The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down 777 points today at 10,365… 223 points below where it stood the day President George W. Bush took office. That’s a 2.1% drop over Bush’s 7 years, 9 months in office, for an annualized return of -0.27% making him the first president to produce a negative annualized return since Herbert Hoover. (By comparison, the DJIA produced annualized returns of about 28% during President Bill Clinton’s eight years in office.)
And compared to the other major market indices, the DJIA looks good. The S&P 500 fell 8% today, and is now down about 21% over the Bush administration, while the NASDAQ Composite fell another 9%, for a stunning 40% decline during the Bush years. To put that in perspective, a $100 investment in an index fund tracking the NASDAQ would now be worth only $48.50 in inflation adjusted dollars.
Remember, it was the Bush administration who declared a crisis that required an immediate bailout, it was Bush who put forth the original proposal, it was Bush who joined with Democrats on a bipartisan compromise, and it was Bush who ultimately failed to bring his House caucus with him. Oh… and it was Bush’s failed economic policies and disregard for regulation that laid the groundwork for this mess.
So much for the “CEO president.”
UPDATE:
I’ve edited the DJIA numbers to reflect the actual close; apparently it was dropping so fast at the buzzer it took a while for the ticker to catch up with the trades.
(Copied from my post on a previous thread):
Wow. I’m not sure if this is the final figure, because the DJIA seemed to drop another 100+ points AFTER closing. A high volume of sales seems to have clogged the system at the end.
But as of 1:25 p.m. (25 minutes after closing), the DJIA is off 777.68 points, closing at 10,365.45.
That means that as of today’s close, the DJIA has closed -222.14 points below the level it was at when George W. Bush took office 8-3/4 months ago, a negative 2.10% return on investment over the course of almost eight years. This dubious achievement solidifies Bush’s place in history, as the worst economics President since Hoover. The DJIA even performed better under the Carter administration than it did under the Bush administration, and he only had four years with which to work with it. Bush’s legacy is a negative DJIA growth during BOTH of his terms of office (-0.78% during the first term, and -0.44% during the second term).
Bye bye wingnuts. That chimp you voted for twice turned out to be a total chump didn’t he?
And you expected people to actually like or have a beer with that monkey?
That’s wierd. For about a minute, the MSNBC website went from showing a 777.68 point loss, to showing a 138 point GAIN. Then it went back to a 777.68 point loss. I’m guessing that the latter is the final figure, and the intermediate number was a typo or a quirk in the system.
By the way, remember that it was only three years ago that the White House tried to get us to give Wall Street our Social Security money to manage for us. Remember they said that the private sector always performs better than the public sector?
I can’t get the image of a neer’ do well son out of my mind. He’s been rescued time and again from his hairbrained schemes, yet he’s always excited about his next venture, and he belittles his brothers and sisters who work for a living for being “ignorant” of how wealthy they could all be, if they would just let him manage their money for them! After losing all of THEIR money, he’s back at the kitchen table, trying to convince dear old Mom (a widower) to hand over HER money, too!
Wierd. MSNBC is back again to showing a 121.07 gain, but the news articles refer to a 777.68 point loss. Is somebody hacking the system????
Ouch!
Let’s hope we learn from this. That Reagan capitalism doesn’t work. Now if we can just get the democrats to grow a spine and do what’s right.
I have had 2 great years in the market….especially this year.
There are some awesome opportunities right now.
Look at Rog Rabbit’s favorite…NOV.
Look at Apple AAPL.
You KLOWNS act soooooo scared.
Most of you seem to be looking for a free ride in life where the government takes care of you.
You are inept risk takers.
Life itself is no guarantee.
Have some courage Cowardly Lions!
7 – All the power to you Cyn.. Swoop in and get some deals.
We’re all about the politics here and it doesn’t look good at all for your crowd.
People’s 401k’s are a shadow of what they were. Some businesses won’t be making payroll. People are getting laid off and all that means:
change is in the air…
Cynical @ 7 said: “Most of you seem to be looking for a free ride in life where the government takes care of you….”
No, that would be the bankers and Wall Street investment firms, that are relying upon their size and importance to the American economy to guarantee that any losses are covered by somebody else (the taxpayer), wheras any profits go into their pockets. You know, corporate socialsim.
Seeking to blame someone, Goldy pins the tail on his own ass. Democrats have a majority in the House and do not need Republican votes to pass legislation. Apparently Speaker Pelosi stuck it on her own ass, too.
MSNBC is reporting that the stock market dropped more value today than it did in the first day of trading since 9/11.
In other words, the American economy could survive a terrorist attack which was directly aimed at it better than it could survive eight years of Republican economic policies.
I thought these were good reasons for the bailout to go down.
Now that I have some liberal reasons, can anyone post some links to why conservatives thought it should go down and what a real bailout should be from a conservative perspective. I’d like to get other points of view.
Amazing.
“Jews demand that Congress not meet tomorrow out of respect for Rosh Hashanah.”
Simply Amazing.
Thank you, David Goldstein.
John 425: This was a White House proposal, although modified by compromises by Congressional leadership on both parties. Nobody really liked the plan, but Bush threatened to veto any other plan, and this was the only plan which he would agree to sign. Despite pushing by the White House, House Democratic Leadership, AND the House Republican Leadership, the plan couldn’t get enough votes. Lots more Republicans voted against the plan than Democrats.
Since every member of the House of Representatives is up for re-election in about five weeks, my guess is that lots of those Republican Congressmen read the polling taken over the weekend, and decided that it was a lot safer to be able to say that they voted against the plan than to take the blame for any resulting collapse of the economy.
Of course, I’m sure McCain’s campaign (and Karl Rove) are already trying to blame the Democrats for the plan’s failure, and claiming that if the plan had passed we would have had the next three months worth of enequalled economic prosperity. Like Hollywood movie studio heads, they’ve never been ones to allow the facts to get in the way of a good story.
It warrants pointing out that the House failed to pass the Paulson Rich Bank Executives’ Employment Security Act more from opposition from the Republican side of the aisle than from the Democrats. Apparently not a few of the GOP Representatives have started to lose faith in some imminent economic version of the Rapture.
It’s been pointed out that if instead of handing another $700 billion to the dipshits on Mahogony Row, they just distributed it to everyone in America, we’d each wind up with about a quarter of a million. I dunno about you folks, but I think I could find something to do with that kind of money.
@7 Cyn, if everyone did what bloodsuckers like us do, it wouldn’t work and we’d be out of business. Therefore, it’s not what you might call a “macroeconomic solution to the macroeconomic problem.”
This whole thing really shouldn’t be a surprise.
If the media had seriously discussed Bush’s background prior to his first election, they would see that his claims of “business accuity” were so much spin. His father set him up in two successive firms in the oil industry, and in each case the firm was on the verge of failure only to be rescued by friends and political allies of Bush’s father. Then Bush was set up as the public face of a sports team, but he was only a minority owner, and it appears that his financial interest were given to him. Like most sports teams, it lost money except for the large amount of public financing which was given to the team upon threats of it leaving town, and then a large amount of money was made upon selling the team (after the public investment).
So Bush’s track record has been to not pay attention to the fundamentals, gradually slide deeper into financial trouble, and then rely upon others for a bailout just before going under. Sound familiar?
Isn’t it time for MTR to tell us how the 2003 Bush tax cuts grew the economy?
16 AF
Check your math.
This afternoon, responding to the economic crisis, the Obama campaign issued a statement calling for calm, encouraging lawmakers to keep working, and urging investors not to panic.
The McCain campaign attacked Obama.
It’s a reminder that one can tell a lot about a person’s character by how they respond to adversity.
@10 I just read an interesting blog in which the writer, who identified himself as a moderate Republican, said Pelosi’s partisan speech was “disgusting” but the House Republicans who had pledged to support the bailout but voted against it because they didn’t like Pelosi’s speech were even more disgusting.
In other words, these GOP congressmen voted against what they believed to be in the country’s best interests because they didn’t like Pelosi’s speech.
The blogger said that may be the final straw for him, and that he’s thinking about changing parties.
So the bailout deal collapsed, and Mr. “Country First” is headed to Iowa. Iowa? Heck, he lost Iowa months ago.
Gosh, if only he’d suspend his campaign all over again and fly to Washington DC
for a few photo-opsand sit down to negotiations until we can work things out.How hard can it be? McCain can come up with more than half the votes we need among his home-state colleagues in the House, all of whom voted against the deal.
So let me get this straight: Today’s point loss is the SINGLE worse point drop in the history of the DOW?
Then, that means the Reagan Republican philosophy of governing and free-market deregulations was worse for America than the terrorist attacks on 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.
Well, that just about sums up what we on the left have been saying for years — America has no worse enemy than conservatism.
“Some Thoughts On Bailout Bill And Disgusting Partisanship
“By PATRICK EDABURN
“So the big bailout bill has been rejected, at least for now. … I must admit to having mixed views on the entire bailout concept. … Were I a member of Congress I am unsure as to how I would vote.
“Having said that I do know that I am greatly disgusted by the partisanship that has been demonstrated.
“Republicans have condemned Nancy Pelosi for delivering a partisan speech right before the vote … from what I have seen they do have something of a point. … That was in very poor form and she should be ashamed for trying to make political hay out of it.
“But even more disgusting is the report that some Republicans who were planning to vote for the bill decided to vote against it because of her speech. …
“This is a somewhat unique piece of legislation in that I don’t think there is anyone out there who is really FOR the bill. Either you are against the bill outright on principle or you don’t really like it but you are supporting it as the necessary step.
“Now if you are in the former category, I understand your position and you should vote your conscience. … But if you see the bill as necessary and important to our economy but vote against it because someone said something you didn’t like, that is DISGUSTING. To put your personal feelings before your country is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
“I have long contemplated whether I would remain a member of the Republican Party or not. This may well help me make my decision ….”
(Quoted from “the Moderate Voice” under fair use.)
Roger Rabbit Commentary: And that, my Republican friends, is the short answer — from one of your own — to any attempts you may make to blame Pelosi. She only made a speech, and if her speech was out of line, it still was merely a speech; it was Republicans switching their votes, not Pelosi’s words, that killed the bailout and brought down the financial markets.
16, 20 – The $700B amounts to about $2,333 for every person in America.
(It should be kept in mind, however, what the $700b is — it’s upfront cash, not net cost. The government would have got some of it back. Some people even claimed a profit was possible; I doubt that, but this bill wouldn’t have given away $700b, it would only have tied it up in assets of reduced value and the net cost would have been less, possibly much less.)
I’m just worried that witt housing prices falling so fast that GW may have a hard time selling the “ranch” in Crawford.
He’ll have to bunk in Kennebunkport.
McCain’s blaming the failure of the bailout vote on Obama and the Democrats is pathetic. His all-encompassing lust for the White House has turned him into a whisper of a man, an unprincipled harlot willing to say and do anything to reach his objective. He is not a leader. He “suspended” his campaign (yeah, right) to go back to Washington and get a deal. He couldn’t even get 1/3 of House Republicans on board a plan he endorsed. If that’s leadership, then I’ll be boinking Scarlett Johanssen tonight. A better man would be ashamed of himself in McCain’s situation. McCain, however, is incapable of shame.
If it wasn’t interesting enough to be replied to there why post it again?
If this is indeed a case of “loose lips sink ships,” then that’s a pretty strong argument that not only shouldn’t Nancy Pelosi be speaker, but also that Sarah Palin shouldn’t be vice president, because Palin certainly is no better than Pelosi in this respect.
Maybe one of the smart people on here can explain this…
According to the graph, once the democrats took control of congress in Jan 2007, the dow jones started going down.
http://www.advfn.com/djia/DowJ.....index=INDU
Why would that happen under democrat leadership?
Maybe one of the smart people on here can explain this…
According to the graph, once the democrats took control of congress in Jan 2007, consumer confidence started crashing
http://www.nasdaq.com/econoday.....index.html
Why would that happen under democrat leadership?
11:
Bravo!! Well and succinctly said. Bravo!!
31, 32 – See #11.
Charles Calomiris and Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute explained how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — plus members of Congress who refused to hold them accountable — are “largely to blame for our current mess.”
Many monumental errors and misjudgments contributed to the acute financial turmoil in which we now find ourselves. Nevertheless, the vast accumulation of toxic mortgage debt that poisoned the global financial system was driven by the aggressive buying of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) — and their sponsors in Washington — are largely to blame for our current mess.
How did we get here? Let’s review: In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of “affordable housing.” They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total GSE exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion. In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse….
In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent.
Now the Democrats are blaming the financial crisis on “deregulation.” This is a canard. There has indeed been deregulation in our economy — in long-distance telephone rates, airline fares, securities brokerage and trucking, to name just a few — and this has produced much innovation and lower consumer prices….
If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less. The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it.
I’ll be making a buy in the retirement accounts tomorrow. It’s a good time to buy.
What caused this crisis? Two words: “Bill Clinton signing into law the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act.”
13. Troll spews:
“Jews demand that Congress not meet tomorrow out of respect for Rosh Hashanah.”
Simply Amazing.
Thank you, David Goldstein.”
Actually troll, Goldstein and SeattleJew are devout Atheists. They could care less about religous holidays of any kind.
@38
I redact mentioning Goldy, then.
36. Politically Incorrect spews:
I’ll be making a buy in the retirement accounts tomorrow. It’s a good time to buy.
I bought NOV late today @ $43.85.
Just got the confirmation.
Put in an order UNDER $45 in the AM.
This could be a 3-4 day play.
Also look at Apple. We put in a day order today to buy at $99.80. It didn’t quite get down there.
May try again tomorrow AM….depends on what happens overnight.
Glad to see someone else can see Gold Nuggets while the angry, glass half empty KLOWNS only see dispair. Sucks to be them!
I seriously doubt any Republicans changed their vote because of a speech by the Speaker of the House.
They had read the polls taken over the weekend, and realized their political careers had a good chance of ending in five weeks. Their party was being blamed for the financial problems, the public was angry at the bailout, and the public was also worried about a financial collapse if nothing was done. On top of that, their party leadership was pushing for approval of the bailout plan. In a sense, they were damned if they did, and damned if they didn’t.
For some, they decided that the safest course would be to vote against the bill, especially if it was clear that the bill wouldn’t pass anyway. That way there was some safety in numbers if the plan didn’t pass and the economy tanked. They could always argue that they were “looking out for the American taxpayer”.
But how to vote against the White House???? Well, I guess this is just one other way to try to vote against the bill, and still blame the Democrats for the consequence of the bill not passing. Karl Rove’s lessons in political doublespeak have gone deep to the core of the Republican party.
31, 32 MS
Here you go…
DOW January 19, 2001: 10,587.59
DOW September 29, 2008: 10,365.45
NASDAQ Jan 19, 2001 = 2770.38
NASDAQ September 29, 2008 = 1983.73
CPI, January 19, 2001: 175
CPI, September 29, 2008: 219
Dollar exchange with Euro, January 19, 2001: 1.068
Dollar exchange with Euro, September 29, 2008: .695
37 T
You cannot count.
But I think you may be right about the legislation in question.
You see, it was top McCain economic advisor Phil Gramm who wrote and is responsible for THAT monstrosity, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
The bill was passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This ‘veto proof legislation’ was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
It was a Republican measure in a Republican-majority Congress that gained Democratic votes only after its passage was a certainty and moderate president Bill Clinton indicated that he’d sign it. And, of course, everyone gets money from the financial institutions, don’t they?
I’ll bet a bunch of Democrats regret THAT vote, but that no stinking Republicans even now do.
Marvin;
I re-posted my comment from an earlier thread because things were changing so rapidly in today’s trading that the thread which discussed the closing prices was the most appropriate one. One trader commented that the DJIA lost 400 points in ten minutes, I can’t confirm that because I wasn’t watching it that closely.
But obvioiusly, with some 40+ comments so far on this thread, nobody’s interested in the subject, huh?
I’ll bet a bunch of Democrats regret THAT vote, but that no stinking Republicans even now do.
“I take a back seat to no one in my commitment to the preeminent power of America’s markets.”
“I am proud to have had Tom’s and the Chamber’s support on some of the most important pieces of legislation with which I have been associated. Laws like the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act; the Y2K litigation reform act; the Class Action Fairness Act; the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which has helped bring our financial services sector into the 21st century; and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which in the aftermath of 9/11 has played a crucial role in keeping our economy strong.”
Christopher Dodd, Democratic Chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, March 14, 2007 speech to U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3779/print
@37
I was wondering how long it would take a right winger to blame Clinton for Bush’s mess.
Of course Clinton is also responsible for the destruction of the dinosuars 67 million years ago, although Govenor Palin believes it was more like 6000 years ago.
I’ve tried chasing down lots of Republican claims that Democrats are responsible for the current situation. I’ve looked into donations to Democracts, ties between people with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, purported regulation/deregulation attempts over the last eight years.
I can’t say I’ve exhaustively researched the subject, or that I have expertise over the “exciting” world of mortgage banking regulations.
But what I’ve seen so far, the Republican attempts to shift blame haven’t held water. Donations to Democratic Congressmen have usually been matched with donations to Republican Congressman. Supposed “close” relationships between Obama and Wall Street insiders have evaporated into mere passing acquantances upon more scrutiny, certainly nothing that would justify the label “close ties”. White House attempts to “reform” banking or the mortgage banking industry have invariably turned out to be attempts to transfer power from Congress to the White House in an attempt at deregulation without Congressional oversight, which was defeated by Congressmen from both parties.
References to the Clinton administration’s policies aren’t an excuse for the current situation. The mortgage markets were fundamentally different then. The FHA under Clinton didn’t encourage the creation of sub-prime loans which could be bundled with good mortgages and then sold as mortgage-backed securities on the open market, thereby financing more sub-prime lending.
In the analogy I’ve used before, it’s like under the Clinton administration they were accelerating slightly to get up the hill, but under the Bush administration, they hit put the “pedal-to-the-metal going downhill until the car crashed at the bottom of the hill.
The Karl Rove machine has been busy researching every vote that has anything to do with banking, and attempted to turn every Democratic vote on such bills into an attempt to deflect blame from this situation. I really don’t have the time to try to match the resources of the Karl Rove machine every time they generate a new excuse.
I’ve got the same problem on history forums, where Holocaust deniers keep trying to push such arguments as “if the gas chambers existed, then where are the blueprints?” It isn’t worth the time and energy to try to rational research and discuss an issue with someone who either knows the allegation is untrue already, or doesn’t care whether it is untrue or not. In the time it takes you to discuss the truth, they simply move on to the next deceptions. So I’m not going to play that game each time.
Besides, why couldn’t the Republicans push through a mortgage reform bill in 2002 or 2005 if they wanted to???? Just how did the minority Democrats, who couldn’t get enough votes to stop the Iraq war or the Bush tax cuts, or the Bankruptcy Reform Regulation suddenly become so strong that they could defeat a simple banking bill over the objections of the majority Repubicans?
It just doesn’t hold water.
“(I)t was Republicans switching their votes, not Pelosi’s words, that killed the bailout …”
It was c. TWELVE Republicans switching their votes, Big Ears. And only if the buzz, from the usual unreliable sources, is correct.
Beyond debate is that Granny Pelosi is a putzette. Gold Star Cindy could not possibly be worse.
And so much for the CEO president? That would be Pres Cheney, not to be confused with MBA president Bush. But Goldstein, as usual, is confused.
And tell blue john that Reagan capitalism worked just fine, after the failure of Karter Krony Kapitalism, aka the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Give Peanut Jimmy credit, tho, for deregulation.
“(R)emember that it was only three years ago that the White House tried to get us to give Wall Street our Social Security money to manage for us …”
Your ponderous platitude is wrong in so many ways and on so many levels, rhp666, but I’m sure you knew that. In fact, that’s probably why you typed it. Disinformation is your most important product.
I’m sure the asshat at 37 doesn’t remember the veto-proof rethuglicant Congrssional majority…ohhhh nooooooo.
Oh and asshat’s jerk-off comment at 13 is just fucking biz-zarrre…where does the dumbass get this crap?
rhp666 sez, “References to the Clinton administration’s policies aren’t an excuse for the current situation.”
Thanks for absolving Phil Gramm for his 1999 tweak of Glass-Steagall, although Landfill Phil needed no absolution from a logorrhoeac like you. Still, that’s really bad news for your libtard bros, who have spent lo these many days blaming Gramm for Great Depression II, conveniently overlooking the fact that libtard Clinton signed Gramm into law.
(Oh dear … did I say the D word? Depression? When it’s only a manic recession? And only in our heads, as Gramm said last month?)
the puddybitch at 48,49, and 51 is so full of shit his ears stink.
No one has linked/quoted your post, no one seems interested in what you felt was so important that you posted the same thing in numerous threads.
You’re acting like a troll.
“the CEO President” got that name ‘cuz his daddy’s status bought him ownership in a baseball team, which went up in price when the taxpayers gave them a new stadium.
For all the down home imagery W projected, he was really just a inheritance capitalist Republican. The guy didn’t have to work for anything he got.
What happened to all the competent Republicans? Where did they go?
@52 “the puddybitch at 48,49, and 51 is so full of shit his ears stink.”
Puddylips is no doubt in hiding as he’s been having his ass handed to him here at HA on a daily basis. It’s probably best that we let the old Puddy fade away. Anyway, he was such a bore that nobody will likely miss the ol’ goatfucker. Hell, I doubt if he’ll even miss himself, you know, what with his self-loathing and all that.
Yep, just your basic self-loathing Tom. Glad you cleared that up for us, Steve, you self-aggrandizing perv.
For more on selves and loathing, go to http://www.i_am_puddy‘s_bitch.com.
A closer look shows that Glass-Steagall’s been well covered here. Apologize for belaboring and reiterating the obvious.
@56 and 57 It’s kind of sad to watch you lose it, Pudz. I had hoped that you’d last until November.
Like, ?
@31: Again Stamm brings up the most ridiculous and stupid points. Yes, democrats took control of congress in 2007. what Stamm fails to understand is that in our system of goverment there are checks and balances. So democrats have not been able to pass their legislation since they do not have 60 votes in the senate to overcome republican filibusters (or threats thereof)or 67 votes to overcome a veto by the President. What makes Stamm suddenly believe democrats are running the economy when they could not even get a timetable for getting out of Iraq by Bush and the republicans. Bush has run the economy and set the rules for the last 8 years – and this is what we have gotten. The worst economy since Herbert Hoover. Trying to blame it on the democrats is the stupidest thing I have heard yet out of the incredibly bumb Mr. Stamm (er).
If the democrats can’t do anything, what was the point of voting them into power?
Sounds like you got played for a fool.
Oops, here is a democrat admitting that they lied their way into office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5lHXkrdQ8
Good thing the democrat voters are ignorant.
So it’s just a coincidence that once the dems got voted into power things started going downhill? Sucks how karma worked out.
I’ve tried chasing down lots of Republican claims that Democrats are responsible for the current situation. I’ve looked into donations to Democracts, ties between people with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, purported regulation/deregulation attempts over the last eight years.
Perhaps you should “chase down” the claim that both parties are knee deep in the mess, because there’s plenty of data including material posted on HA to support that argument. It’s simply not credible to argue our financial debacle was created by one party, and sticking to that argument only makes finding a resolution all that more difficult.
puddybitch is off his meds AGAIN…
I waiting to hear the arguements to privatize social security. Try to convinve americans to put their whole retirement into the market.
@35: Patent bullshit: Sorry the 2005 bill would not have done a thing to fix the current crisis.
Here is the rebuttal to that article which has been debunked before:
If the 2005 bill was to be such a big reform, why were Freddie and Fannie lobbying FOR it? why were republicans (some of them) in favor of it and why did it not pass the republican controlled senate?
ooops! Republicans are lying agian and trying to claim they were for more regulation. In fact, the bill would have put a separate private regulatory board in that would have been MORE malleable.
ooops!
The trolls on here need to think for themsleves and quit reading the right wing excuse tanks. republicans and McCain made it simple – they are for deregulation – until someothing goes wrong and thenthey blame democrats and try to weasel out of the Phil Gramm bill in 1999 that passed on a party line vote (republicans for and democrats against).
It had NOTHING to do with the antidiscrimination bills in 1977 that democrats sponsored. that is more political bullshit.
The important facts to keep in mind:
Republicans will lie and make the truth stand on end to win. Republicans will claim to be FOR regulation to avoid blame. republicans will attempt to blame democrats for everything – even when the republicans were in control of the house and senate and White house in 2005. Republicans will try to blame democrats for the finiancial crisis since democrats have been in control of the congress since 2007. Again, this is false because it takes 60 votes in the senate to overcome a fillibuster or the threat of a filibuster and 67 to overcome a veto of a president.
The amazing thing is that just today, the right wingnut trolls have tried all these bogus arguments.
@62: Poor Stamm, do I have to explain everything to you?
When Obama becomes president he can work with the congress and set the agenda for fixing all the problems that Bush has caused over the last 8 years. there – now you can vote for change too.
sometimes schadenfreude feels so very, very good; it could become downright addicting….
Marcy Wheeler breaks down the numbers:
DOW January 19, 2001: 10,587.59
DOW September 29, 2008: 10,365.45
NASDAQ Jan 19, 2001 = 2770.38
NASDAQ September 29, 2008 = 1983.73
CPI, January 19, 2001: 175
CPI, September 29, 2008: 219
Dollar exchange with Euro, January 19, 2001: 1.068
Dollar exchange with Euro, September 29, 2008: .695
Update:CBS News’s Mark Knoller notes that the national debt has grown 71.9 percent since Bush took office, “more than under any previous president.”
You can always watch Chris Matthews. He has a sponsor called Cash-Call!
Gary Diff’Rent Strokes Coleman lets you know their interest rate is 99+%
“The APR for a typical loan of $2,600 is 99.25% with 42 monthly payments of $216.55 with a $75.00 origination fee.”
Yes, now we know why Moonbat!s watch PMSNBC!
@70;
I’m what you would probably call a “moonbat” and I wouldn’t touch a cashcall loan with someone else’s 10 foot pole.
Only an idiot pays 99.25% interest or increases a deficit 71% in 8 years.
But you just so you know – I see the cashcall commercials on channels I associate more with older Republicans, the channels that show reruns of old 1980’s shows and stuff like that
Reformed Republican @ 67: The current Republican campaign to deflect blame for the current situation has more that a bit of racism in it.
The charges that the banks were “forced” to make the loans to “unqualified” buyers who “couldn’t really afford” their houses under the Community Reinvestment Act and by pressure brought by Acorn are a thinly-veiled attempt to say that the banks are failing because they were forced to lend to minorities.
This is a blatant appeal to prejudice, reinforcing stereotypical prejudicial attitudes that minority races just aren’t as financial responsible as “us”, and therefore when they didn’t pay their bills it brought about the crisis and “we” are going to have to pay the consequences.
It also ignores – you know, the actual facts. Minority loans under the CRA haven’t created any greater foreclosure rates than in the mortgage community in general. The large half-vacant suburbs in California, Los Vegas, and Phoenix aren’t in minority redevelopment districts covered by the CRA, they are mini-McMansions.
Although credit is getting pretty hard to get right now, and foreclosures are increasing, we haven’t seen the explosion of foreclosures here (yet) that others have seen. The reason is that housing prices here have remained rather steady, in large part because of continued hiring through this year by Boeing and other firms which have kept the economy here strong on a local level. Whether it can remain strong in the face of the current national situation is doubtful.
There’s nothing wrong with Congress now that a veto-proof Democratic majoriy couldn’t cure.
So why didn’t the bill pass rhp6033 now?
Oh wait a minute… 95 vulnerable Donkey want to keep their seats in the House.
What? Vulnerable? Noooooooo…
You and your HA pals said this was to be a landslide triumph. So what is it rhp6033? Why these libtards scared?
rhp6033@72: It all started with Fannie and Freddie. $1.5 Trillion in bad loans and counting…
You are blind to the fact this was first identified in 2001 and then again in 2004. See the YouTubes in the Open Thread if you want to view real history…
rhp6033 I asked Don Joe why he hasn’t discussed greenlining…
Maybe you can clue us into this practice…
Still haven’t seen his response.
Here rhp6033: More facts for the single celled organism you call a brain…
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09.....131274.htm
Some more info rhp6033:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09.....131216.htm
So who leads Goldman Sachs and who receives from Goldman Sachs?
Sun Sep 28, 3:34 PM ET
Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) rejected as “seriously misleading” a published report on Sunday that said the Wall Street bank had as much as $20 billion of exposure to the troubled insurance giant American International Group Inc (AIG.N).
The New York Times had said Goldman was AIG’s largest trading partner, citing six people close to the insurer. It also said a collapse of AIG threatened to leave a hole of as much as $20 billion in Goldman, citing several of the people.
The report contrasted with a Sept 16 comment by David Viniar, Goldman’s chief financial officer, on a conference call with analysts that Goldman’s exposure to AIG was immaterial.
Hours after he spoke, the U.S. government announced an $85 billion bailout of AIG, which had suffered spiraling losses on credit default swaps, a type of insurance contract whose value is tied to securities such as mortgages and corporate debt. A failure of AIG might have convulsed the global financial system because many companies do business with it.
Lucas van Praag, a Goldman spokesman, on Sunday said the Times article was wrong to suggest that Goldman had reason to be concerned about AIG’s problems.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200....._nytimes_1
@64 “off his meds”
I expect he’ll soon be speaking in tongues. Poor sap. At least he’ll have plenty company in the psych ward as it’s obvious that Cynical, Marvin and Troll have already reached that space. I just hope my tax dollars don’t pay for any of their treatment.
Republican Rep. pleads no contest to charge of fondling an undercover cop at a park toilet.
http://archives.starbulletin.c.....tory9.html
What is it with these freaks and public toilets??
This has been another edition of “Puddy’s Heroes”.