DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on August 07, 2007, 10:32:08 AM
-
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20070807/spo070806.gif)
-
..............whatever you do, don't look at the economy, or the rising poll #'s for both Bush & the surge. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh
-
With respect to both H and Sirs, let's take a middle ground here and see how this turns out. Let's monitor it closely and see the effects of this new legislation before we get our panties in an uproar.
-
(http://cagle.com/working/070807/bagley.jpg)
-
And I'm sure H will be able to demonstrate precisely where our Judicial system has repetatively struck down these apparent overt unconstitutional actions, by Bush Co.
Right?
Buellor?
Buellor?
-
<<With respect to both H and Sirs, let's take a middle ground here and see how this turns out. Let's monitor it closely and see the effects of this new legislation before we get our panties in an uproar.>>
Same remarks could have been made about each new piece of Nazi legislation in 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936 . . . etc. They don't just make a noose, pull it over your head and yank the cord all at the same time. They install a program, one piece at a time, and then, when it's all ready, it's just too late. The time to get your panties in an uproar, Professor, is right now.
-
I am not convinced it is a real problem as you seem to think it is, MT.
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/PN080907.jpg)
-
The economy? Have you been paying attention to the housing bubble?
-
JS, the housing bubble has been coming on for some time. Housing is still too inflated, as an example. Lenders have been lending to anyone who breathed. I would say this is highly unfortunate but not unexpected. Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long. In fact, you could easily argue that real estate itself is still too high and could stand an adjustment. And, before you mention Detroit, that TOO has been a debacle soon to happen.And American automobile makers STILL aren't addressing the real issue and that is changing the way they do business. Just shutting plants won't solve their major problem.
-
Oh I agree Professor, and I wouldn't blame Bush or Congress for it at all. I was just pointing out that the economy isn't exactly booming right now (contrary to Sirs statement).
I think the housing bubble has yet to burst, it is giving much more warning than the dot-coms did. If you search hard you can still find some articles urging people to invest in some expensive stock not long before the dot-com collapse. Some of that stock is still around today but has lost around 70 to 90% of its value at that time!
And I wasn't going to mention Detroit, I tend to agree with you there as well. GM is on their way, I think. Ford - I suppose...well, I really don't know. I'm not sure if Bill Ford is just that bad a manager or what. They were on top of the world in 1999 and just fell off a cliff since then.
-
The economy? Have you been paying attention to the housing bubble?
Yea.....and? A "bubble" negates every other frellin indicator that demonstrates how excellent the economy is running? Have you been paying attention to the stock market, unemployment, consumer confidence, etc., etc., etc. Js?? "Booming", not quite, nor what I claimed. VERY Positive?, absofrellinloutely ::)
-
Have you been paying attention to the stock market, unemployment, consumer confidence, etc., etc., etc. Js??
Yes, I have. I have a feeling that you either have not, or you only have through the eyes of partisan hacks.
VERY Positive?
Mixed, would be a better adjective.
A "bubble" is not an indicator, by the way, it is when intrinsic value is far outweighed by the variance in actual trading values. Typically it takes quite a few indicators to point to a true economic bubble. (For example, House Price Index, Housing Starts, Mortgage Applications, Residential Construction, etc. in this case).
Another very interesting and perhaps more destructive economic bubble that may be on the horizon is the credit lending bubble, which is partly associated with the housing bubble (and they may well collapse together). Subprime and high risk lending is already beginning to worry some and hedge funds are amongst the biggest backers of levereged loans. Credit quality and lending requirements are deteriorating in the corporate world. It'll be interesting to see if that trend continues, even amongst the financial institutions that are beginning to tighten credit lines with riskier individuals.
-
Have you been paying attention to the stock market, unemployment, consumer confidence, etc., etc., etc. Js??
Yes, I have. I have a feeling that you either have not, or you only have through the eyes of partisan hacks.
Then your "feeling" is obviously flawed
VERY Positive?
Mixed, would be a better adjective.
Of course, since anything postive would be a postive for Bush. So, in the midst of ever increasing positives in both the economy and the Iraqi surge, must either keep it quiet in the media, or consider it "mixed", that way we can keep bashing Bush on how terrible a President he's supposed to be ::)
-
Of course, since anything postive would be a postive for Bush. So, in the midst of ever increasing positives in both the economy and the Iraqi surge, must either keep it quiet in the media, or consider it "mixed", that way we can keep bashing Bush on how terrible a President he's supposed to be ::)
Why is it that you think the universe revolves around President Bush? You voted for him and your defensive about it. I got it Sirs. If we didn't understand it the first six dozen times, I think we all understand it by now.
As I noted to the Professor, none of this really concerns Bush. At least with these particular economic bubbles he hasn't done anything that wasn't already policy when he took office.
The economic indicators are mixed. It is a simple point of fact Sirs. It doesn't have anything to do with Bush because for most practical purposes he hasn't done much to influence them. The public sector has grown slightly larger and defense grants have increased, but that's about the extent of it. I'd say the most significant impact of this administration has been in the policy of the weak dollar, but I have a feeling that there's no sense discussing the pros and cons of that with you. Not unless you are willing to take off the "defend Bush at all cost" armor for a few minutes.
-
Of course, since anything postive would be a postive for Bush. So, in the midst of ever increasing positives in both the economy and the Iraqi surge, must either keep it quiet in the media, or consider it "mixed", that way we can keep bashing Bush on how terrible a President he's supposed to be ::)
Why is it that you think the universe revolves around President Bush?
You're asking the wrong person Js. Need to focus that question on those who blame Bush for practically everything that goes wrong in this world. And FYI, I've never equated "economy" with how good a president is. Ususally the economy is about 3+years behind whatever policies were implimented by that President. That's how Clinton inheireted such a good economy from Reagan & BushI, while Bush was saddled with a recession upon his taking office. Point being, that many people "perceive" economy with President, which is why you had that Clinton pitch angle of "It's the economy, stupid". When Clinton was in office, you could hardly get stories to discuss anything "mixed". Point being that it's the left who is constantly trying to downplay this economy, then blame Bush for that. It wasn't but the last Presidential election cycle of Democrat ads portraying this economy as the worst since Hoover, worse than even the depression.....then point a big finger a Bush. The former being a baldfaced distortion, with the latter being the attempt to connect the popular perception.
-
Ususally the economy is about 3+years behind whatever policies were implimented by that President.
LOL
Whatever works for you man.
-
Ususally the economy is about 3+years behind whatever policies were implimented by that President.
LOL Whatever works for you man.
Historically, it's whatever works for the country. 3yrs, 4yrs, 5yrs. Point being when Bush took office it was still Clinton's economy. Now we can definatively reference it as Bush's economy
-
Ususally the economy is about 3+years behind whatever policies were implimented by that President.
LOL Whatever works for you man.
Historically, it's whatever works for the country. 3yrs, 4yrs, 5yrs. Point being when Bush took office it was still Clinton's economy. Now we can definatively reference it as Bush's economy
So the DOW nosedive is something you blame on Bush?
-
Ususally the economy is about 3+years behind whatever policies were implimented by that President.
LOL Whatever works for you man.
Historically, it's whatever works for the country. 3yrs, 4yrs, 5yrs. Point being when Bush took office it was still Clinton's economy. Now we can definatively reference it as Bush's economy
So the DOW nosedive is something you blame on Bush?
No. You? You actually blame the President for a single day's economic act? Wow. Can we "blame him", when it rises 100, 200, even 300points in a day??
-
No. You? You actually blame the President for a single day's economic act? Wow. Can we "blame him", when it rises 100, 200, even 300points in a day??
First, it has been far from a single day. Second, I've already answered that (no, I don't). I was just trying to apply your odd arbitrary rule.
-
No. You? You actually blame the President for a single day's economic act? Wow. Can we "blame him", when it rises 100, 200, even 300points in a day??
First, it has been far from a single day.
The "nosedive" was 1 day yesterday. Prior to that there had been substantial gains with some losses.
Second, I've already answered that (no, I don't). I was just trying to apply your odd arbitrary rule.
As I've already said, not my rule. It's what the Dems do everytime there's a negative hiccup in the economy, then turn around and blame Bush (or whatever other GOP president is in the WH) for it...."Worst economy since the depression" I was hearing during the last Presidential election cycle. Last I checked, over the "rule" I was applying, the stock market has been steadily climbing over the last 3+yrs.
-
The "nosedive" was 1 day yesterday. Prior to that there had been substantial gains with some losses.
At least deal with facts.
The DJI closed on 14,000.41 on 19 July.
It lost 149.33 points on 20 July. It lost 226.47 points on 20 July. It lost 312.22 points on 26 July. It lost 208.10 points on 27 July. It lost 146.32 points on 31 July. It lost 281.42 points on 3 August. It lost 387.18 points on 9 August.
During the entire time period between 20 July and 10 August (today) there was one period of three days of positive gain (which included a paltry 35 point gain) and one period of two day gain. Those were 1-2 August and 6-8 August. In that time period the DJI lost 729.73 points.
If nothing else Sirs, at least use facts. Though I fully expect a complete weaseling out on your part, even when faced with actual data.
As I've already said, not my rule.
"Ususally the economy is about 3+ years behind whatever policies were implimented by that President." Those were your words, not anyone elses.
-
Actually, JS, the "nosedive" of the market centers around credit lending policies. These policies predated GWB.
-
Actually, JS, the "nosedive" of the market centers around credit lending policies. These policies predated GWB.
Oh, I agree Professor. I think I've said that two or three times in this thread actually.
-
The "nosedive" was 1 day yesterday. Prior to that there had been substantial gains with some losses.
At least deal with facts. The DJI closed on 14,000.41 on 19 July. It lost 149.33 points on 20 July. It lost 226.47 points on 20 July. It lost 312.22 points on 26 July. It lost 208.10 points on 27 July. It lost 146.32 points on 31 July. It lost 281.42 points on 3 August. It lost 387.18 points on 9 August.
Facts are largely were I congregate. So shall I add how many points the Dow has gained on specific days as well?? Bottom line being that it's been consistently going up. Where was it on Dec 31, 2002? 2005? now?
If nothing else Sirs, at least use facts. Though I fully expect a complete weaseling out on your part, even when faced with actual data.
Been trying to. It's not I trying to distort those facts with intermittent points of time pulled out to skew the discussion along your inferrence. Think trees/forest kind of thing
As I've already said, not my rule.
"Ususally the economy is about 3+ years behind whatever policies were implimented by that President." Those were your words, not anyone elses.
Yea, you're the 1 that referenced some nosedive, analogus one big precipitous fall. Something occuring short term, not over the 3+years I was referring to, since over that 3+yr period the dow has done anything but have some drastic nosedive
-
Actually, JS, the "nosedive" of the market centers around credit lending policies. These policies predated GWB.
Oh, I agree Professor. I think I've said that two or three times in this thread actually.
I know, just reinforcing a point for the less enlightened.
-
It is up for the year still.
I don't think I want the Presidency to include so much power thathe actually controlls the market.
But , thee are several things that the Government can do to spoil a good thing.
Why did the Economy falter under Clinton? Was it something he did or not?
-
Guys, obviously the DJI and NASDAQ will go up just out of sheer inflationary pressure. If it doesn't at least match inflation (and preferably slightly lead it given the ease of capital borrowing) then the economy is truly in trouble.