8th election thread

[H-Bomb Henry]

What I meant was that if you give Clinton credit for the boom, you should also give credit for the bust. However, I think that a lot of the turbulence of that cycle was due to the Fed not raising rates enough to curb economic growth.

I'm not an economist but this is my belief. The interest rates should've been high in the 90's to slow some of the growth. To me anytime you have extreme growth it's going to come to an end and it's not going to be good. I graduated in 2000 with and IT degree right at the end of the dot-com explosion. Lost my first two jobs because of cutbacks. Spent the next 8 years trying to save for a house only to have my savings not keep up with the amount that houses were going up year after year. Life is good.

[quarter23cd]

I'm not an economist but this is my belief. The interest rates should've been high in the 90's to slow some of the growth. To me anytime you have extreme growth it's going to come to an end and it's not going to be good. I graduated in 2000 with and IT degree right at the end of the dot-com explosion. Lost my first two jobs because of cutbacks. Spent the next 8 years trying to save for a house only to have my savings not keep up with the amount that houses were going up year after year. Life is good.

Wow, I could have written this same thing almost word for word.

[John Smith]

I'm not an economist but this is my belief. The interest rates should've been high in the 90's to slow some of the growth. To me anytime you have extreme growth it's going to come to an end and it's not going to be good. I graduated in 2000 with and IT degree right at the end of the dot-com explosion. Lost my first two jobs because of cutbacks. Spent the next 8 years trying to save for a house only to have my savings not keep up with the amount that houses were going up year after year. Life is good.

 

So you are saying that interest rates (FED) which hovered between 5 - 6% throughout the 1990's were too low and should have been higher to slow growth? OK that makes sense to an extent but when growth was in the shitter in the 2000's the rates dropped to spur the economy, which never really happened. The lower rates among other thngs allowed a lot of mortages to be written which otherwise would not have been written thus causing the housing bubble. Bubble being the difference between the market price of housiing and the actual value of the home. Soem here say Bush had nothing to do with all of this? I agree hhe personally had nothing to do with it, unless you consider putting pressure on the fed to lower interest rates, and the lack of regulation on our lending houses thus allowing them to market financial products that led to this mess. Way back in the 1980's the same stuff happened the banking industry was deregulated and they went wild with their mortgages and loans with the end result being that the tax payers had to foot the bill, as we are going to have to do again today.

 

But back to the original premise that growth needed to be reigned in during the 1990's? Do you honestly thing that growth was out of control, that it was so rampant during the 1990's that it needed to be reigned in? I view the 1990's as slow and steady throughout. Perhaps the changing economy with the dot com effect caused more growth than might have occurred, but I don't think it was so out of control that it needed to be reigned in and I think the relatively unchanging fed rates bear that out.

[Central Scrutinizer]

So you are saying that interest rates (FED) which hovered between 5 - 6% throughout the 1990's were too low and should have been higher to slow growth? OK that makes sense to an extent but when growth was in the shitter in the 2000's the rates dropped to spur the economy, which never really happened. The lower rates among other thngs allowed a lot of mortages to be written which otherwise would not have been written thus causing the housing bubble. Bubble being the difference between the market price of housiing and the actual value of the home. Soem here say Bush had nothing to do with all of this? I agree hhe personally had nothing to do with it, unless you consider putting pressure on the fed to lower interest rates, and the lack of regulation on our lending houses thus allowing them to market financial products that led to this mess. Way back in the 1980's the same stuff happened the banking industry was deregulated and they went wild with their mortgages and loans with the end result being that the tax payers had to foot the bill, as we are going to have to do again today.

 

But back to the original premise that growth needed to be reigned in during the 1990's? Do you honestly thing that growth was out of control, that it was so rampant during the 1990's that it needed to be reigned in? I view the 1990's as slow and steady throughout. Perhaps the changing economy with the dot com effect caused more growth than might have occurred, but I don't think it was so out of control that it needed to be reigned in and I think the relatively unchanging fed rates bear that out.

These are all excellent points.

 

I put it to you that the dot-com debacle fell upon the digital snake oil salesmen and well-intended souls who, like those who lost their homes in the subprime crisis, failed to account for the business side of their dreams. Money was lush -- not as much because of interest rates but because of venture capitalists -- and these funds chased gimmicks and rumor like the gold rush.

 

Again this is oversimplification, but the interest rate issue is another case of the haves vs. have-nots. Those with enough clout and control (political as well as financial) can set their own terms, while those setting out to grow and succeed are beholden to the rates and conditions of the market.

[John Smith]

These are all excellent points.

 

I put it to you that the dot-com debacle fell upon the digital snake oil salesmen and well-intended souls who, like those who lost their homes in the subprime crisis, failed to account for the business side of their dreams. Money was lush -- not as much because of interest rates but because of venture capitalists -- and these funds chased gimmicks and rumor like the gold rush.

 

Again this is oversimplification, but the interest rate issue is another case of the haves vs. have-nots. Those with enough clout and control (political as well as financial) can set their own terms, while those setting out to grow and succeed are beholden to the rates and conditions of the market.

 

 

I'll add my simplistic oversimplification on the dot com bubble/burst...Warren Buffet got it right when he refrained from investing in tech stocks because he knew so little about the industry. The investment bankers were not so hesitant. They were willing to toss around billions hither and yon based on potential. Sad thing is the potential they based it on was pure speculation at the time they had no track record to gauge it on, thus they didn't treat it with traditional business model methods partially out of fear that someone else will get there first and partially, mainly out of ignorance.

 

The housing market was something that the people making the loans knew full well could happen. When my mother passed away similar houses in her neighborhood were selling for $300K +. The people buying these houses were not executives, doctors etc... this is a working class (working class - a phrase I have problems with but use here for expediency) neighborhood, and these were ordinary regular people working hourly jobs etc... By the time we got the house ready for sale, and priced according to the market the market had dropped. each time we dropped the price the market dropped faster we could barely keep up with the market it was dropping so quickly. Eventually we did sell it at a substantially lower price. This was over a year ago that we sold and two years ago that we started the process, so the mortgage bubble was bursting long before it became news, it just took a while for it to make it into the national conscious.

 

The bubble was caused by the bankers being allowed to put risky products (sub prime mortgages for instance) on the market that were too irresistible for the general public. Now a person who might not be able to afford a home could buy because the low rates offered by these products would give them more purchasing power. All these new potential home buyers bid up prices because for a home that might previously have cost $150K you could pay $300K for and still be able to have a payment similar to that $150K home. And they had to pay$300K because the prices were being bid up by seller and a glut of buyers who could now afford a home. Once the bubble burst that $300K mortgage was supported by a $150K home and the rates were rising to make the payments more in line with a $300K home. Couple that with the oil price explosion that affected the cost of everything not the market. Soon we had a crisis whereby people had been backed into a corner and began losing their homes.

 

The common argument is that they should have known better and lived within their means. However when the risky mortgage products were sold to them they were living within their means, the banks were telling them this. In 2004 people had no clue that in 2006 their home value would plummet and their mortgage payments would rise beyond their means. Their bankers would not have made the loans if based on the conditions known at the time they knew that the customers could not afford the home. It

[Central Scrutinizer]

I'll add my simplistic oversimplification on the dot com bubble/burst...Warren Buffet got it right when he refrained from investing in tech stocks because he knew so little about the industry. The investment bankers were not so hesitant. They were willing to toss around billions hither and yon based on potential. Sad thing is the potential they based it on was pure speculation at the time they had no track record to gauge it on, thus they didn't treat it with traditional business model methods partially out of fear that someone else will get there first and partially, mainly out of ignorance.

 

The housing market was something that the people making the loans knew full well could happen. When my mother passed away similar houses in her neighborhood were selling for $300K +. The people buying these houses were not executives, doctors etc... this is a working class (working class - a phrase I have problems with but use here for expediency) neighborhood, and these were ordinary regular people working hourly jobs etc... By the time we got the house ready for sale, and priced according to the market the market had dropped. each time we dropped the price the market dropped faster we could barely keep up with the market it was dropping so quickly. Eventually we did sell it at a substantially lower price. This was over a year ago that we sold and two years ago that we started the process, so the mortgage bubble was bursting long before it became news, it just took a while for it to make it into the national conscious.

 

The bubble was caused by the bankers being allowed to put risky products (sub prime mortgages for instance) on the market that were too irresistible for the general public. Now a person who might not be able to afford a home could buy because the low rates offered by these products would give them more purchasing power. All these new potential home buyers bid up prices because for a home that might previously have cost $150K you could pay $300K for and still be able to have a payment similar to that $150K home. And they had to pay$300K because the prices were being bid up by seller and a glut of buyers who could now afford a home. Once the bubble burst that $300K mortgage was supported by a $150K home and the rates were rising to make the payments more in line with a $300K home. Couple that with the oil price explosion that affected the cost of everything not the market. Soon we had a crisis whereby people had been backed into a corner and began losing their homes.

 

The common argument is that they should have known better and lived within their means. However when the risky mortgage products were sold to them they were living within their means, the banks were telling them this. In 2004 people had no clue that in 2006 their home value would plummet and their mortgage payments would rise beyond their means. Their bankers would not have made the loans if based on the conditions known at the time they knew that the customers could not afford the home. It

[Atticus]

this thread made me smile for a minute today

 

that is some f***ing accomplishment

[Edie]

Is anyone still undecided after all these months? I am just amazed that people are not sure who to vote for.

 

Of course Sarah Palin does add something for the Republicans, an actual right wing, evangelical, backward thinking woman who is also the epitome of the late 20th century female liberal ideal. Strange days indeed.....

 

LouieB

 

It's interesting that McCain is positioning her as "looking forward" (ostensibly since she is younger) while he is really looking backwards as you pointed out. Additionally, he also stated that Biden is a backwards pick....

 

Anyway, I just hope in the next 60 days much of the lustre comes off of Sarah Palin. It's like she's a new shiny object for the right and the press for the most part.

 

And this is reposted, just to ensure that everyone reads it. Thanks Tracy

[Party @ the Moontower]

[Dreamin']

Palin: wrong woman, wrong message.

 

She'd be a great pick if you were casting a reality TV show... other than that, yikes!

[Party @ the Moontower]

Palin: wrong woman, wrong message.

 

She'd be a great pick if you were casting a reality TV show... other than that, yikes!

 

This does have the reality show feel This says it all...

 

Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

[Party @ the Moontower]

Palin telling her church god and companies must work together for Alsaka...very sick!

 

 

God's plan Palin? Warped stuff when politics and church mix.

[viatroy]

[Sal]

Palin telling her church god and companies must work together for Alsaka...very sick!

 

 

God's plan Palin? Warped stuff when politics and church mix.

 

 

This is the kind of stuff that scares me. We have just been through 8 years of this crap with Bush and look at the results. She sounds just like Bush did when he ran. This may be bad to say, but she just strikes me as wthite trash.

 

She feeds right into the theory that we want a Pres or VP that is just like us. How stupid is that? Don't we want the Pres and VP to be smarter than us. I cannot take much more of this shit.

[viatroy]

For those of you concerned about voting irregularities, I found a place that considers the potential problems and issues county by county.

 

 

Black Box Voting

[mybenito]

This picture is funny.

George Bush in Lipstick

[bjorn_skurj]

Sarah Palin is to John McCain as the Bandit was to Cledus. Think about it.

[John Smith]

I hereby nominate you for VC economist.

 

I will not seek, nor will I accept the position of economist. I'll stick to taxes.

[quarter23cd]

This picture is funny.

George Bush in Lipstick

Its funny because as I try to get a grip on what irks me about her, I realized that its that she reminds me of Bush before his fall from grace. Arrogant and belligerent without a lick of substance, and people are loving it.

 

What was that Bushism? "Fool me once, won't get fooled again"?

[Central Scrutinizer]

Sarah Palin is to John McCain as the Bandit was to Cledus. Think about it.

Does that mean Palin and Sally Fields are gonna get it on?

[Central Scrutinizer]

This picture is funny.

George Bush in Lipstick

Seriously, that would be a good strategy for the Democrats to pursue. Hammering it hard would dispel it quickly.

 

Did anyone hear about the Ga. Rep who called the Obamas "uppity"? When asked about it, he repeated it.

 

Had no idea that it had racial undertones. And Sherman never visited Atlanta, neither.

[fatheadfred]

Real happy that MSNBC has removed Matthews & Olbermann from live events. Gregory is so vanilla. I will miss the enthusiasm of Tweety and the chutzpah of Keith the librul. F/n sux. Fire Pat Buchanan while yer at it. A hole.

[embiggen]

I sure wish Tim Russert was still around.

[Wendy]

I sure wish Tim Russert was still around.

Oh, I truly second that emotion.

[Party @ the Moontower]

I just read Cindy bought God on Ebay for McCain & Palin.If they don't win, he's going up for sale until the next election.