2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA

That pretty much brings us to right now, in a post bailout day. Casual voters see Republicans in the White House and the price tag that has just been put on their shoulders, and run toward Obama. Biden and Obama know that and hammer home their messages that the traditional Republican view of no regulation is the cause, so we need to throw the bums out. McCain voted for the bailout amidst fear that if it didn't pass, the stock market could collapse and we really would be thrown into a depression. McCain NOT making his case for his role in averting this mess has been a judgement call I respect him for, but may very well cost him the White House. He has chosen to keep the discussions on the need to pass it and underplay the argument in an attempt to hold down the partisanship that could have killed passage.

McCain has risen, in my estimation, from what he has demonstrated through this crisis, and has proven his character once again, by putting his country first over his own benefit. An honest look at this whole thing brings me to fear for myself and all Americans for a future where both houses and the White House will be governed by the Democratic Party. 

[fatcatlurker]

Hate to burst bubbles but, Dems 12 in Senate open, Republicans 22.  I haven't looked at the house for 2010 yet, but I can assure you probably a Republican if a Dem POTUS. To me another dead locked congress is not the same as a working congress. Your only hope is changing the VPOTUS role as Palin alluded to in her VP debate.

[crazybabyborg]

The 2008 U.S. House of Representatives elections will be held on November 4, 2008, to elect members to the United States House of Representatives to serve in the 111th United States Congress from January 3, 2009 until January 3, 2011. All 435 seats are up for election. Democrats, who regained a majority in the 2006 elections hope to retain or expand their control of Congress. Although it is very unlikely at this point, the Republicans hope to regain the majority it lost in the 2006 elections or at least add to their numbers. Turnout likely will be increased due to the 2008 presidential election. The presidential election, 2008 Senate elections, and 2008 state gubernatorial elections, as well as many other state and local elections, will occur on the same date.

The Obama campaign has done a great job with voter registration, and my thought is that those brought in, particularly the first time voters, will vote the rest of the ballot along the same party line.

[Sam]

I just posted this link to this You Tube in a different area but maybe it best belongs here. Since it has bearing on our economy. Please take the time to watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

[caesu]

it's unfortunate that this happens at the height of a election campaign.
so there's is a lot a blame shifting going on.

but this happened under his watch.
6 years of his presidency his party pretty much controlled the congress.
not 60 votes filibuster majority, i know.

if a government failed on pretty much everything for 8 years.
there's no way this the party of this government will get another 4 year chance.

even look at churchill.
in 1945 the world war in europe was won.
but still the conservatives lost the election.
labour (democrats), were more trusted in rebuilding the economy.

i even think it would be a good thing for the GOP to go in opposition for at least 4 years.
to rebuild their own party a bit. maybe another Palin election campaign in 2012.

[Slogger]

Caesu

if a government failed on pretty much everything for 8 years.
there's no way this the party of this government will get another 4 year chance.

even look at churchill.
in 1945 the world war in europe was won.
but still the conservatives lost the election.
labour (democrats), were more trusted in rebuilding the economy.

The government gets another chance; each party is at risk and some seats in Congress may be lost.  Eight years of "blame Bush" ignores the internal war against Bush--waged by the Democrats.  Now, the Democrats want to blame Bush for the economy that some of those very Democrats have foisted on US--and profited by doing it, financially or otherwise.

Clinton sounded the alarm; Bush sounded the alarm; McCain sounded the alarm (1D, 2R;) and, 2 Democrat Chairman turned off the last alarm.  Apparently, many have muffled the alarm for years.

Regarding 1945:  Lost by how many seats?  What were the other considerations?   What was offered (for rebuilding) by each?

Without additional facts, it's a hasty generalization.

[nonesuche]

I just posted this link to this You Tube in a different area but maybe it best belongs here. Since it has bearing on our economy. Please take the time to watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

Sam thank you for posting that, it's apparent caesu isn't interested in watching it but the entire subprime mess was manufactured to make home ownership affordable for minorities, this video points out the relationship with Obama and the black caucus. The then CEO for Fannie Mae states that clearly in this video. I want anyone who works hard and spends responsibily as well as saving responsibly, to own a home if they can.

But so many are not responsible but want the same benefits as those who do. This CEO should be hung out to dry but he will not be, and Obama was at the "head of the line" to get Fannie Mae contributions.

Obama can cover all of this up or try to, but he can't rewrite history. Soon I suspect he will wish that he could.

[crazybabyborg]

Can we all agree that any entity that is sponsored by, controlled by, guaranteed by, subsidized by or impacted by congress, should be barred from making financial contributions to congressional campaigns? When our entire economy is put at risk to line a few pockets, enough is enough.

That seems like a no brainer to me, but I'd bet that little item of legislation wouldn't have a prayer for passage.



I think we are ripe for a new party. Let's call it, "Working Americans Represented"   WAR!!
 

[truthseeker2]

it's unfortunate that this happens at the height of a election campaign.
so there's is a lot a blame shifting going on.

It is not unfortunate at all.  It is orchestrated.  Make no mistake.  You do not understand our politics as much as you believe you do.  This has been brewing since 1999.  The time was now and they went for it.  It is the beginning of the destabilization step.  Next will come the crisis.  This will not take nearly as long. 6-12 weeks at the most.  We will all then become nationalized and I will be looking for the first boat out of here.  I will not submit to communism.  Make not mistake...that is what is happening right now.

But, you are probably enjoying it.  You have been spouting the talking points that all useful idiots have been trained to spout.  And you do not even know it.

[caesu]

I just posted this link to this You Tube in a different area but maybe it best belongs here. Since it has bearing on our economy. Please take the time to watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

Sam thank you for posting that, it's apparent caesu isn't interested in watching it but the entire subprime mess was manufactured to make home ownership affordable for minorities, this video points out the relationship with Obama and the black caucus.

i watched some of it. but it is pretty one-sided.
doesn't address the drive for deregulation by mainly Republicans headed on by Phil Gramm.
and Republican governments consistently increase the budget deficits.
that's not giving an good example to people who live above their means, taking out mortgages they can't afford.
and wasn't Bush the one promoting 'ownership society'? that's great, but only if you can afford it.

i missed all that in that clip.
but i am sure for people who already decided who to blame - this clip will confirm their onesided beliefs.

[truthseeker2]

I just posted this link to this You Tube in a different area but maybe it best belongs here. Since it has bearing on our economy. Please take the time to watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

Sam thank you for posting that, it's apparent caesu isn't interested in watching it but the entire subprime mess was manufactured to make home ownership affordable for minorities, this video points out the relationship with Obama and the black caucus. The then CEO for Fannie Mae states that clearly in this video. I want anyone who works hard and spends responsibily as well as saving responsibly, to own a home if they can.

You are correct.  The thing that must be understood when dealing with those who have submitted to socialism.  Facts do not matter.  And you will never be able to get them to look at them.  They will look all around them and spout the talking points they have been told to spout.  Facts are just pesky little gnats that deserve nothing more than a reflecive swat.

[caesu]

I just posted this link to this You Tube in a different area but maybe it best belongs here. Since it has bearing on our economy. Please take the time to watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

Sam thank you for posting that, it's apparent caesu isn't interested in watching it but the entire subprime mess was manufactured to make home ownership affordable for minorities, this video points out the relationship with Obama and the black caucus. The then CEO for Fannie Mae states that clearly in this video. I want anyone who works hard and spends responsibily as well as saving responsibly, to own a home if they can.

You are correct.  The thing that must be understood when dealing with those who have submitted to socialism.  Facts do not matter. And you will never be able to get them to look at them.  They will look all around them and spout the talking points they have been told to spout.  Facts are just pesky little gnats that deserve nothing more than a reflecive swat.

some can be said for the anti-Obama crowd.
when i read that he wears a burka at home, or even more ridiculous stuff.
some love to believe that and take it for a fact.

[nonesuche]

well then caesu try this one on for size - Obama says it out loud "my muslim faith"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I&feature=related

freudian slip? I believe so

[caesu]

thanks! i hadn't seen the full clip yet.

you understand that he is praising mccain as he "has not talked about my "muslim faith" " (as wingnut blogs are doing).
so it makes perfectly sense to me.

but as always, people who are prejudiced will read in it whatever they want.

[truthseeker2]

You are correct.  The thing that must be understood when dealing with those who have submitted to socialism.  Facts do not matter. And you will never be able to get them to look at them.  They will look all around them and spout the talking points they have been told to spout.  Facts are just pesky little gnats that deserve nothing more than a reflecive swat.

some can be said for the anti-Obama crowd.
when i read that he wears a burka at home, or even more ridiculous stuff.
some love to believe that and take it for a fact.

Keep trying.  That does not even come close.  I wish that were true and that was all that was true.  But is isn't.  You cannot dispute the facts so you bring this crap out.  Come on...you are better than this. 

Once again.   And pay close attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QcpdUtxNQ

[nonesuche]

well caesu then I guess you're including famous Clinton guru Stephanopoulos as a "wingnut" also since he asked Obama to clarify?

  yep, uh huh

have you ever noticed how when those types of questions are asked of Obama that he stumbles? This is not the only occasion he became quite flustered by it either. Why is that? They are legitimate questions, why then do they rattle him so much?

don't answer caesu, please - just a wingnut as you inferred I am, stating the obvious again