Stocks fall as investors ponder Obama presidency

[dapoes]

October 9, 2007...............14,164

January 23, 2009..............8,077.56 -6,087 pt's

March 6, 2009...................6,626.94 -1,451 pt's

December 31, 2009...........10,428.05 -3,76 from the high / +3,208 from low in 2009


Just saying.......

Thanks for the lame math lesson, Now for your next trick, show us where the millions of $$$ lost in prosperity is now replaced ala zero sum game.

Hows that helping people in Tenn?

More than 1 in 6 Tennesseans on food stamps

 

[dapoes]

Garfield,
Somehow your facts will be "spun' into Our President's (BO's) Fault.

How Anyone can remotely blame the democrats for the devastation of folks 401k's, is beyond comprehension !

This meltdown goes back to the democrats resolve to enetitle everyone to a home via CRA and Jimmy Carter:
Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending

The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.

Alarm bells sounded early in the 2000's via Bush:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 2003— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

However the Democrats torpedoes any such regulation. In fact Barney Frank goes on the record:

"I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities.

You believe the liberal myth that greedy bankers are to blame. Well guess what? They democrats light the fuse years ago and when warned several times that this was going to explode, and they did nothing.

 

[southwind]

Garfield,
Somehow your facts will be "spun' into Our President's (BO's) Fault.

How Anyone can remotely blame the democrats for the devastation of folks 401k's, is beyond comprehension !

No matter how bad Liberal Dems want it to be true, you can't keep blaming Bush for everything ! Time for Nobama and his posse to MAN-UP !

Do the names Fannie, Freddy or the infamous Barney Frank ring any of your bells !

 

[Garfield1966]

The fact that the two of you choose to blame one party for the actions of both and one man for the actions of many prove your ignorance and bias.

From 1982 till 1986 the republican party held both the WH and had a Senate majority. From 1986 till 1993 the republicans had the WH while the dems had the Senate and House. From 1995 till 2000 the republicans held both chambers of Congress while the dems held the WH. From 2001-2002 the republicans held the WH and House while dems held a one vote majority in the Senate due to Jeffords. From 2003 till 2007 the republicans held both the WH and both chambers of Congress.

When the republicans held both the WH and Congress why did they not act to prevent the economic collapse which everyone seemed to know was coming? Shoe me one piece of legislation that was presented by the republicans that was filibustered by the dems that pertained to the economy.

Show me one piece of legislation by the 104th-106th Congress that dealt with any of these issues.

How come the republican WH did not veto any of the spending bills from 1981 till 1993?

I do not recall any one even mentioning the potential down fall of Fanny, Freddy or the housing market till shortly before it happened. The idea of laying the blame at the feet of a 1 yr president for actions that have occurred over the last 20-30 years (or more) by both parties would be laughable were it not so incredibly stupid.

So please spare me your drama. Both parties are equally at fault. Neither party chose to do a damn thing about the problems when they had the opportunity. Both parties a full of greedy, self righteous, sanctimonious blowhards who could not give a rats a$$ about this country. And they are the government we deserve because we put the SOB's in office.

If Bush sounded the alarm in 2003 when he had a republican Congress to work with him on any legislation they wanted to pass why did they not do anything to correct the problems? In case you missed the way Congress works, Franks may not have liked the idea but he had no way of stopping (aside from a filibuster) any republican legislation in a republican controlled Congress. Someone has yet to explain how a minority member of Congress can dictate what the majority can do.

 

[dapoes]

The fact that the two of you choose to blame one party for the actions of both and one man for the actions of many prove your ignorance and bias.

Facts dont lie kitty. You obviously have no idea what [url="http://"http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/8593.html""]was happening[/url] with Fannie/Freddie as you admitted below.

When the republicans held both the WH and Congress why did they not act to prevent the economic collapse which everyone seemed to know was coming? Shoe me one piece of legislation that was presented by the republicans that was filibustered by the dems that pertained to the economy.

Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone… Dems Ignored Warnings

I do not recall any one even mentioning the potential down fall of Fanny, Freddy or the housing market till shortly before it happened. The idea of laying the blame at the feet of a 1 yr president for actions that have occurred over the last 20-30 years (or more) by both parties would be laughable were it not so incredibly stupid.

If Bush sounded the alarm in 2003 when he had a republican Congress to work with him on any legislation they wanted to pass why did they not do anything to correct the problems? In case you missed the way Congress works, Franks may not have liked the idea but he had no way of stopping (aside from a filibuster) any republican legislation in a republican controlled Congress. Someone has yet to explain how a minority member of Congress can dictate what the majority can do.

You obviously weren't paying attention and/or having problems connecting to the internet?

 

[Garfield1966]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 2003— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

 

[dapoes]

Garf, your obvious lack of knowledge of the subject is apparent. Warning bells were sounded back as early 2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,â€￾ because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.â€￾

There were obvious problems that were boiling to the surface. Remember Enron? Remember the accounting problems that ensued? Fannie/Freddie also got swept up in it. You dont recall because the liberal media was to busy squawking about something Bush said/did, etc.

So dont lay your ignorance of the matter at the feet of others. If you dont know what your talking about, its all your fault.

 

[tech2101]

The fact that the two of you choose to blame one party for the actions of both and one man for the actions of many prove your ignorance and bias.

From 1982 till 1986 the republican party held both the WH and had a Senate majority. From 1986 till 1993 the republicans had the WH while the dems had the Senate and House. From 1995 till 2000 the republicans held both chambers of Congress while the dems held the WH. From 2001-2002 the republicans held the WH and House while dems held a one vote majority in the Senate due to Jeffords. From 2003 till 2007 the republicans held both the WH and both chambers of Congress.

When the republicans held both the WH and Congress why did they not act to prevent the economic collapse which everyone seemed to know was coming? Shoe me one piece of legislation that was presented by the republicans that was filibustered by the dems that pertained to the economy.

Show me one piece of legislation by the 104th-106th Congress that dealt with any of these issues.

How come the republican WH did not veto any of the spending bills from 1981 till 1993?

I do not recall any one even mentioning the potential down fall of Fanny, Freddy or the housing market till shortly before it happened. The idea of laying the blame at the feet of a 1 yr president for actions that have occurred over the last 20-30 years (or more) by both parties would be laughable were it not so incredibly stupid.

So please spare me your drama. Both parties are equally at fault. Neither party chose to do a damn thing about the problems when they had the opportunity. Both parties a full of greedy, self righteous, sanctimonious blowhards who could not give a rats a$$ about this country. And they are the government we deserve because we put the SOB's in office.

If Bush sounded the alarm in 2003 when he had a republican Congress to work with him on any legislation they wanted to pass why did they not do anything to correct the problems? In case you missed the way Congress works, Franks may not have liked the idea but he had no way of stopping (aside from a filibuster) any republican legislation in a republican controlled Congress. Someone has yet to explain how a minority member of Congress can dictate what the majority can do.

Another great post Garfield.

I just love it when certain posters pick low hanging fruit from the talking point body of knowledge of economics.

If politicians followed sound economic policy, they would never get re-elected.

They simply follow the shiny silver ball at the end of the pendulum.

 

[dapoes]

Another great post Garfield.

I just love it when certain posters pick low hanging fruit from the talking point body of knowledge of economics.

If politicians followed sound economic policy, they would never get re-elected.

They simply follow the shiny silver ball at the end of the pendulum.

Facts dont lie. Even wannabe law students know that much. Except for some apparently. :huh:

 

[Garfield1966]

In 2001 the republicans held the WH and held a majority in the House. Why were no bills passed? Given all that occurred from 2001 to 2008 you would have thought the POTUS would have tried to do something about it. You would have thought he would be crying from the roof tops that we would be facing a economic recession the likes of which we have not seen since 1929.

From 2003 till 2007 the republicans held both the WH and both chambers of Congress yet they did nothing and it is still the Dems fault? Are you really going to try and sell that?

I find it hilarious how people say "I told you so" after the horse has fled the barn.

The fact that you belive you're crap does not stink yet everyone elses is humorous and pathetic.

 

[dapoes]

In 2001 the republicans held the WH and held a majority in the House. Why were no bills passed? Given all that occurred from 2001 to 2008 you would have thought the POTUS would have tried to do something about it. You would have thought he would be crying from the roof tops that we would be facing a economic recession the likes of which we have not seen since 1929.

From 2003 till 2007 the republicans held both the WH and both chambers of Congress yet they did nothing and it is still the Dems fault? Are you really going to try and sell that?

I find it hilarious how people say "I told you so" after the horse has fled the barn.

The fact that you belive you're crap does not stink yet everyone elses is humorous and pathetic.

What's pathetic is you admitting this subject was off your radar, was not aware of it etc., and yet you try to debate the facts of the matter.

 

[joanne]

Garf, your obvious lack of knowledge of the subject is apparent. Warning bells were sounded back as early 2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,â€￾ because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.â€￾

There were obvious problems that were boiling to the surface. Remember Enron? Remember the accounting problems that ensued? Fannie/Freddie also got swept up in it. You dont recall because the liberal media was to busy squawking about something Bush said/did, etc.

So dont lay your ignorance of the matter at the feet of others. If you dont know what your talking about, its all your fault.

If what you're saying about early warnings in 2001 is true..when Bush + company were in Complete charge(POTUS/House/Senate), and if GOP bills (If they even introduced ANY) were Not filibustered, .........How in God can you defend THAT ?

Waiting patiently !

 

[SparrowHawk]

If what you're saying about early warnings in 2001 is true..when Bush + company were in Complete charge(POTUS/House/Senate), and if GOP bills (If they even introduced ANY) were Not filibustered, .........How in God can you defend THAT ?

Waiting patiently !

I can't answer but Thomas Jeferson can:

"The government that governs least, governs best"

Game, Set, Match so sayeth the SparrowHawk

 

[Garfield1966]

What's pathetic is you admitting this subject was off your radar, was not aware of it etc., and yet you try to debate the facts of the matter.

What I knew or did not know is not the issue. You are blaming Obama/dems for all of the financial crisis yet Bush and a republican controlled congress were in charge for 2 years and the republicans were in control of Congress for 10 years but chose to do nothing. You have yet to explain how they have no hand in the crisis given that they were in charge for a large part of the time in question.

 

[dapoes]

If what you're saying about early warnings in 2001 is true..when Bush + company were in Complete charge(POTUS/House/Senate), and if GOP bills (If they even introduced ANY) were Not filibustered, .........How in God can you defend THAT ?

Waiting patiently !

I'm sorry that you admittedly know nothing about the subject you feel so passionate about. Its merely a history lesson. I cannot help you more then I already have. I provided links and timelines, plus this has already been discussed plenty on the news/nets. Your intense liberal bias shields you from accepting the any of this no matter of the truth and facts.