Albert Lea Discussion Forum » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Opinion
Topic: Are we in a Recession?
started by: usmcr

Posted by usmcr on Oct. 24 2007,5:04 pm

a definition of a recession:
when you lose your job it is a recession, when i lose my job it is a depression!
the statistics for albert lea the last i heard was that the unemployment figure was at just about 6% & with the construction season approaching i think that figure will be higher. the old pay check will be stretched thinner with the heating season just around the corner. look for the discretionary spending to be tight!

The United States has entered a recession, according to highly-regarded investor Jim Rogers, who told Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper on Wednesday he was switching out of the dollar and into yen, the yuan and the Swiss franc.

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 24 2007,5:40 pm

From Dictionary.com

QUOTE

Wallstreet Words - Cite This Source - Share This
recession

An extended decline in general business activity. The National Bureau of Economic Research formally defines a recession as three consecutive quarters of falling real gross domestic product. A recession affects different securities in different ways. For example, holders of high-quality bonds stand to benefit because inflation and interest rates may decline. Conversely, stockholders of manufacturing firms will probably see company profits and dividends drop.

There is the benchmark. Either we are or aren't. I haven't seen 3 consecutive quarters--and even that is somewhat subjective. For example, if GDP rose FAST, and then leveled off to NORMAL from that rate, it might be seen "declining". Cause to worry? Probably not.

The stock market is high--buoyed in part from overseas investment. Unemployment nationwide is about as low as possible--nearly everyone that wants a job has one. Moving into foreign currencies? Speculators do that all the time--look at George Soros. The weak dollar bodes well for other countries to buy OUR products.

Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 24 2007,7:23 pm

What products? :laugh:

Not many left. What this does is really stick it to China. Now all the dollars they're getting are worth less, yet they're still doing the same work and our costs aren't going up. We made it so were really getting stuff cheap now.

No, this is not a recession because everyones working. But the old economy has changed. Less middle class, more poor and more rich. Health care eating up a HUGE amount of income. Certain segments continue to increase greater than inflation over time destroying our standard of living. Taxes, health care, college.

Posted by hot84svo on Oct. 24 2007,9:49 pm

We may not be in a recession - Inflation is back.

Inflation is like a nail in a tire, letting air out, it causes it to go flat without the driver knowing until it's too late.

It hurts communities where the majority is on a fixed income and does not have a skill set to demand or create higher wages.

Posted by Botto 82 on Oct. 25 2007,12:44 am

(TameThaTane @ Oct. 24 2007,7:23 pm)

QUOTE

What products! :laugh:

I think your emphasis would have been more widely picked-up on had you used a question mark, but what do I know? I'm the one on the short bus.

We still make cars here, last I looked. Trucks, too. Tanks. Airplanes. Munitions. Guns. Buses (short and long). SPAM. Enderes Tools. American Television. All the glass for the new Freedom Tower.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 25 2007,9:17 am

Ya let's raise taxes then...that will help our economy... :sarcasm:

< Donk's Want to Raise Taxes >

:dunce:

Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 25 2007,9:29 am

Donk's want to curb spending. Neocons want to attack Iran. They have WMD's.

Posted by Botto 82 on Oct. 25 2007,10:23 am

The current crew of neo-fascists doesn't resemble either party, save the vehement opposition to stem cell research.

I'd love to see one of you amBushCo faithful explain that one.

Posted by katlade on Oct. 25 2007,11:15 am

I am just concerned about the price of oil going up to $100 per barrel. That is what they are talking about now. Gas could be up to $5 a gallon. That is just crazy, who the hell can afford that.
I think the plan is to raise it to $5 so when it goes down to $3.50 we will all be relieved. If they raise it to $3.50 now everyone will be up in arms so why not raise it real high and then lower it to what they really want it to be.
This is what they have been doing for the last few years and we all just go along with it.

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 25 2007,1:23 pm

QUOTE

The weak dollar bodes well for other countries to buy OUR products.

You been flying without O2 again?

You're trying to imply that a weak dollar will somehow increase our standard of living because other countries will buy all our products?

If a weak dollar is good then maybe we should print up 10X the amount of dollars that are in circulation and then other countries can buy 10X as many products as before. :sarcasm:

The Looney (the Canadian dollar, not Jimhanson) is almost at parity with the American dollar because of the dollar's weakness, and nobody is expecting the Canadians to buy more American products, they're just going to buy cheaper American products.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 25 2007,2:38 pm

(TameThaTane @ Oct. 25 2007,9:29 am)

QUOTE

Donk's want to curb spending. Neocons want to attack Iran. They have WMD's.

"Good one, Pots!!"
Ralph Malph

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 25 2007,3:52 pm

QUOTE

That's why my Canadian friends that depend on Americans for their hunting and fishing camps are scaling back--but they are making buying trips to the U.S. Cabelas reports big sales to Canadians.

You need to spend more time away from fixing the site for us, and more time looking things up on your computer. Here's an example of the effect of a weaker dollar on AGRICULTURE

null< My Webpage >

With a weak dollar, EVERYTHING that we export becomes cheaper to overseas buyers. As pointed out, that includes airplanes, agriculture, cars, tanks, munitions, etc. That helps our balance of payments, helps our export markets, helps manufacturing, provides more jobs.

On the other hand, that makes everything that we buy from overseas more expensive--which eliminates some of the advantages of overseas manufacturing plants.

Let's look at it another way--American travel to Europe is down because of WHAT? The strong Euro? Do you think that people from OTHER countries might come here for the OPPOSITE reason--cheap vacations? :dunno:

Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 25 2007,4:04 pm

I'm an idiot.

I was gonna stock up on Euro's when you could get em for 80 cents. Now they're like 1.40.

Was about to pull the trigger on 10K worth of Microsoft next week and missed out. Up 15% just for today!

I like NetFlix. Cabela's may be a quick trade, but long term I don't like it. Prices are too high and too far to travel to its stores.

The Internet will eventually morph into interactive TV when broadband quality equals satellite. Looking for a play there, but it's many years out.

Posted by USMC5811 on Oct. 25 2007,4:12 pm

(TameThaTane @ Oct. 25 2007,4:04 pm)

QUOTE

I'm an idiot.

I've been telling you this for nine months.

Posted by usmcr on Oct. 25 2007,4:28 pm

the fallowing article could be named Monetary War!

WASHINGTON – The hottest selling book in China right now is called "Currency Wars," which makes the case that the U.S. Federal Reserve is a puppet of the Rothschilds banking dynasty and it has persuaded some top officials Beijing should resist America's demands to appreciate its own undervalued currency, the yuan.

This might not be news of concern to most Americans if the U.S. dollar were not in precipitous free-fall, having reached record lows against the euro yesterday.

What would it mean if China ever threw its economic weight around by dumping dollars in a major way?

Suffice it to say it is referred to in some quarters as China's financial "nuclear option," because it would be the economic equivalent of detonating a thermonuclear weapon in the world's financial markets.

But the American dollar's fate is hardly in the hands of the Chinese alone. Other foreign parties suspected of participating in a new "Currency Cold War" are Iran, Russia and Venezuela.
end article>

the u.s. is not in the lead world wide as its actions can have dire consequences by those who have the power to raise havoc in the economy of the u.s. it seems our credit card is maxed out & we are now at the mercy of our creditors! we must find an exit strategy out of iraq & afganistan to end the huge drain on our economy!

Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 25 2007,4:33 pm

Wha tha?!! :laugh:

You were beating the war drum louder than anyone!

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 25 2007,6:10 pm

QUOTE

The Internet will eventually morph into interactive TV when broadband quality equals satellite. Looking for a play there, but it's many years out.

Speaking of which--has anyone looked at CNN interactive on satellite? Holding down the select button lets you view the regular program in one window, news, sports, science etc in another--with text.

It's not ALL the way to interactive, but it's a start.

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 25 2007,8:09 pm

QUOTE

With a weak dollar, EVERYTHING that we export becomes cheaper to overseas buyers. As pointed out, that includes airplanes, agriculture, cars, tanks, munitions, etc. That helps our balance of payments, helps our export markets, helps manufacturing, provides more jobs.

On the other hand, that makes everything that we buy from overseas more expensive--which eliminates some of the advantages of overseas manufacturing plants.

Let's look at it another way--American travel to Europe is down because of WHAT? The strong Euro? Do you think that people from OTHER countries might come here for the OPPOSITE reason--cheap vacations?

That the dumbest thing you've ever said. If a weak dollar is a good thing then we would just print more money and decrease the value of the dollar. :dunce:

Posted by Ned Kelly on Oct. 26 2007,5:27 am

(Liberal @ Oct. 25 2007,8:09 pm)

QUOTE

That the dumbest thing you've ever said. If a weak dollar is a good thing then we would just print more money and decrease the value of the dollar. :dunce:

Could this be what is already happening? It would be the conservatives way to pay for war without taxing those who can afford to pay, and who supported the call to invade Iraq!........... :dunno:

.....ned

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 26 2007,11:01 am

Liberal--instead of firing up the ol' liberal attack machine, how about responding to the STATEMENT. Here it is again--which parts are not true?

QUOTE

Is this not true? :dunno:

QUOTE

On the other hand, that makes everything that we buy from overseas more expensive--which eliminates some of the advantages of overseas manufacturing plants.

Is THIS not true as well? :dunno:

With a weaker dollar, there is less incentive to move manufacturing to India and China, and pay for re-importing material--U.S. manufacturers have a better chance of competing in our own market.

QUOTE

Let's look at it another way--American travel to Europe is down because of WHAT? The strong Euro? Do you think that people from OTHER countries might come here for the OPPOSITE reason--cheap vacations?

Is THIS not also true? :dunno:

Is U.S. travel to Europe down because of the strong Euro? Are people from other countries (especially CAnada) not coming here for vacations and buying American products because they have a better rate of exchange? :dunno:

"Strong" dollar sounds so much better than "weak" dollar--nobody wants to be "weak" (well, OK, maybe some Donks think we should be weak) :sarcasm:

But having our dollar on parity with Canada--our largest trading partner, has certain advantages.

More libbie flip/flopping. People tend to decry the loss of jobs overseas, and our negative balance of payments. A weaker dollar HELPS both of those issues. You can't have it BOTH ways.

Posted by GEOKARJO on Oct. 26 2007,11:22 am

Coca Cola sent out a letter this week explaining that they will no longer be sending sales reps out to the accounts to solicit orders. They are going to call via telephone once a month and deliver only once a month.

This is a big cutback in employment, for the distributor. We are not selling any less product and I don't believe that sales of the product have dropped anywhere else.

Coke determines the price that the distributor can resell the product. Cost of transportation has effected the bottom line and finally in the forth quarter the distributor adjusted for a more profitable year next year.

Personal Service has once again been farmed out to some phone answering firm.

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 26 2007,12:03 pm

QUOTE

This is a big cutback in employment, for the distributor. We are not selling any less product and I don't believe that sales of the product have dropped anywhere else.

Are you saying that this is evidence that they are on hard times, and a recession is imminent? Or are you saying that they appear to have all of the sales they need (sales haven't dropped) and don't have to make sales calls? Or is this just a new way of doing business? :dunno:

Posted by GEOKARJO on Oct. 26 2007,12:08 pm

We also received a letter that they would not deliver less than 10 containers per order. New way of doing business I would say yes influenced by rising cost of transportation.

Posted by Botto 82 on Oct. 26 2007,12:42 pm

Your mildly-retarded President seems to be doing well on his investments. Dick Cheney, too.

Nope. No recession here.

Posted by usmcr on Oct. 26 2007,3:08 pm

$90 a barrel oil now, possible $100 a barrel by years end! the discretionary spending is going to go in the gas tank. those with long commutes are going to be really hurting. we are packed & ready to leave for the coast so will be watching with interest. no control over it so will just grin & bear it!

Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 26 2007,3:18 pm

^Wrong yet again. Gas prices won't spike because were primarily in a heating oil phase at this point. Gas prices will go up if were at $100 a barrel oil next summer.

We're still $10 less a barrel than we were in 1980 adjusted for inflation. Gas would be $1.65 a gallon if idiots wouldn't have all gone to gas guzzling SUV's(spiking demand) in the 90's and early 2000's.

Posted by usmcr on Oct. 26 2007,4:39 pm

that is exaxtly why this post is under opinions! there is no right or wrong here, it is simply my opinion. perhaps you should stake your future in commodites trading since you seem to know how the market is heading! :sarcasm:

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 27 2007,8:32 am

You can thank the left wing looney fringe for the $100 a barrel oil.

We could produce the same amount of oil that we buy from Saudi Arabia if the tree huggers and their liberal congressmen would let us drill in Alaska. :hairpull:

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 27 2007,8:55 am

I'll try this again and see if jimhanson can answer it this time.

If a weak dollar is a good thing then why don't we print up 10X the amount we have in circulation now and so that the the dollar will only be worth a dime?

The only thing a weak dollar might help is exports, but at the same time it will hurt imports and considering the trade defecit we're exporting a helluva lot less than we import.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 27 2007,11:48 am

Wallstreet doesn't seem to have a problem with any of this.

Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 27 2007,2:09 pm

QUOTE

You can thank the left wing looney fringe for the $100 a barrel oil.

Wrong yet again. These high prices are due to the upheaval in the middle-east, compliments of your friendly neighborhood neocon.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 27 2007,2:43 pm

So you don't think tapping into our own natural resources of oil fields would lower the oil prices? Maybe or maybe not...China would have more of an impact on that question. Anyway, if we were to open up our oil fields we wouldn't have to rely on middle east oil to the degree we do now. So the $100 per barrel oil would be a moot point.

I don't claim to be the smartest guy on the forum, but I've got to be a close second.

Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 27 2007,2:54 pm

You have the IQ of a monkey.

Posted by Botto 82 on Oct. 27 2007,3:41 pm

Don't forget that the U.S. is about at refinery capacity. That's one reason for sticky fuel prices.

Posted by hymiebravo on Oct. 27 2007,6:21 pm

(Botto 82 @ Oct. 27 2007,3:41 pm)

QUOTE

Don't forget that the U.S. is about at refinery capacity. That's one reason for sticky fuel prices.

I always kind of considered the refinery capacity issue as just another one of the reasons/items that oil people have on their revolving excuses for high prices wheel.

They give it a spin and then thats the excuse you get from them. lol

Low comsumption
High consumption
Warm winter
Cool summer
Refinery capacity
and on and on...

One things for certain that refinery capacity issue didn't stop the oil people from posting record profits.

Posted by hymiebravo on Oct. 27 2007,6:26 pm

A real no brainer easy solution to comsumption reduction.

Start fully implementing the use of Al Gore's Internet.

Stop people from clogging up the freeways and wasting gas to go to a cubicle. Have them build a cubicle at home.

Expand video conferencing.

Just to name 2.

Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 28 2007,10:24 am

Some of our major problems with the dollar crisis:

Currently the price of oil is tied to the dollar, if the dollar continues to decline the major oil exporting nations will peg the price of oil to the euro, with the euro increasing and the dollar declining costing US more for oil imports

The Bush Administration has been financing their deficit spending by borrowing from the Central Banks of Japan and China in the form of Treasury Bonds, the decline of dollars value will make these bonds less attractive, the Government will be forced to increase the interest rate to continue to borrow or raise taxes, a third choice would be to control spending..(ya right) the words Conservative and Republican should never be used in conjunction..

As to any benefit from a weak dollar, our imports exceed our exports so for the vast majority of Americans this is an inflationary situation that leads to less expendable income.
It will be extremely difficult for the weak dollar to turn around our import problems the American Worker can not survive on the slave wages paid the Chinese worker, As the value of the American Worker's wage declines so shall the health of the World Economy, we'll be lucky if all we see is a recession....

Posted by grassman on Oct. 28 2007,10:31 am

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 27 2007,2:43 pm)

QUOTE

Has anyone been to Texas, Illinois, Oklahoma,etc, lately? I have and see about 30% or less of the wells going. Someone doesn't want our oil on the market.

Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 28 2007,3:04 pm

Are we in a recession? I hope so.

I remember all those years struggling on minimum wage with no help from anyone. Being treated like crap from idiot bosses and so forth. So poor, I couldn't even challenge them legally even though I had very strong legal legs to stand on.

Now, I'm making more money than I ever have and oddly enough, I have zero compassion for anyone making less. In fact, I enjoy it when others struggle and hope everyone goes broke. Makes me even richer.

Basically EVERYTHING revolves around money. Just "follow the money" like Jesse Ventura would say.

Don't get mad at me. ALL of you clowns wanted this war and I was shouted down when I spoke up. ALL IDIOTS! 1.2 BILLON DOLLARS IS NOW MISSING just from the funds for training the Iraq police.

1.2 BILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1.2 BILLION just from this one thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Imagine how much else is missing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was just the neocons raping the treasury and all you idiots allowed and sanctioned it to happen.

So...I have zero sympathy for you and hope you all get buried financially. Even if I make 20K a month I give ZERO money, not even one penny to charity. Piss on ya... :finger:

That's all I need...that is to give money to outfits like the United Way run by theives like our former mayor. NO THANKS! All my money is mine, ALL mine and I hope everyone except Liberal gets the boots put to them financially. Liberal deserves a break.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 28 2007,9:14 pm

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

Posted by Febreze on Oct. 28 2007,9:34 pm

(TameThaTane @ Oct. 25 2007,4:04 pm)

QUOTE

I'm an idiot.

You said it

Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 28 2007,9:38 pm

See, you could care less the neocons stole billions from the treasury, so why should I care about you?

Posted by Botto 82 on Oct. 28 2007,9:44 pm

(TameThaTane @ Oct. 28 2007,3:04 pm)

QUOTE

Now, I'm making more money than I ever have and oddly enough, I have zero compassion for anyone making less. In fact, I enjoy it when others struggle and hope everyone goes broke. Makes me even richer.

This sums you up in one paragraph.

I'm done with this forum as long as you're a moderator, and this is why.

Hayson, delete my account, please.

Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 28 2007,9:48 pm

Yes, perhaps you have a point Botto. Obviously, I'm still a tad bitter over earlier life experiences.
Just delete yourself by not posting. You HAVE choices. If Liberal deletes your handle, you'll just have to make-up a new handle when you cool off. I never use mod powers. You just don't like my opinion and so want to see me punished. That's OK, I don't always agree with your opinion either.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 29 2007,8:28 am

(TameThaTane @ Oct. 25 2007,9:29 am)

QUOTE

Donk's want to curb spending. Neocons want to attack Iran. They have WMD's.

You are naive if you think donks want to curb spending. Tim waltz didn't say anything of the sort on Saturday. In fact he said he would spend the same amount spent on the war on other things.

You need to get out of your mommies house more and get more informed... :dunce:

Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 29 2007,9:00 am

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 27 2007,11:48 am)

QUOTE

Wallstreet doesn't seem to have a problem with any of this.

A far better barometer of whether we are in a recession would be a view of utility delinquency lists

CenterPoint Energy, the state's largest provider of natural gas, reported that about a third of its customers - about 208,000 businesses and households - owe money. More than half of those delinquent customers are at least two months behind on payments, and owe an average of $1,500. CenterPoint's outstanding bills total $100 million, double what the company has seen in recent years. Xcel Energy has also noted increased delinquencies, as has Minnesota Energy Resources, which serves 51 counties around the state....the list goes on...

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 29 2007,9:18 am

Interesting...I'd like to see the study if you can point me in the right direction...

Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 30 2007,7:51 am

...

< http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/06/14/gascutoff/ >

< http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1513979.html >

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 30 2007,11:48 am

Does this prove that we're in a recession?

No, it proves that people owe money.

QUOTE

The CenterPoint move comes as concerns mount nationally over high consumer debt, rising payments on adjustable-rate mortgages and higher levels of unemployment.

I didn't see anything there about concerns over a recession, despite the wishful thinking of the Donks. High consumer debt, higher payments on mortgages--hard to pin THAT on Bush--but give us an old-fashioned RECESSION, well, THAT would be good! :sarcasm:

QUOTE

Last summer, CenterPoint reported that about a third of its customers -- about 208,000 businesses and households -- owed money after the heating season.

Gee, Wally, d'ya 'spose that might have somthin' to do with the fact that utilities can't shut off the gas in Minnesota in the winter time? :sarcasm:

Not much incentive to pay the utility bill, when you know that they can't do anything about it.

The Donks are still smarting after the Clinton recession in 2000--when the economy took off under Bush. Stock market is high, unemployment low, consumer spending is high, GDP high, durable goods orders high--No evidence of a recession yet, but like Peter Pan, "if you really BELIEVE, it will come true." :sarcasm:

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 30 2007,1:30 pm

QUOTE

The Donks are still smarting after the Clinton recession in 2000

It was the shrub's recession, not Clinton's

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 30 2007,2:58 pm

Look at the figures, the downturn started in March, 2000--the election wasn't until November, and he wasn't in office until January 21st.

Remember the definition of recession--2 (some people say 3) consecutive quarters of decline in GDP.

Posted by Ned Kelly on Oct. 31 2007,5:26 am

Recession is when the average american's paycheck stays the same and everything he must buy goes up. In the eyes of the neocons this is a good thing!.......... :frusty:

.....ned

Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 31 2007,5:38 am

That's inflation Einstein.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 31 2007,8:49 am

(Liberal @ Oct. 30 2007,1:30 pm)

QUOTE

The Donks are still smarting after the Clinton recession in 2000

It was the shrub's recession, not Clinton's

Uh...no. You are incorrect on that.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 31 2007,9:51 am

< Economy grows by 3.9% this summer. >

hmmmm.........

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 31 2007,12:02 pm

QUOTE

Recession is when the average american's paycheck stays the same and everything he must buy goes up. In the eyes of the neocons this is a good thing!..........

That's so wrong for so MANY reasons.

First, as TTT pointed out, that's recession.

Do you have any source for your definition, or did you make that up yourself?

Do you have any proof that "neocons" think this is a good thing, or did you read that over at Daily Kos?

WHY would "neocons" WANT prices to go up, and paychecks remain the same? :dunno:

Conservatives by definition believe in the power of the marketplace--and the more money people have to spend, the better for the economy--the more money business makes, the more they invest, the more people are employed, and with a shortage of labor, wages go up. EVERY tax cut in the history of the country has proven this--the economy expanded.

On the flip side, every attempt at socialist wage and price controls has been a failure.

Posted by hymiebravo on Oct. 31 2007,12:18 pm

QUOTE

WHY would "neocons" WANT prices to go up, and paychecks remain the same? Conservatives by definition believe in the power of the marketplace

Yes the markets. You mean like the oiL markets, commodities markets, utility monopolies those sorts of things.

People HAVE to buy that stuff. One way or the other. Wether their pay check stays the same or not. You have to have food an electricity.

So yes the price of that can go up and they (those with interests in those markets) wouldn't be effected by wether peoples paychecks went up or went down.

Helk thats really the beauty of it from a business standpoint in it ? lol

Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 31 2007,12:58 pm

(jimhanson @ Oct. 31 2007,12:02 pm)

QUOTE

the power of the marketplace--and the more money people have to spend, the better for the economy--the more money business makes, the more they invest, the more people are employed, and with a shortage of labor, wages go up.

What you've basically describe here is Demand-side economics unfortunately what the current Administration is practicing is Supply-sider theory..
Tax cuts for the affluent, and other "voodoo economic." Supply-sider policies such as Corporate giveaways to stimulate investment make no economic sense if the consumer is bankrupt..The tax cut should have been a payroll tax cut putting the money in the hands of the consumers..
"it's the economy stupid."

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 31 2007,1:52 pm

(hymiebravo @ Oct. 31 2007,12:18 pm)

QUOTE

gong

You do not have to buy oil or utitlities....that is a personal choice. Convenient, yes. Necessary, no. The small amish community south of Gordonsville is proof of that.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 31 2007,1:57 pm

(Expatriate @ Oct. 31 2007,12:58 pm)

QUOTE

Tax cuts for the affluent, and other "voodoo economic." Supply-sider policies such as Corporate giveaways to stimulate investment make no economic sense if the consumer is bankrupt..The tax cut should have been a payroll tax cut putting the money in the hands of the consumers..

Correct me if I'm wrong...but wasn't every tax bracket lowered?

Either way...the tax cuts SHOULD go to those that pay the most. In fact the income tax should be a flat tax where no one is discriminated against or penalized for being finanically successful.

Posted by hymiebravo on Oct. 31 2007,2:31 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 31 2007,1:52 pm)

QUOTE

(hymiebravo @ Oct. 31 2007,12:18 pm)

QUOTE

gong

You do not have to buy oil or utitlities....that is a personal choice. Convenient, yes. Necessary, no. The small amish community south of Gordonsville is proof of that.

Your pretty fast and loose with that " GONG " there CC...

Paticularly for somebody whos grasping at tiny microscopic shards from tiny microscopic straws.

Yea I'll bet Cheney, Bush, Condee and Exon all lie awake at night worrying about the sudden conversion of the entire US to the " Amish " life style.

QUOTE

Correct me if I'm wrong

I have a better idea...
Why don't you come back when you have it right. lol
Oh wait we'd never see you again.

Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 31 2007,2:31 pm

QUOTE

The tax cut should have been a payroll tax cut putting the money in the hands of the consumers..

As CC says "GONG!" When the tax cuts were made, new witholding tables went out. Employers started immediately witholding LESS tax money from the paychecks of workers.

Workers had IMMEDIATE access to THEIR money. They didn't have to wait for a refund from the gummint.

In any case, the tax cut WORKED--as they ALWAYS have.

Posted by Wolfie on Oct. 31 2007,8:01 pm

I know its a hit to the pocket book and it also requires some technical know how, but there are now affordable solar and wind power system that can provide enough electricity for the average household to go "off-grid". Something I hope to do very soon. Both at home and the shop. Utilities are my two largest expenses at both locations. I would so love to tell Alliant Energy to go to hell with their unfair pricing structure for commercial utilities. But that a discussion for another day. As far as the recession goes. I have seen a slow down in discretionary spending, but not so much more than normal for this time of year just maybe a week or two earlier than normal. I might be a little bit more tuned in on that because what I sell nobody "HAS" to have its all fun stuff.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 31 2007,11:06 pm

(hymiebravo @ Oct. 31 2007,2:31 pm)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 31 2007,1:52 pm)

QUOTE

(hymiebravo @ Oct. 31 2007,12:18 pm)

QUOTE

gong

You do not have to buy oil or utitlities....that is a personal choice. Convenient, yes. Necessary, no. The small amish community south of Gordonsville is proof of that.

QUOTE

Correct me if I'm wrong

I have a better idea...
Why don't you come back when you have it right. lol
Oh wait we'd never see you again.

Hey don't take it personal. I wasn't attcking you personally. :;):

...nothing in my statement was false. Practical? Now that's a different subject.

Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 02 2007,9:39 am

QUOTE

[quote=Common Citizen,Oct. 31 2007,1:57 pm]
Correct me if I'm wrong...but wasn't every tax bracket lowered?

If you look at the Tax cut this way the difference between 2002 and 2006 a wage earner making $50,000 is about $16. a week in Tax savings, or roughly $ 800. a year.
Can we attribute our property tax increases to Washington? Look at the National debt increase over the Bush years, this is just like credit card debt for our Nation, it'll have to be repaid with interest, our individual share of this debt along with increases in state and local tax, fees and levies show the fuzzy math involved in this deception....

Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 02 2007,10:14 am

Expatriate--I agree on overspending. Nobody seems able to control Congressional spending. Until we get a line item veto, and a prohibition on attaching "pork" bills to popular bills, we're sunk.

On the income side, did revenues NOT go UP when taxes were cut--just like they do EVERY time taxes are cut?

Did all workers--not just the "rich"--get more money to spend?

Did this consumer spending not pull us out of the recession, and spark the markets to all-time highs?

If the Donks and the media keep talking up a recession--they just might create one.

Posted by Liberal on Nov. 08 2007,9:18 pm

QUOTE

IWG Responds to Unprecedented Shift in US/Canadian Dollar Exchange Rate
BURNABY, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwire - Nov. 8, 2007) - International Water-Guard Industries Inc. (TSX VENTURE:IWG) has adjusted its pricing and business policies in response to the unprecedented shift in exchange rates between the US and Canadian dollar, announced David Fox, president and chief executive officer.

With the Canadian dollar at an all time high, IWG has raised its US prices by 7%, while working with non-US customers to transition sales to local currency such as the Euro, Fox explained.

"The Canadian dollar has appreciated more than 20% against the US dollar over the last year," he pointed out. "As a Canadian aerospace company doing business in US dollars, we must compensate for this devaluation of company revenue, and ensure that IWG's robust growth in terms of shipments and financial performance continues."

< http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=790571 >

Who would have thought a weak dollar could cause something like this?

Posted by grassman on Nov. 08 2007,9:25 pm

(Wolfie @ Oct. 31 2007,8:01 pm)

QUOTE

PM me and I can fix you up! :thumbsup:

Posted by grassman on Nov. 08 2007,9:40 pm

Oh yeah, Weyerhauser is closing their plant up here along with another in Canada, no recession?

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 09 2007,8:11 am

(jimhanson @ Oct. 24 2007,5:40 pm)

QUOTE

From Dictionary.com

QUOTE

Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 14 2007,7:53 am

"He, He, He, He" -GW

< Movin' on Up >

John Edward's campaign on the "Two America's"... :rofl:

Tell us Johnny Reb...which America has had the greatest percentage change in income?

The income gap between the rich and the poor..."It is the incentive offered to those in the lower quintiles to get out of them and move up. And the fact that there are people where you want to go proves you can get there."

...however, there will always be those that are not motivated to move up, some can't help it, many can...there will always be those that are more comfortable remaining dependent on a nanny state from birth to death.

Posted by katlade on Nov. 14 2007,10:51 am

(jimhanson @ Oct. 30 2007,11:48 am)

QUOTE

[

QUOTE

Last summer, CenterPoint reported that about a third of its customers -- about 208,000 businesses and households -- owed money after the heating season.

Gee, Wally, d'ya 'spose that might have somthin' to do with the fact that utilities can't shut off the gas in Minnesota in the winter time? :sarcasm:

Not much incentive to pay the utility bill, when you know that they can't do anything about it.

Not true. You have to qualify in order for the utility company not to turn you off in winter. There is a form to fill out and you need to promise to pay a portion of your monthly income each month. If you make to much money you don't qualify and they will turn your utilities off if they so choose. SEMCAC still offers assistance but I believe the funding has been cut or still stays the same so it doesn't last as long with the rising costs.
So imagine all those folks who are living on a fixed income? For example - social security. They are getting a modest raise for 2008 but doesn't even come close to covering the rising cost of utilities, groceries, gas, prescriptions etc. So what choice do these people have. They have worked all their lives and now may lose thier homes because of the rising costs of everything. I am sure we all have parents or grandparents. I think it is bull ****. They will be forced to sell their houses and move into senior citizens dwellings.
And by the way even if some of these lower income people can make arrangements to keep utilities on during the winter they still have to pay what is left owing in the spring or get turned off at that time. Please don't make it sound like people are getting by with not paying their bill. Maybe you have suggestions for these folks that are struggling.

Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 15 2007,12:24 pm

(katlade @ Nov. 14 2007,10:51 am)

QUOTE

Maybe you have suggestions for these folks that are struggling.

Rent.

Posted by TameThaTane on Nov. 15 2007,12:51 pm

Stop voting to tax themselves.

Posted by scorenix on Nov. 15 2007,1:10 pm

(katlade @ Nov. 14 2007,10:51 am)

QUOTE

So imagine all those folks who are living on a fixed income? For example - social security. They are getting a modest raise for 2008 but doesn't even come close to covering the rising cost of utilities, groceries, gas, prescriptions etc. So what choice do these people have. They have worked all their lives and now may lose thier homes because of the rising costs of everything.

Sounds like the entire population to me. Everyone lives on a fixed income. And everyone is facing rising costs. Why single out only those living on Social Security? Seems the only argument we have nowadays is what happens to senior citizens or the children and we ignore everyone else.

Posted by TameThaTane on Nov. 15 2007,5:45 pm

School administrators got a fine raise. So did our little county attorney. Many get very handsome raises.

Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 16 2007,2:15 pm

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulates electricity and natural gas, It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure Utilities provide safe, adequate, and reliable service...
MN Rules 7820.1500 - 7820.2300 covers the Cold Weather Rule , applies between October 15th and April 15th
your utilities can be shut off anytime, it's not the free lunch jimhanson would have you believe..

< http://www.puc.state.mn.us/consumer/assist/coldrule.htm >

Posted by banquo on Nov. 16 2007,6:52 pm

uhhh, messed up quote post. :dunce:

Posted by usmcr on Dec. 24 2007,9:59 pm

some interesting reading concearaning a recession in 2008.

Uh Oh... "It's Coming in 2008"
By Dr. Steve Sjuggerud
August 10, 2007

Talk about a bold call...

When interest rates were 15% back in 1980, Steve Leuthold wrote an extraordinary book predicting that interest rates in America would fall to 5%.

Nobody believed him... everyone thought inflation would run away from us and that we were doomed. In his book, The Myths of Inflation, Leuthold also predicted inflation would fall to 3%.

He was right on both counts. These bold predictions were extremely optimistic. So when Steve Leuthold makes a bold prediction – whether it's optimistic or pessimistic – I listen.

Steve Leuthold is one of my favorite investment analysts. Last year, DailyWealth's Tom Dyson trekked up to Minneapolis to meet with The Leuthold Group. In the process, the group put us on its client mailing list. We appreciate it (If you're looking for a good money manager in this rough time, you may want to get to know these guys...

In its latest missive, The Leuthold Group sizes up recessions since World War II. The evidence presented, based on one statistic, is decidedly negative... This indicator has only been wrong once (in '67). And the indicator is signaling that recession is coming in 2008...

The indicator is relatively simple... when long-term interest rates dip below short-term interest rates, it's a bad sign. The chart here tells the story... The blue line is the ratio of long rates to short rates. When it goes below zero, recession sets in roughly less than a year's time:

The indicator has just flashed again. If it's right, recession should be around the corner. With the problems in the real estate market, compounded by the subprime lending problems, it shouldn't be a surprise if we do see a recession.

Why would long-term rates ever dip below short-term rates anyway? Under normal circumstances, you'd want to be paid more for lending money for a long time than for a short time. Here's why it can happen...

The Federal Reserve controls short-term rates. But long-term interest rates are left up to the free market. What the free market is trying to tell the Fed is "Lower rates now!" When the Fed doesn't listen, short rates go higher than long rates, stifling the economy and pushing us into recession.

Leuthold also looked at the '40s and '50s and found that, even though the Fed kept interest rates artificially low, whenever the ratio of long rates to short rates got extremely low, recessions hit. In all instances, stocks turned down before the recession set in.

Leuthold sums the study up by saying if stocks stay weak, and we combine that with the inverted yield curve, the likelihood of recession in 2008 is "quite high."

world wide problems?

< http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money....123.xml >

Posted by january on Dec. 25 2007,7:39 pm

We figure things are going south here as well.

We cut our own wood for heat and are going at it pretty intensely in an attempt to ward off inflated fuel oil prices.

We are attempting to be objective and basically optimistic but it is difficult and we figure the recession is going to hit 2008-2009.

We have stocked up on much meat/grocery items. I read the financials and current events voraciously every day. Things are not good.

We are attempting to streamline and focus.

When I was in my twenties I had a rough financial patch and remember that fallout for years. It is something you just hang onto. Even if I become a multimillionaire I believe I will always feel poor.

Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 26 2007,8:25 am

^Will Rogers once said "invest in inflation, it's the only thing that's going up" and that's a sound principle...

Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 26 2007,11:33 am

I haven't read this thread in a while.

QUOTE

Last summer, CenterPoint reported that about a third of its customers -- about 208,000 businesses and households -- owed money after the heating season.

Jim--

QUOTE

Gee, Wally, d'ya 'spose that might have somthin' to do with the fact that utilities can't shut off the gas in Minnesota in the winter time? :sarcasm:

Not much incentive to pay the utility bill, when you know that they can't do anything about it.

Katlade and Expatriate somehow interpret that as my saying that is a "free lunch". :dunno:

I never said that--how could it be a "free lunch" if I highlighted the phrase "still owed money AFTER the heating season"? If you OWE something, it isn't free.

As I pointed out, maybe the fact that 208,000 households STILL OWED MONEY after the heating season had more to do with the no-cutoff for residences than it did with a "recession". It would be interesting to see what the percentage of BUSINESSES (that are not subject to "no cutoff") have back payments due.

Not advocating for getting rid of "no-cutoff" laws--just pointing out that the anecdote of people owing money on heating bills is hardly an indicator of a coming recession.

Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 26 2007,12:31 pm

^What you're implying in your post is that the hundreds of thousands people on Minnesota's utility cutoff lists are just cheating the system! While there are cheats in every sector of society the large numbers here clearly show a financial hardship in the State's population.

Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 26 2007,1:26 pm

QUOTE

What you're implying in your post is that the hundreds of thousands people on Minnesota's utility cutoff lists are just cheating the system!

Where do you come up with an interpretation like that? :dunno:

I didn't say it--the article used the word OWE (which I highlighted)

QUOTE

Last summer, CenterPoint reported that about a third of its customers -- about 208,000 businesses and households -- owed money after the heating season.

QUOTE

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This owe (ō) Pronunciation Key
v. owed, ow·ing, owes

v. tr.

To be indebted to the amount of: He owes me five dollars.
To have a moral obligation to render or offer: I owe them an apology.
To be in debt to: We owe the plumber for services rendered.
To be indebted or obliged for: owed their riches to oil; owes her good health to diet and exercise.
To bear (a certain feeling) toward a person or persons: You seem to owe your neighbors a grudge.
Archaic To have as a possession; own.

v. intr.
To be in debt: She still owes for the car.

To OWE is a continued obligation. Do you see anything in the definition about "cheating the system"? Neither I nor the author of the article implied that anybody was "cheating the system."

But then, for people that can't come up with the meaning of a two-letter word ("It depends on what the meaning of IS-is") defining a THREE-LETTER WORD has to be a real problem.

Posted by scorenix on Dec. 26 2007,5:58 pm

I've got to go with Jim on this one. You wonder how many people, knowing the heat cannot be turned off, might delay in making their payment. I don't think that is a very good indication of whether or not we are in a recession.

Here's one that might:

Target announced that same store increases (stores open at least one year) will average -1 to +1 % for the month of December.

If the rest of the retailing industry follows suit, it would not bode well for consumer spending, especially for the Christmas season.

In Las Vegas, I read that 1 of every 152 households is in foreclosure, and that the number is growing every month. California is close behind.

Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 27 2007,12:58 am

So, those are over priced spec homes which need to come down in price and Amazon had the best Christmas ever. Retailing is just going to the web. The dollar is chasing value.

We aren't in a recession, we're in an inflation. Gas, food, taxes, health care, college and other factors make this an inflationary period.

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 27 2007,12:28 pm

QUOTE

Inventing The "Clinton Recession"

The CEA is trying to alter the start date in a way that benefits Bush. `Tain't fair

No one should be surprised when economic or budget forecasts coming out of Washington are influenced by politics, especially during an election year. But when economic history is rewritten -- with political consequences -- that's going too far. President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, chaired by Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, is trying to get away with exactly such revisionist history. The CEA's Economic Report of the President, released Feb. 9, unilaterally changed the start date of the last recession to benefit Bush's reelection bid. Instead of using the accepted start date of March, 2001, the CEA announced that the recession really started in the fourth quarter of 2000 -- a shift that would make it much more credible for the Bush Administration to term it the "Clinton Recession." In a subsequent press conference, Mankiw said that the CEA had looked at the available data and "made the call."

This simple statement masks an attack on one of the few remaining bastions of economic neutrality. For almost 75 years, the start and end dates of recessions have been set by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private nonpartisan research group based in Cambridge, Mass.

While there have been complaints over the years, this arrangement has been accepted by economists, government agencies, and politicians -- until now. "For the first time, the federal government is intervening in the process," says Robert Hall, an economist at Stanford University and the conservative Hoover Institution who since 1978 has chaired the NBER panel of seven prominent economists who make the actual decision. The NBER's decisions have been dragged into the political arena before, but without impact. In the early 1980s, the Reagan Administration tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the NBER to combine the 1980 and 1981-82 recessions into a single downturn that could be called the "Carter Recession." During the '92 election season, the first Bush Administration kept hoping that the NBER would announce that the recession of 1990-91 was over -- a statement that didn't come until December, 1992.

To be fair, even if the latest recession did begin after Bush took office in January, 2001, no one can say he caused it. And Mankiw is also under attack from Republicans for what they consider his overly tin ear on other subjects, most notably his statement that the outsourcing phenomenon is "a plus for the economy in the long run."

Still, his decision to fiddle with economic convention can't be seen as anything less than manipulation in an election year. In his press conference, Mankiw justified his decision by saying, correctly, that the NBER panel was already considering moving the recession start date forward. Some key data that the NBER watch -- including industrial production and inflation-adjusted business sales -- peaked in mid-2000. On the other hand, the latest revisions from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shifted the peak of nonfarm employment slightly later, from February to March, 2001. That's important, because the recessions of 1981-82 and 1990-91 both started in or after the month that employment fell.

But rather than waiting for the NBER's decision, Bush's CEA jumped the gun. And it made the biggest change possible, despite considerable debate within the NBER panel. The revised date is "very much up in the air," says Hall. Adds Jeffrey Frankel, a member of the NBER panel, an economist at Harvard University, and a former member of Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers: "The way I read the data, there isn't a strong case for moving the date up by more than one month." That puts the start date at February, 2001, after Bush took office. The lack of a clear picture has led the NBER to hold off making a final decision pending more accurate data. There's "no sense of time pressure," says Hall. "We want to do this right."

Economists who go to Washington always struggle to maintain their objectivity against the political demands of the administration they work for. Based on its latest performance, the CEA seems to have lost the battle.

By Michael J. Mandel

< http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_08/b3871044.htm >

Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 27 2007,3:54 pm

Yawn. We've covered this one before--you want to go back to an article that PRE-DATES the last argument? What next--Bush went back in time to cause the Pearl Harbor attack? :sarcasm:

There apparently IS no end to Bush Derangement Syndrome.

QUOTE

Instead of using the accepted start date of March, 2001, the CEA announced that the recession really started in the fourth quarter of 2000 -- a shift that would make it much more credible for the Bush Administration to term it the "Clinton Recession." In a subsequent press conference, Mankiw said that the CEA had looked at the available data and "made the call."

The CEA revises the start date back one quarter (you might have noticed that government economists revise numbers all the time) The CEA was not alone in noting the change

QUOTE

Mankiw justified his decision by saying, correctly, that the NBER panel was already considering moving the recession start date forward. Some key data that the NBER watch -- including industrial production and inflation-adjusted business sales -- peaked in mid-2000. On the other hand, the latest revisions from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shifted the peak of nonfarm employment slightly later, from February to March, 2001

So now we have TWO agencies that saw enough evidence of the Clinton Recession to dare to challenge his "legacy"--but CEA acted first.

Even this article admits

QUOTE

To be fair, even if the latest recession did begin after Bush took office in January, 2001, no one can say he caused it.

So what's the point? :dunno:

A Google look provides a rejoinder to your article that goes into much more detail. Pretty hard to argue with this. null< My Webpage > Or the previously printed chart (below).

What's the point of the argument? Saving Clinton's "Legacy"?

The point is that despite the events of 9/11, the recession was over--the anti-recession programs worked. I guess anything that Bush did RIGHT is an anathema to libs--BDS is alive and well.

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 27 2007,10:58 pm

QUOTE

Even this article admits
QUOTE
To be fair, even if the latest recession did begin after Bush took office in January, 2001, no one can say he caused it.

So what's the point?

What was the point when you called it "The Clinton Recession"? Was it that homoerotic Clinton fixation of yours, or are you just trying to revise history like the Partisan hacks at newsmax.com?

Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 28 2007,10:46 am

The title of the thread is "Are we in a recession?" You bring up something from the 2004 election--a piece widely disproved in the press. I give you SEVERAL references that prove the liberal allegation was wrong when written in 2004, and wrong NOW.

You have to wonder why you are bringing it up NOW--what your agenda is--other than Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 28 2007,10:59 am

QUOTE

You have to wonder why you are bringing it up NOW--what your agenda is--other than Bush Derangement Syndrome.

YOU brought it up when you tried to pin the recession on Clinton. :rofl:

Was it that homoerotic Clinton fixation that made you do it?

Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 28 2007,11:31 am

My last post on that was October 30. Why are you bringing it up AGAIN--2 months later? :dunno:

Things a little slow on the board and decided to say something outrageous to spur some controversy?

Typical libbie--if you can't win an argument on FACTS--attack the presenter. Sorry if the facts don't fit your view of the world, but I guess that other than present the facts, there isn't much I can do to help you. You'll have to lick this BDS by yourself. Here's wishing you well! :thumbsup:

Posted by banquo on Dec. 28 2007,6:43 pm

(scorenix @ Dec. 26 2007,5:58 pm)

QUOTE

You would be amazed at how many people don't pay anything on their utilities all winter. Come spring they move into a unit where utilities are included cause they owe Alliant megabucks that they cannot pay.

Happens all the time.

Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 04 2008,3:16 pm

The canary has been dead for some time now, GW has a plan to revive it, it's called "Spin and Denial and Print More Money" it'll probably involve another tax cut and war stimulus package..
The Bush Administration and the Federal Reserve directly oversaw each and every credit bubble and the bad loan policies that bore them.

Posted by hairhertz on Jan. 04 2008,6:04 pm

a few trillion $ here, a few trillion $ there
print more money, spread it everywhere

Posted by grassman on Jan. 05 2008,6:51 am

Ah yes, the "just print more money theology". Some of the general public have been taking notes. There seems to be funny money popping up a little more than usual now. Why should the govt be the only ones that can bail themselves out that way.

Posted by grassman on Jan. 18 2008,10:04 am

Well, it is official. Bush is going to give everyone a $800 bonus. This will certainly fight off recession. Also we must give buisness a tax cut. We can't forget them you know. What's good for them is good for us. You know Reagan's trickle down theory! Let's see.... what is a strong factor for recession? Not as much money circulating. All the money has been horded by the big shots. What is the ratio of the rich to the average Joe? The average Joe is who spends the most of what he has just to live. The rich collect money. That is why the trickle down theory has not and never will work. The natural greed of the top elite. It's mine, mine mine! Let's give the top brass some stock options, bonuses and trips to the Bahamas. While there might as well stash some of our money so it won't be taxed. What a theory.

Posted by scorenix on Jan. 18 2008,10:38 am

Whoa be Hillary if she wins this November. The conservatives, including our forum residents, will blame Clinton for this recession.

Is this the final nail on the Bush legacy coffin that will move him into the lowest five to ten worst Presidents in history?

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 18 2008,10:58 am

Ya and the donks answer is to increase taxes... :rofl:

Posted by grassman on Jan. 18 2008,11:41 am

Where is Georgie going to get the money to spark the economy, the bank? :rofl:

When does the borrowed money run out? I've said this before. Our way of capitalism has reached to the point of a poker game. When one player has all the chips, the game is over.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 18 2008,11:48 am

If your reference is to his$800 per person tax rebate proposal then Bush doesn't have to go any where to find the money. He will just return the money that the people sent in out of their own pocket.

Posted by cheeba on Jan. 18 2008,12:33 pm

Summer time check... I am actually excited. But yeah WHERE is the money coming from? I dont really understand politics or budget but from what I hear the US has been in the hole for a long time.

Tax rebates: Where's your check
Friday January 18, 12:58 pm ET

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer

The biggest component of any plan to jump-start the economy will be sending out tax rebate checks.
It is the one element both President Bush and the Democrats agree on and it's likely to be politically popular.

In a statement on the economy delivered Friday morning, President Bush said any plan should feature "direct and rapid income tax relief" to boost consumer spending. "Letting Americans keep more of their own money should increase consumer spending, and lift our economy at a time when people otherwise might spend less."

As of Friday morning, there was little expectation that a deal would be finalized before Tuesday when Congressional leaders are expected to meet with President Bush.

Whatever the final decision, here's how a rebate would work and when you're likely to get a check.

When

Once a rebate is decided on, the IRS could start mailing out checks by the end of June since the agency is now in the middle of the 2007 tax-filing season, said Jason Furman, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. The IRS, however, is not yet commenting on the matter since negotiations about the rebate are still under way.

The goal, however, for both Democrats and Republicans is to get the money into the hands of consumers as soon as possible.

In a briefing after the president's statement, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said, "If (tax relief) is broad-based and simple, I believe we'll be able to get it out quickly and in time to make a difference this year."

How much

Right now, President Bush is said to want an income tax rebate that would be generated by eliminating the 10 percent tax bracket, which applies to roughly the first $8,000 of income for single filers and the first $16,000 of income for married couples filing jointly.

That would mean taxpayers could get rebates of up to $800 if single, or $1,600 if married.

But neither President Bush in his statement nor Paulson in a briefing afterwards would confirm that amount. "I don't want to play bigger than a bread box," Paulson told reporters. "The president is focused on broad-baseed tax relief for those paying taxes."

Who would get it

Democrats could get on board with an income tax rebate if it's fully refundable, meaning that everyone with earned income would get the full rebate, even if they didn't make enough money to owe income tax, said Furman.

Otherwise, roughly 40 percent of tax filers (which is more than 50 million households) would get only a partial rebate or no rebate at all, according to the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

A significant portion of that 40 percent would be families of four making between $25,000 and $40,000, the CBPP said.

There are a few ways that could be prevented, Furman said.

One way is to offer tax credits, a dollar-for-dollar reduction of your tax bill. If it's refundable, it means you get the credit even if your tax bill is $0 or something less than the full credit.

Another way is to have the rebate be a payroll tax rebate. The payroll tax - 6.2 percent of your wages - is what's taken out of everyone's paycheck to fund Social Security, no matter how low your annual income.

A payroll tax rebate would not affect your Social Security benefits or the long-term solvency of the entitlement program, Furman said, because it would really serve as a tax credit. In other words, money from your paycheck would still be taken out and put towards Social Security, but the federal government would send you a check that would serve as an advance on a refundable tax credit on your tax return.

Posted by grassman on Jan. 18 2008,12:50 pm

You are absolutely right cheeba, the US is in hock up past the torch of the Statue of Liberty. Someday, some way the debt will have to be delt with. The Republican stand point is ,I don't care what kind of a bill I charge, it doesn't matter. It's not my bill. Now the Arab countries are buying up our land, banks and politicians. Georgie even asked them to lower the price on oil. Their answer, we will lower it when the market justifies it. What a kick in the gonads. They are going to teach our country what finance is all about. One day they will foreclose on America. Georgie and his fellow spenders going to get us out of that one? It is just plain arrogance to put down a party that wants to pay for things as you go as the Republicans have been doing to the Dems. I don't agree with every part of the standing of Dems but leaving an outstanding bill for the future Americans like what is going on is just not right.

Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 18 2008,2:47 pm

(grassman @ Jan. 18 2008,11:41 am)

QUOTE

Where is Georgie going to get the money to spark the economy, the bank? :rofl:

When does the borrowed money run out? I've said this before. Our way of capitalism has reached to the point of a poker game. When one player has all the chips, the game is over.

QUOTE

Our way of capitalism has reached to the point of a poker game. When one player has all the chips, the game is over.

Good point grassman. And isn't it headed that way already?

Didn't we go through this same similar thing with Jesse? I liked him and voted for him, but that was one bad mistake giving us those rebate checks.

The money, if from no where else will come from the federal reserve won't it? HeII, they can make more.

What do you mean, they'll give the money back that will already gave the IRS?

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84r-U0f5-qg >

Posted by usmcr on Jan. 18 2008,5:26 pm

where will the money come from? the printing presses, of course! :frusty:

The central banking system we “enjoy” today, is one where the Congress provides the Treasurer of the United States the authorization to issue interest bearing bonds (without hard asset backing which ended with the elimination of the gold standard) so that the central bank can issue federal reserve notes (without hard asset backing) to finance the spending habits of the Congress and the White House. The bonds are competitively sold at discount in the financial markets and the proceeds credited to the U.S. Treasury to pay for government purchases. The central bankers purchase some of the bonds and hold them in reserve (collecting interest) and use the bonds as a part of the backing for their loans to their customers.
The federal government spends the money by purchasing goods and services, weapons and welfare. The vendors and those on the government dole deposit the money into their bank checking and savings accounts. The central bankers then have a steady supply of funds entering into the system, which by law requires 10% of deposits to be held in reserves; 90% of the total may be lent out. As these loans are redeemed, another 10% is retained for reserves and another 90% is lent out. This cycle is repeated up to 28 times before additional created money is required to feed the system. Congress is always ready to oblige. This money creation machine is what is called fractional reserve banking where the banks use none of their own money. United States currency is rolled over numerous times, all of which generates enormous profits for the bankers. In other words, the goose that lays the golden egg is really the Federal Reserve Banking System and it has the legal authorization to create money from nothing and charge interest for it. The system has never had an outside audit.

Posted by grassman on Jan. 19 2008,8:51 am

Here I always thought that was called counterfietting.

Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 20 2008,9:47 am

The latest state to hit the economic skids is Minnesota.

Recession creeps across U.S. Midwest states (Reuters News)

QUOTE

"From our point of view, this looks like we are in a recession," said Minnesota State Economist Tom Stinson. He noted that the data were consistent with the standard definition of a recession in terms of duration and broad-based distribution of the job losses. "It's not narrowly concentrated, but spread across the economy," he said.

< http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1822435020080118 >

Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 21 2008,10:04 am

Mr. Bubble himself former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, say the U.S. is probably in a recession.
The Fed's meddling with market forces is what got us into the mess in the first place.. The Bush stimulus policies and the Fed's artificially-lowering interest rates triggered the boom and asset bubbles that pumped more air into prices in real estate and stock markets setting into motion a boom-and-bust cycle of biblical proportions.
Bush's new stimulus package which will heavily favor Corporate tax breaks while the consumers are broke (suppysider voodoo) is evidence that failed economic theories never die.
The only way to recover from an artificial boom is for there to be restructuring that will involve bankruptcies and clearing of bad loans by liquidations.

< http://online.wsj.com/article....ews_wsj >

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 21 2008,10:38 am

"President Bush has made the best of a bad situation by applying his so-called tax rebate proposal within the income-tax code, rather than positioning it as new federal spending, like Sen. Hillary Clinton’s $100 billion spending package. He’s going to oppose that. He’s right to oppose that. It’s essential to oppose that.

As I understand it, they’re going to waive the 10 percent bracket which goes up to $15,650. Everybody passes through that bracket. I’m sure upper-end taxpayers will not get any of this relief. Lower-end and middle-end taxpayers will.

In doing so, there will be a very tiny incentive effect, although it’ll only last a year. As I said, the president is making the best of a bad political situation. He had to do “something.” And this is the least harmful thing he can do. It can be classed as income-tax relief, even though there’s no permanent incentive effect.

The better part of the stimulus plan is the inclusion of a business tax cut that will probably be a 50 percent cash-expensing bonus for the depreciation of new equipment, plants, or structures. This is very good. It worked between 2002-07. It recently expired, so it’s a good time to renew it. "

Posted by scorenix on Jan. 21 2008,1:36 pm

(Common Citizen @ Jan. 21 2008,10:38 am)

QUOTE

The better part of the stimulus plan is the inclusion of a business tax cut that will probably be a 50 percent cash-expensing bonus for the depreciation of new equipment, plants, or structures. This is very good. It worked between 2002-07.

And I would agree with you on this one. Give the businesses an incentive to make purchases this year. One problem may be timing. If you give businesses all of 2008, many will wait until November or December. But it will get businesses buying.

Posted by usmcr on Jan. 21 2008,4:16 pm

both europe & asian markets were in decline today! what will tuesdays opening market in the good old usa bring? congress is so slow responding that even if they decide to do something it will not get in the hands of the consumer until june at the earliest. take a look at your gas & grocery bill to see what is happening. it is time to put an end to the subsidy to the ethanol industry unless it is based on alternate crops & not corn. the world is in need of corn for food not a marginal product like ethanol. i also favor an end to the subsidy to the large corporate farms. the banks, mortgage lenders & such have got us in another mess. it is time drastic action is taken to reign them in. controls need to be in place with strict adherence for qualifying for a loan. greed is the name of the game & there seems to be no shame in it. take a look at the ceo's salaries & stock options. the golden parachutes are pathetic particulaly the ones who have not produced for their stock holders! pay them off for not producing, what a crock!there seems to be more & more uttering of the dreded word "recession". end of rant! :hairpull:

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 22 2008,8:24 am

(usmcr @ Jan. 21 2008,4:16 pm)

QUOTE

take a look at the ceo's salaries & stock options. the golden parachutes are pathetic particulaly the ones who have not produced for their stock holders! pay them off for not producing, what a crock!

It's the shareholder's that vote on the BOD and it's the BOD that hires the CEO's and puts together the comp packages.

Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 22 2008,9:23 am

C.C. Chamber of Commerce

QUOTE

It's the shareholder's that vote on the BOD and it's the BOD that hires the CEO's and puts together the comp packages.

CEO's pay is set by the board of directors.. with the CEO having a large say on who is selected and who determines compensation for the board it makes a cozy old boy's network..
In most cases CEO compensation is disclosed, but in such Gordon Gecko style that it is very difficult for the average analyst to decipher the true value of gross pay compensation package. The investor doesn't have a prayer, the shareholder is being swindled, white collar crime at it's best...My 2¢

H.R. 1257 Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act of 2007 now has to make it past the senate..

The Legislation:
The Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act would require that all publicly traded companies allow their shareholders to cast a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation packages. Shareholders could vote on executive pay every year beginning in 2009. The bill would also enable shareholders to cast a non-binding vote on any new contracts – known as “golden parachutes” – that guarantee benefits to top executives in the event of a corporate takeover or merger.

< http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01257 >

Posted by grassman on Jan. 22 2008,10:13 am

All of the shareholders at Enron certainly must have had a say in what was what. Come on CC, admit it, the rich feed off of the poor.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 22 2008,10:14 am

QUOTE

CEO's pay is set by the board of directors..

I'm glad we're in agreement then.

Shareholder's are not always swindled...much of the problem is that they do not do their due diligence prior to investing...and then when they're bent over they wonder why. I fell for that a few years ago with worldcom. I vowed never to even leave it to the analyst after that.

Are there crooked companies? Do we have laws in place to address this? Yes. All the more reason investors need to do your due diligence.

Posted by usmcr on Jan. 23 2008,9:20 am

lou dobbs quote: "We all have to acknowledge that our problems were in part brought on by the failure of our government to regulate the institutions and markets that are now in crisis. The irresponsible fiscal policies of the past decade have led to a national debt that amounts to $9 trillion. The irresponsible so-called free trade policies of Democratic and Republican administrations over the past three decades have produced a trade debt that now amounts to more than $6 trillion, and that debt is rising faster than our national debt. All of which is contributing to the plunge in the value of the U.S. dollar.

At precisely the point in our history in which this nation has become ever more dependent on foreign producers for everything from clothing to computers to technology to energy, our weakened dollar is making the price of an ever-increasing number of imported goods even more expensive.

All Americans will soon have to face a bitter and now obvious truth: Our national, political and economic leaders have squandered this nation's wealth, and the price of this profligacy has just come due for us all.

Bernanke endorsed the concept of a short-term economic stimulus package, but he cautioned that the money must be spent correctly: "You'd hope that [consumers] would spend it on things that are domestically produced so that the spending power doesn't go elsewhere."

Just what would you have us spend it on? The truth is that consumers spend most of their money on foreign imports, and any stimulus package probably would be stimulating foreign economies rather than our own. Imports, for example, account for 92 percent of our non-athletic footwear, 92 percent of audio video equipment, 89 percent of our luggage and 73 percent of power tools. In fact, between 1997 and 2006, only five of the 114 industries examined in a U.S. Business and Industry Council report gained market share against import competition."
agree or disagree?

Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 23 2008,10:03 am

(scorenix @ Jan. 21 2008,1:36 pm)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Jan. 21 2008,10:38 am)

QUOTE

Businesses have moved offshore to utilize cheap foreign labor, this fault of the free trade policies. Over 70 percent of goods on the shelves at Wal-mart are manufactured in foreign countries with similar numbers for other retailers, will the new tax incentives be a boost to the American economy or that of India and China?
The savings rate of this country is essentially zero, that means we'll have borrow from foreign sources and create it out off thin air to finance the Bush plan, effectively devaluing the dollar to that of a Banana Republic...
The Reaganistic trade and monetary policies of the past 30 years have come home to roost, you can't turn a industrialized manufacturing economy into a service economy without consequences..
The only way to recover is for there to be restructuring, that will involve bankruptcies and clearing of bad loans by liquidations.
We face a long hard road not unlike that of our forefathers during the Great Depression, Economic Armageddon is here, we have opened the door and invited her in, I'm sure she'll stay with us for some time..

Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 23 2008,10:36 am

^A total crock. I didn't see you against this war costing us 3 billion a day and high oil prices ruining our economy. In fact I saw you all for it. In fact, I was the lone voice of rationalism.

It's not trade or foreign manufacturing. That helps the economy. It was the war that broke the bank and caused oil to spike. The economy is feeling the effects of high oil now and it's killing it.

You just weren't smart enough to realize BS when it was spoon fed to you. Couldn't comprehend Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Many idiots still can't. Bought the BS hook, line and sinker and allowed about 10,000 people to rape the taxpayers to a the tune of about 2 trillion.

Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 23 2008,10:48 am

^show the post where I supported the war ... on the contrary it's my belief America's aggressive foreign policy caused the war or the circumstances that led to it..

QUOTE

It's not trade or foreign manufacturing. That helps the economy.

you can't be serious...talk about total crock..

Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 23 2008,12:49 pm

No, you simply don't have a grasp on economics. It doesn't do any good to have higher paying factory jobs if the prices for goods are more than the pay increases. Make 15% more income, but the cost of goods are 25% higher. That sets you back.

We have low unemployment. It's a world economy. Manufacturing will always follow the cheapest labor as it should. China is outsourcing to Bangladesh now. Protectionism is what helped cause the great depression and WW2.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 23 2008,1:56 pm

QUOTE

Protectionism is what helped cause the great depression and WW2.

Prove it.

Posted by grassman on Jan. 23 2008,2:24 pm

We need to quit trying to be the babysitter of the world. Bring our troops home, guard our country. Stop using food to run automobiles. Trade it to the Saudis for oil. We have oil, they do not have food. Can't grow anything in sand. Play hardball with them like they are with us. They are NOT our friends. Never was, never will be. Kick every non- American out of our country before we are over thrown. Forget about bringing refugees here from the middle east because infiltrators will be amongst them. India wants to start up the iron range. Why does it take a different country to invest in America? Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and The Donald need to step up to the plate and help this country instead of collecting all the time. Just my opinion. :thumbsup:

Posted by stitch0852 on Feb. 22 2008,8:17 am

(grassman @ Jan. 23 2008,2:24 pm)

QUOTE

I agree! We have BILLIONS of dollars going out of this country. Much of it to countries that "act" friendly but out of sight think we are "stupid Americans."

I have seen FIRSTHAND in foreign countries what their opinion is of us.

Ever notice that each time there is a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, etc; the country affected turns to our borders with hands out?

Which country was it that had a hurricane, etc that complained because our aid took too long (in their opinion) to get there?

How many countries came to our aid with Katrina? Rita? We had an entire city as well as a good portion of the Gulf Coast devastated. Where were the other countries that we have helped and that were capable of helping us at in those times? We still have people, years later, living in trailers that only now are we learning the trailers are unhealthy to live in!

Many foreign countries suck up the USD and then continue merrily along.

Pakistan, they take funds provided but are using them to fund a fight with India, yet they are giving us very little, if anything for these funds.

Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 22 2008,1:50 pm

QUOTE

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and The Donald need to step up to the plate and help this country instead of collecting all the time

Last I looked, Bill Gates not only invented a company that employs hundreds of thousands of Americans, but made those that invested in it millionaires themselves. Are not most of the jobs Microsoft provides AMERICAN jobs? Gates is also perhaps the biggest philanthropist in the world, giving away BILLIONS. I'd say he stepped up to the plate.

Warren Buffet is the second richest man in the country. Unlike the arbitrageurs, who buy a company on speculation--or buy it and break it up--the "Oracle of Omaha" practices "buy and hold"--"Buy good companies, and keep them." He also employs hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S.--I'd say HE "stepped up to the plate."

I don't admire Trump--but his net worth IS nearly $3 Billion. A quick check of his holdings show that they are all in the U.S.--with the exception of a hotel in Seoul, for which he received $5 million just for his name. He also employs hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens.

These three men have created something out of nothing. Unlike the government, which produces NOTHING, these people are collectively employing perhaps a million people in the U.S.--and more in spinoff industries. Their companies provide hundreds of million dollars annually in tax revenues.

What more would you have them do? :dunno:

Posted by bianca on Mar. 04 2008,10:56 am

What the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does for the youth in our nation is to be commended, very generous and caring people, IMO that do care about the outcome of our future and most importantly our youths :thumbsup:

We need more billionaires like these.

Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life. Based in Seattle, the foundation is led by CEO Patty Stonesifer and co-chair William H. Gates Sr., under the direction of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.

IMO, to even mention him and "the Donald" is silly when they are not even in the same league of people, they both have money......but what they choose to do with their millions and billions are worlds apart.

Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 04 2008,11:05 am

Warren's giving all his money away. Will spend less than 1% of his lifetime net income himself.

Posted by hot84svo on Mar. 05 2008,9:09 pm

The creation of the eurozone and the euro's introduction in 2002 is really a big part of the problem.

A strong dollar policy can no longer be controlled by Washington.

A weak dollar creates runaway inflation. This accounts for record metal and commodities prices.

Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 05 2008,9:29 pm

We'll see $4.00 gas within 2 years.

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 06 2008,8:54 am

The Euro is over-valued. You will see a correction.

Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 06 2008,9:30 am

^Wrong again...

Posted by hairhertz on Mar. 07 2008,6:32 pm

NEW WORLD ORDER has already taken over, next we will see a unified north american equivalent to the euro. Corporate needs/wants will trump the constitution. Global thinking is already the catch phrase. Our individual rights will be adjusted down to the lowest common denominator. This has already begun under the pretext of the patriot act. :yeild:

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 08 2008,3:36 pm

^the new currency will be printed with red ink..

Posted by hairhertz on Mar. 09 2008,11:17 pm

A depression next?

Posted by grassman on Mar. 10 2008,5:42 am

I don't know about you but the whole dang thing has got me depressed.

Posted by usmcr on Mar. 10 2008,8:51 am

it is going to cost the goverment (you & me) 42 million to mail out notices of the so called free money. that in its self is depressing!

< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23525100/ >

Posted by Mamma on Mar. 11 2008,7:17 pm

It used to be if you wanted to get ahead in life you went to college and got a degree. Now, about all that will get you is a big loan to pay off when you graduate. You had better hope that you find a job that can support you and pay back that college loan. I see more value in learning a trade, joining a union and having them help to protect your earnings. Doesn't it make sense that a group of people can bargain better than a single person?

Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 11 2008,9:15 pm

That's the dumbest advise I've ever seen. Valid 40-50 years ago. NOT NOW. Manufacturing has been and continues to shrink for the last 30 years.

To quote Springsteen, "Those jobs are gone boys and they ain't comin' back".

The way to make it today is

1. Get a gubment job. Think Gabe and others pulling down $100 K and can drink on the job and answer to no one.

2. Start your own business. This takes risk, money and the ability to work 60 plus hours a week.

3. Be a professional like, dentist, doctor or lawyer. Take brains and lots of schooling.

Government jobs are the easiest gravy train going today. Dan Dorman is another example. Can't get any easier than that.

Posted by Mamma on Mar. 12 2008,9:05 am

I wasn't talking about manufacturing , Mr. Expert. I was referring to the "Trades".

Posted by banquo on Mar. 12 2008,12:16 pm

(Mamma @ Mar. 12 2008,9:05 am)

QUOTE

Mr. Expert.

Posted by usmcr on Mar. 14 2008,12:06 pm

Last week, the Fed announced an industry-wide rescue package that would provide as much as $200 billion in loans to banks and investment houses and allow them to put up risky home-loan packages as collateral. It was the Fed's latest effort to stem a global credit crisis that began last August with rising loan defaults for subprime mortgages, loans provided to borrowers with weak credit histories.

this is big money that is being infused into the banking system. the interesting part is that the federal reserve is taking the bad loans as collateral! some of those big banks are in serious trouble. who will go under & who will survive is anyone's guess. the people in the financial circles think this is just a stop gap deal & more action will be needed. do i dare say the " D " word or are we still not in the " R " yet?

? words from bush will not fix this problem! the bad loans will peak this month & keep on coming in for the next 3 to 4 months. this looks like a long protracrted down turn.

Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 14 2008,12:13 pm

^And you were all for spending 10 times that much for the stupid war destabilizing the Middle East which caused gas to over double in price.

You're the last person I'm looking to for economic advise lamer.

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 14 2008,12:42 pm

^ still pissed you gave Obama 25 bucks I see... :rofl:

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 17 2008,7:38 am

(Mamma @ Mar. 11 2008,7:17 pm)

QUOTE

It's my belief parents should finance their children's educational costs. Almost all skilled occupations require postsecondary education, whether white collar or blue, union or not.

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 17 2008,10:25 am

Bear Stearns has gone under Lehman and Merrill are next, W. talks about a rough patch , Henry Paulson stutters nervously.
the Federal Reserve continues a failed policy, the downward spiral continues....

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 17 2008,10:27 am

....

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 17 2008,7:17 pm

It's nothing more than a culling of the heard. The weak parrish and the strong will live to see another day.

What do you think about the sweetheart deal JP Morgan made with the help of the feds? Or maybe it isn't as sweet as the buying price appears. Does this set a precedent?

Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 17 2008,7:39 pm

The American economy is a Ponzi scheme based on currency no more consequential than Monopoly money, and the other shoe's about to drop.

It's going to be a very rough ride. At least you won't have to worry about Albert Leans spending their money in other towns. With the price of gas, they won't be able to afford to leave town.

Posted by Ned Kelly on Mar. 18 2008,5:03 am

(Expatriate @ Mar. 17 2008,10:25 am)

QUOTE

America's house of cards type of economy, built on a feel good foundation, continues to fall. Tax breaks to the people and companies who benefited from this type of run up in our economy.
Now we bail out the big speculators, while millions of people are losing their homes! What is wrong with this picture?

Some dumb a$$s still think our leaders are doing well #%*#
I just can't understand their line of thinking!....... :hairpull:

.....ned

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 18 2008,9:02 am

Alan Greenspan and the Republican Administrations belief that free market is always right and regulation always a bad thing is going to cost the citizens of America trillions. The warning signs have been ignore, the carpetbagger loan sharking deals of Wall Street Banks package and sold to our pension funds through unregulated hedge funds will rival that of the Savings and Loan scandal, another Republican fiasco..
Republicans in the White House equate to a fox guarding the hen house...

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 18 2008,10:51 am

(Common Citizen @ Mar. 17 2008,7:17 pm)

QUOTE

What do you think about the sweetheart deal JP Morgan made with the help of the feds? Or maybe it isn't as sweet as the buying price appears. Does this set a precedent?

So much for the free market and capitalism. why should the taxpayer bailout Wall Street high risk debt, let them collapse and the pieces fall where they may... it's the end of free market rein, regulation will rule the day, Republicans will pay the price for their Laissez-faire policies..

Posted by TameThaTane on Mar. 18 2008,11:29 am

It's a good thing you economic geniuses aren't calling the shots isn't it? Doom and gloomers...

I'm saving 6 figures every year. Never banked so much jack. It's not making much, but it'll come around.

Great time to buy a house. See the listing prices in AL? Take 25% off that price and you'll be making a fair offer. Hell $250K will get you all the home you'd ever want or need. In other areas that won't even get a you starter home in the ghetto.

I'm trying to save a million so I can get out, only that probably won't be nearly enough. Housing is insane around the country still. The correction shouldn't be over. We need to see home pricing continue to drop.

Posted by stitch0852 on Mar. 18 2008,4:08 pm

So slow it posted it twice again. Sorry.

Posted by stitch0852 on Mar. 18 2008,4:10 pm

We are so far into a recession that our economy is now in a freefall heading down to depression quickly.

The government is in denial and the head of finance today would not use the term recession on the tv. "Finance people can call it what they will, but the term doesn't matter."

It is what it is and I don't see it getting better in the foreseeable future.

Gas prices are skyrocketing dragging food prices and other items necessary to live with while the dollar is under the basement and still dropping like a bag of bricks in water.

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 18 2008,4:44 pm

Is that the sky I see falling?

Posted by grassman on Mar. 18 2008,7:30 pm

Learn to eat squirrels and such. We got a ton of them. :rofl:

Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 19 2008,8:21 am

Yesterday

QUOTE

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson stopped short of saying the country was in a recession, but acknowledged "the economy is in sharp decline."

"The label they put on it is much less important to me than what we do about it," Paulson said on "Good Morning America" today. "The American people feel the slowdown and we feel the slowdown."

Posted by usmcr on Mar. 22 2008,8:48 am

this is an interesting article regarding the finanical crisis:

< http://www.nytimes.com/2008....=slogin >

Posted by usmcr on Mar. 22 2008,4:53 pm

Tony Blair Appointed Senior Advisor To JPMorgan Chase

New York, January 10, 2008 - JPMorgan Chase announced today that it has appointed former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a senior advisory capacity to the firm, effective immediately. Mr. Blair will also join the company's International Council.

Mr. Blair will advise JPMorgan Chase's CEO and senior management team on a part-time basis - drawing on his immense international experience to provide the firm with strategic advice and insight on global political issues and emerging trends.

In addition, Mr. Blair will participate in select events and conferences for the company including senior-level client events and will provide briefings on political trends to the firm's Board of Directors.

"We're honored that Tony Blair has chosen to join JPMorgan Chase as a senior advisor to our executive team and Board," said Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO. "We operate our business all over the world, and Tony Blair will bring our leaders and clients a unique and invaluable global perspective that is especially critical in turbulent times like these. Our firm will benefit greatly from his knowledge and experience."

Mr. Blair added, "It is a great opportunity to be able to contribute to the work of JPMorgan Chase. They are a leading company at the cutting edge of the global economy, with a footprint in virtually every part of the world. I look forward to advising them on how they approach the huge political and economic changes that globalisation brings. I am excited at the prospect of joining Jamie Dimon, for whom I have a lot of respect, and the whole team, adding my own experience to their work and helping them to grow."

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) is a leading global financial services firm with assets of $1.5 trillion and operations in more than 50 countries. The firm is a leader in investment banking, financial services for consumers, small business and commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management, and private equity. A component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, JPMorgan Chase serves millions of consumers in the United States and many of the world's most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients under its JPMorgan and Chase brands. JPMorgan Chase is committed to investing in education, economic opportunity, development and environmental programs that enable people and communities to thrive. Information about the firm is available at < www.jpmorganchase.com. >

Posted by hairhertz on Mar. 23 2008,9:27 pm

Government & its "employees" are never in recession, let alone a depression. Afterall, our money is their money, at least in their convoluted manner of reconning.

John McWar even conceded on tv last night that people outside the metropolitan areas are hurting.

If government was a fashion statement, it would be just now discovering bellbottoms & sideburns.

Posted by Expatriate on May 26 2008,2:41 pm

Report: Warren Buffett sees US already in recession / "long, deep" U.S. recession

QUOTE

"I believe that we are already in a recession," Buffet was quoted as saying. "Perhaps not in the sense as defined by economists. ... But people are already feeling the effects of a recession." "It will be deeper and longer than what many think,"

< My Webpage > AP

< My Webpage > Reuters

Posted by Ned Kelly on May 29 2008,7:18 pm

(grassman @ Mar. 18 2008,7:30 pm)

QUOTE

Learn to eat squirrels and such. We got a ton of them. :rofl:

They taste all right, but it still looks like a rat in the roaster............................

...ned

Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 15 2008,5:05 pm

Would one of you wingers like to tell me the sky's not falling....

Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 15 2008,5:08 pm

(Expatriate @ Mar. 17 2008,10:25 am)

QUOTE

protect yourself the dollar will collapse

Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 15 2008,5:34 pm

and how should we protect ourselves?

Posted by Botto 82 on Sep. 15 2008,5:49 pm

Buy gold, NOW!

Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 15 2008,6:19 pm

(Self-Banished @ Sep. 15 2008,5:34 pm)

QUOTE

and how should we protect ourselves?

Everyone even those who don't have a lot of cash should stock pile two months worth food and essential survival supplies. If this thing really goes south there'll be a disruption in the supply-chain.. a few shotgun shells may come in handy for barter if nothing else..
Things will settle out, we may be issued a new currency or we may continue with the a devalued greenback..
The biggest thing you can do is oust the Republicans, and their supply-sider voodoo economic theories, we'll never get a third party candidate elected so hopefully Obama will be this centuries Roosevelt....

spend'em if you got'em....

Posted by busybee on Sep. 15 2008,6:27 pm

I honestly would like someone to tell me the straight goods on this, without the politics.

An economic based understanding is what I am looking for....I am seriously concerned about what's happening here in our Country and how it will affect things....

Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 15 2008,6:51 pm

(busybee @ Sep. 15 2008,6:27 pm)

QUOTE

I

An economic based understanding is what I am looking for....I am seriously concerned about what's happening here in our Country and how it will affect things....

the American dream isn't dead. we will recover, big mistakes have been made by the Fed & Wall Banksters and deregulating right-wingers who now clamor for regulation.
We could compare the America economy to the life of Rasputin the Russian Monk and so called holy man that had great influence over the tsars wife. he was poisoned, he was shot, he was stabbed , he was thrown in an icey river to drown and yet he crawled out..so will we..

Posted by Botto 82 on Sep. 15 2008,7:06 pm

(Expatriate @ Sep. 15 2008,6:51 pm)

QUOTE

Maybe, but are you ready to fight and possibly die to do that?

The international bankers (a.k.a. the Fed) will not go quietly into that good night. They have plans for a New World Order, and the last umpteen Presidents have been aligned with that plan. To restore America and the Constitution will imply revolution, sacrifice, and so on.

Are you ready?

Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 15 2008,7:58 pm

(Botto 82 @ Sep. 15 2008,7:06 pm)

QUOTE

Are you ready?

are we talking FEMA camp time?

Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 15 2008,8:55 pm

(Expatriate @ Sep. 15 2008,6:19 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Sep. 15 2008,5:34 pm)

QUOTE

and how should we protect ourselves?

Posted by grassman on Sep. 16 2008,8:07 am

These companies have bee building a house of cards ever since Reagan deregulated everything.They have been rigging and robbing America all in the name of capital gains. Now the foundation is collapsing and they have their hand out wanting a govt. bailout. Talk about takers. :angry:

Posted by Glad I Left on Sep. 16 2008,8:41 am

QUOTE

so hopefully Obama will be this centuries Roosevelt....

Yeah, because gov't programs always work out so well for the citizens. You know, social security, the VA, etc..
All fiscally sound and well run programs by you guessed it... THE GOV'T :rofl:

Just what we need some guy to institute more gov't programs and more tax dollars being wasted on the gov't beaurocracy in the name of progress for 'the people' :dunce:

I'm voting for Bob Barr, as I don't like the current front runners. At least he'd for getting rid of one of the worst fed groups, the IRS :peaceout:

Posted by KATOMAN on Sep. 16 2008,11:09 am

I said 8 years ago if Bush got in there and pursues his foreign policy we will end up in a recession if not a depression before he was through. You can't pull almost 2 trillion dollars out of the domestic economy and expect it to prosper. The funding for the war has to come from somewhere. The government is using up all available credit and then some. You can't strip a hot economy and not get grim results. It seems to me the same thing happened during the Vietnam war.

Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 16 2008,11:33 am

(grassman @ Sep. 16 2008,8:07 am)

QUOTE

Deregualtion created this? :rofl:

C'mon grassman...so why did Freddie and Fannie fail? A couple of the most regulated companies in the USA. It's because of gov't regulation that put these companies in the position they are today...

By the way...how many prior executives from these two companies are advisors to the Obama campaign? :rofl:

Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 16 2008,11:35 am

(KATOMAN @ Sep. 16 2008,11:09 am)

QUOTE

Ya the war is Bush's fault... He was behind 9/11. :crazy:

I suppose you would rather cower in a cave somewhere in Mesa, Az. Pfft...

Gov't regualtion and taxation is the cause behind the financial whirlwind we're in today...

nuff said...

Posted by KATOMAN on Sep. 16 2008,11:45 am

oh, why did we go to war? Oh, thats right weapons of mass distruction, he was going to commit us there regardless,

Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 16 2008,12:13 pm

Nope...not going to rehash that again...if you don't get it by now (7 years later) you never will. Go back and read all the multitude of posts on that subject...

Like I said.

nuff said...

Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 16 2008,2:46 pm

QUOTE

These companies have bee building a house of cards ever since Reagan deregulated everything.

Wrong again. It wasn't Reagan, and it wasn't Bush. It was none other than your own Bill Clinton.

When the deductability of executive salaries was enacted in 1993, this was predicted. Stock options were allowed--if a company made money, the executives made money.

I recalled the debate at the time (one of the advantages of being "older") :laugh:

and looked it up. Here's an excerpt from Business Week null< My Webpage >

As the article mentions, it is perhaps the biggest insider joke in corporate boardrooms in decades.

In true government fashion, the libbies MEANT well--it is just that their antics have the usual UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES--hurting the very people they try to help with government regulation.

When executives had straight salaries, they weren't NEARLY as large as the performance bonuses they get today--and they had the best LONG TERM INTERESTS of the business at heart. When limitations were imposed, business was forced to give (and executives willingly accepted) stock options and golden parachutes.

The result?

Business that lives only for the bottom line, without long-term planning.

Business that goes overseas in search of additional profit.

"Golden Parachutes" for executives that leave.

"Stock option millionaires"--execs that collect millions in options, instead of straight salary.

You can lay this right at the feet of libbie congresscritters--they are the ones that enacted the bill, in an attempt to right a perceived wrong that didn't exist, and to pander to their base.

Thank you, libbies, you've succeeded AGAIN--just like the successes of every OTHER Socialist/Communist/Liberal/Progressive country. :sarcasm:

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 16 2008,3:04 pm

QUOTE

Wrong again. It wasn't Reagan, and it wasn't Bush. It was none other than your own Bill Clinton.

You should probably get busy correcting the wikipedia entry on deregulation. Not sure if you can use "boardroom insider jokes" as a reference, but you could try it.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation#Deregulation_1970-2000 >

Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 16 2008,4:09 pm

I guess I "should be correcting the wikipedia entry on deregulation" because there ISN'T ANYTHING IN IT ABOUT CLINTON'S FOLLY. :rofl:

Where is a mention of deregulation of executive pay? :dunno:

How do you link DEREGULATION with the "reform" act of 1993, capping the ability of a company to deduct executive wages over a given amount--the act that DIRECTLY resulted in golden parachutes and stock options? :dunno:

Contrary to the libbie spin, these guys aren't getting rich off from STRAIGHT SALARY--they are getting rich from STOCK OPTIONS.

There is no doubt that stock options picked up after the well-meaning but misguided LIBERAL attempt at REGULATION (not DE-regulation).

Did you even bother to read the Business Week article, or are you just taking DU talking points again?

QUOTE

How Bill Clinton Helped Boost CEO Pay
A law he championed to curb compensation has backfired -- and pay packages have exploded

Bill Clinton had what he thought was a great idea to curb the soaring paychecks of the nation's executives. It was 1991, shortly after the launch of his Presidential campaign, and he had just read a best seller on corporate greed by compensation guru Graef Crystal.

Clinton's brainstorm: Use the tax code to curb excessive pay. Companies at the time were allowed to deduct all compensation to top executives. Clinton wanted to permit companies to write off amounts over $1 million only if executives hit specified performance goals. He called Crystal for his thoughts. "Utterly stupid," the consultant says he told the future President.

THE SHAME GAME
Now, 13 years after Clinton's plan became law, the results are clear: It didn't work. Over the law's first decade, average compensation for chief executives at companies in Standard & Poor's 500-stock index soared from $3.7 million to $9.1 million, according to a 2005 Harvard Law School study. The law contains so many obvious loopholes, says Crystal, that "in 10 minutes even Forrest Gump could think up five ways around it."

From the Internal Revenue Service to corporate boardrooms, Clinton's remedy has become the biggest inside joke in the long history of efforts to rein in executive pay.

Sorry, libby--you guys take the fall on this one, (too). :rofl:

But that won't stop you from blaming Bush (or Reagan, or Nixon) will it? :rofl:

Posted by grassman on Sep. 16 2008,4:17 pm

(jimhanson @ Sep. 16 2008,2:46 pm)

QUOTE

When the deductability of executive salaries was enacted in 1993, this was predicted. Stock options were allowed--if a company made money, the executives made money.

I recalled the debate at the time (one of the advantages of being "older") :laugh:

So that is the same as Smith and Wesson being responsible for someone taking one of their weapons and committing murder just because they can. Come on, look at the companies and bigwigs for what they are... a bunch of greedy basturds that don't give a rip about anything but their own asses. Sell everyone down the river because they can. A BUCKS A BUCK I GUESS!

Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 16 2008,5:02 pm

W.A.A.C.

Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 16 2008,7:56 pm

QUOTE

Come on, look at the companies and bigwigs for what they are... a bunch of greedy basturds that don't give a rip about anything but their own asses

And politicians are SO MUCH DIFFERENT! :sarcasm:

The difference--you don't HAVE to buy the products a company is selling--you can go somewhere else.

A COMPANY makes money, and distributes it to their shareholders. Both the COMPANY is taxed by the government on their profits, and the shareholders are taxed AGAIN on their dividends.

The GOVERNMENT, by comparison, PRODUCES NOTHING. They just take the money from those that do.

There are only TWO PARTIES to a compensation package--the owners, and the employee. If the owner wants to give money to the employee because they believe they are worth it, whose business is it to so whether they are or not? Rock starts, athletes, movie stars, singers,--who is to say what THEY are worth? That's the basis of capitalism--the MARKET--not the GOVERNMENT--determines what someone can be paid.

The big difference? Business can GIVE money if it wants to--but the GOVERNMENT JUST TAKES IT.

C'mon--capitalism isn't so hard--did you sleep through that class, as WELL as spelling class?

Posted by Liberal on Sep. 16 2008,8:32 pm

This "Clinton caused the recession story will go about as far as that Able Danger story went. :crazy:

Clinton is old news, he hasn't been president for 8 years and you still talk about him daily. I'll bet you even dream about him at night. I don't even want to guess what you and he are doing in those dreams though. :rofl:

Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 17 2008,4:07 pm

QUOTE

Clinton caused the recession

It happened on his watch, but I don't know that he CAUSED it--I think it was the collapse of the "dot.com" house of cards--but that's a different story.

If you were reading the Business Week piece, this problem was caused by the libbie tenet of "Execs shouldn't make so much money." By limiting exec pay, the execs were given stock options, instead--and it is THOSE OPTIONS that are being exercised. Once again--the government caused a bigger problem than it ever had in the first place in its zeal to "do something." It is that horrible record of harming the very people it purports to help that makes conservatives so contemptuous of government--"I'm from the Government, and I'm here to HELP!" is funny only because MOST of us know how useless the government IS! :rofl:

That's the problem with libbies--you can beat them over the head with FACTS--you can show them articles to support those FACTS--but if it doesn't come down as Donk "talking points", they never believe them.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think!" (maybe, like the old joke about the camel, you have to "brick him"--if you don't know the joke, get it from MADDOG) :rofl:

I take the good time to point out how the problem happened in the first place--and you come up with an article on "deregulation" (libbies HATE not having "regulation") :rofl:

that has no mention of the stock option problem in it. I try to show you the path to RIGHTeousness and TRUE KNOWLEDGE, to no avail. Perhaps the Biblical parable of pearls and pigs is appropriate? :sarcasm:

Perhaps Obambi was confused (again) when he made the "lipstick" comment. :rofl:

"You can lead a libbie to knowledge, but you can't make him THINK." :rofl:

Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 17 2008,6:57 pm

(jimhanson @ Sep. 17 2008,4:07 pm)

QUOTE

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think!" (maybe, like the old joke about the camel, you have to "brick him"--if you don't know the joke, get it from MADDOG) :rofl:

Eww, damn, that would hurt Jim. It would get them howling for a different reason though.

Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 20 2008,5:02 pm

Clinton may be old news, but Jimmy Carter is even OLDER news--and the world is still suffering from HIS ineptitude. :rofl:

That doesn't stop the Obambi crowd from wanting to relive the "Glory Years" of THEIR administrations with the same old ideas repackaged as his own! :rofl:

Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 20 2008,6:47 pm

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Phil Gramm’s Banking Deregulation Bill. repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act that was put into law during the last depression... deregulation WHO voted this crap into law...Phil Gramms you remember him, He was John McCain's campaign manager the one that called the American people whiners than went back to Texas in disgrace...
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.900 as amended )
Vote Number: 105 Vote Date: May 6, 1999, 08:14 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 900
Measure Title: An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 54
NAYs 44
Present 1
Not Voting 1

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Abraham (R-MI), Yea
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Ashcroft (R-MO), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bryan (D-NV), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Chafee, J. (R-RI), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Coverdell (R-GA), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Present
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Gorton (R-WA), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grams (R-MN), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Not Voting
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (R-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerrey (D-NE), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Mack (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Moynihan (D-NY), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Robb (D-VA), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Roth (R-DE), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

< http://www.senate.gov/legislative/ >

Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 20 2008,7:08 pm

See you, and RAISE you. From the Phoenix Business Journal null< My Webpage >

QUOTE

McCain voted for the first version of the Gramm bill in 1999 but did not vote on the final measure. Biden voted against the initial bill but for the final product.

So:

McCain did NOT vote on the final bill, but Joe Biden DID vote for it! :rofl:

QUOTE

Obama is also the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, trailing only U.S. Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

And while the rest took 9 years to accomplish their record, Obama has only been in the Senate for 3 years! :rofl:

How about this one? < My Webpage > Franklin Raines was the former head of Fannie May, made $100 million (he may have to give half of it back) and is now ONE OF OBAMA'S ECONOMIC ADVISORS.

Here's ANOTHER

QUOTE

Obama Adviser Larry Summers Was Involved In Negotiating The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, And Called It A "Major Step Forward Toward The 21st Century." "Mr. Summers, the Obama adviser, was among those who negotiated the [1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley] measure on behalf of the Clinton administration, and he praised it as a 'major step forward toward the 21st Century.'" (Michael M. Phillips, Elizabeth Holmes and Amy Chozick, "Candidates Call Upon Big Names For Advice," The Wall Street Journal, 9/18/08)

Summers met with Obama YESTERDAY.

How about this one?

QUOTE

Obama Economic Adviser Austan Goolsbee Defended Subprime Lending In 2007 And Warned Against Tightening Regulations:

In March 2007, Goolsbee Wrote "An Economic Defense ... Of The Sub-Prime Loans" That Spurred The Housing Crisis. "He's written extensively ... He even penned an economic defense in March 2007 of the sub-prime loans that have helped trigger the nationwide housing crisis." (Kevin G. Hall, "Obama Relies On Untested Advisors," McClatchy Newspapers, 4/3/08)

Finally,

QUOTE

Jim Johnson Is The Former CEO Of Fannie Mae. (David A. Vise, "Fannie Mae Lobbies Hard To Protect Its Tax Break," The Washington Post, 1/16/95)

"Jim Johnson, The Former Chairman Of Fannie Mae Who Was One Of Three Advisors Tapped By Democrat Barack Obama To Vet Vice Presidential Candidates, Resigned Today After Questions Were Raised About Favoritism He May Have Received From Countrywide Financial Corp."(Johanna Neuman, "Barack Obama Advisor Jim Johnson Quits Under Fire," Los Angeles Times, 6/12/08)

All of these people are Obama Advisors--and Johnson even helped pick Biden!

His staff is eyeball-deep in this mess, and this is the guy that says he wants "Change"? :rofl:

Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 20 2008,7:21 pm

you don't have a credible link, please back up your position with a Library of Congress link...

Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 20 2008,7:39 pm

let me help you, you're wrong on both counts, deregulation has always been the mantra of the Republicans....

< http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106-900 >

Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 20 2008,8:02 pm

(jimhanson @ Sep. 20 2008,7:08 pm)

QUOTE

See you, and RAISE

Guess I win the pot, you must have been bluffing again

Posted by Santorini on Sep. 21 2008,11:07 am

(TameThaTane @ Oct. 28 2007,3:04 pm)

QUOTE

Spoken like a true to-the-cause democrat.
"It's mine....all mine..."

Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 21 2008,3:08 pm

Another search of the United States Senate, The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, has a last action vote on November 4, 1999, by the Senate. 8 Democrats voting against all Republicans voting for passage Except for McCain who shows his usual work ethic and didn't bother to show up for the vote..or you can bet he vote with the pack...

< ]http://www.senate.gov/legisla....RL=http >

Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 21 2008,3:17 pm

The New Deal Republican Style:
Socialized Corporate Risk-Privatized Corporate Profit

Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 21 2008,7:01 pm

Back in March, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) said: "I'm always for less regulation" and referred to himself as "fundamentally, a deregulator." :dunce:

But in a Sept. 16 speech the Republican nominee adopted a far different approach: "Under my reforms, the American people will be protected by comprehensive regulations."

Posted by usmcr on Oct. 21 2008,9:19 pm

American Legion Magazine, November 2008:
What's a recession?
the merriam-websster dictionary defines a recession simply and vaguely, as "a period of reduced economic activity."
businessdictionary.com defines it as a "period of general economic decline, defined usually as a contraction in the gdp for six months (two consecutive quarters) or longer."
but according to the washington time, the business cycle dating committee of the national bureau of economic research is "the offical arbiter of when recessions begin & end ... offically the nber committee defines a recession, which it calibrates by month (not quarter) as a significant decline in activity spread across the ecomomy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, emmployment real income and wholesale retail trade."
end article.
in my laymens point of view a recession is when you lose your job & a depression is when i lose my job. no matter how you define it, i believe we are indeed in a recession & hopefully not in the beginings of a depression! the government is throwing money at this situation in the amounts that i can not commprehend. if the printing press keep on spewing out money like crazy i fear that inflation will be in high gear in the not so distant future. china is closing thousands of plants & puting uncounted workers out of jobs due to the markets drying up for their goods. china is a huge investor in our economy & if they start pulling out their currencey we are serious trouble. i do not profess to be a economics know it all, just telling it as i see it from a laymans point of veiw.