Look man, I don't think things are great, but I'm gonna speak up when people try to make it sound really really bad, b/c its not. People have been trying to compare the dip in the stock market just recently to the crash in 1987. 500 pts in a day. From a percentage point of view its not even close to the same as 1987.

9/16/2008 9:44:42 AM

the one-day dip doesn't, but actually, yeah - the mid-term performance is nearing 1987 levels now

from the at-the-time all-time high in Sept '87 of ~2700 to the stabilization at 1900-2000 for most of 1988, that's a ~25% drop
http://tinyurl.com/59oc5q


For our current slide, if we go back to the previous all-time high in October 2007 at ~14100, we are now down 23%
http://tinyurl.com/6bcqxq

9/16/2008 9:59:40 AM

savings rates have always been shitty for americans.

Forclosure rates... Its amazing how we tend to fuck over the many to focus on the few. What is the percentage of homes in foreclosure? Honestly

9/16/2008 9:59:50 AM

9/16/2008 1:49:11 PM

Kainen, do you have one for 2006 to now?

Or from 2000 to 06?

9/16/2008 1:53:15 PM

yarr, it be the Democrats fault.

Unemployment January 2007: 4.6%
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2007/feb/wk1/art02.htm

Budget
$400billion deficit
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007#Total_receipts (easier to find the data)

National Debt
$8.5 trillion

http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/supplement/2007/01/table1_41.htm

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 2:01 PM. Reason : .]

9/16/2008 1:53:55 PM

worst unemployment rate under clinton admin was over 7%, the rates have been pretty steady under both admins. We HAVE to real in spending. It should be the top priority, and it is exactly where both parties are failing us.

Didnt we raise min wage during this period too?

No doubt we are heading for a recession, this would be a terrible time to raise taxes. imo

9/16/2008 2:04:40 PM

Please provide a link to that 7% unemployment rate.

9/16/2008 2:05:21 PM

here you go

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

9/16/2008 2:07:54 PM

You can only give him 93, which was 6.9%, off the high of 7.5% from Bush I's first term and there was a steady decline in unemployment during the clinton years. Not once, looking at those statistics can you say that Clinton's policies caused for people to become unemployed.

9/16/2008 2:12:19 PM

eye you have to be kidding me~~~~

Bill Clinton took office in 1993 to Jan 2001. You claim it was 7% on his watch...ummm, that's where it was when he took office and he dropped it SIGNIFICANTLY.

1993...........................6.9
1994 (1)......................6.1
1995.......................... 5.6
1996.......................... 5.4
1997 (1)......................4.9
1998 (1)......................4.5
1999 (1)......................4.2
2000 (1).......................4.0

9/16/2008 2:14:57 PM

^^ What policies, then, caused people to become unemployed during this recession that were not also supported by democrats?

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 2:17 PM. Reason : ,]

9/16/2008 2:17:10 PM

Blametastic!

Our economy still sucks. Anyone think AIG will find $$$?

9/16/2008 2:19:52 PM

^^It's the Democrats, not the person who has been in the White house for the past 8 years.

2001..........4.7
2002..........5.8
2003..........6.0
2004..........5.5
2005..........5.1
2006..........4.6
2007..........4.6
2008..........6.1

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

9/16/2008 2:21:18 PM

Im sorry fellas for the .1 difference. The economy boomed during that time.. most of it built on the back of the internet.. but alot of it on doctored books.. Sound familiar? The housing is really pulling other sectors down now... let it adjust. Things will bounce back. But its not the time to raise taxes.

9/16/2008 2:25:28 PM

The Bush years have been marked by an increase in unemployment over the clinton years. That is undeniable and to somehow pass off the success of Bill Clinton as "Omg teh internets" is dubious at best.

9/16/2008 2:33:58 PM

Quote :

"Im sorry fellas for the .1 difference. "

No no no, you don't. You can't slip out and get off that easy by making us look anal.

You quoted 7% was under Clinton. That was where it was at when HE TOOK OFFICE. And if you look over his presidential term the rate dropped to 4.0% in an unmistakable steady trend. Trendlines like that don't pop out of thin air. Of course I don't expect you to do anything but what must republicans do and say it had nothing to do with him.

You can do that, but you can't get away with dropping a bad number like that and associating it with Clinton, because he got straight A's on economic growth, jobs, etc.

9/16/2008 2:36:02 PM

^^ My point is that you cannot simply attribute economic successes or failures to presidents without providing evidence to what specifically the president did at the time to cause the economic environment.

9/16/2008 2:53:11 PM

It might, just might have to do with the fiscal responsiblity of the clinton years and not this, don't tax, but spend like a mofo during the Bush years. The dollar is weak due to a lack of faith in American currency, which causes problems for businesses.

9/16/2008 2:56:06 PM

The dollar's decline has much more to do with interest rate differentials than with deficits. Additionally, the inexcusable spending spree of the past eight years was bipartisan.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM. Reason : ,]

9/16/2008 3:17:05 PM

It was bipartisan, but the Republicans controlled the Congress and the President. We'll somehow turn this into a Democrats fault.

9/16/2008 3:17:47 PM

I have a simply question for kainen and nuts.

If hillary care passed, do you think he runs a surplus?

Or better yet, if Ross Perot doesnt make a run.. do you think spending even becomes an issue?

9/16/2008 3:25:50 PM

What does Ross Perot have to do with anything?

also, surplus is created by having more revenue than expenditures. Universal Healthcare does not mean a surplus disappears.

9/16/2008 3:28:26 PM

^^ what the hell does it matter?

Hey, if we hadn't have gone to fucking war in Iraq, maybe we could be running a surplus now, but now we'll never know.

9/16/2008 3:35:43 PM

You guys do understand that congress is in charge of the checkbook right.

Ross perot made spending and debt the issue. You might be too young to remember it. He actually had a real chance of winning.. until he dropped out.. then reappeared.

9/16/2008 3:43:48 PM

He never had any chance of winning.

spending and debt has always been an issue. What do you think the Reagan revolution was about?

As for your statement on Congress, the President has to sign the bills into law and sends to Congress his budget before congress will act on a budget.

9/16/2008 3:47:24 PM

We do understand that Congress is in charge of the checkbook. Guess who's been in charge of Congress 6 out of the 8 last years.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 3:59 PM. Reason : It's Not The Democrats.]

9/16/2008 3:59:08 PM

not like the democrats changed anything. They voted to aprove every spending bill on the war.

9/16/2008 4:01:12 PM

exactly 420. That is why repubs are pissed at Bush, the spending.

However, has the last two years been better?

I dont think mccain or obama will do much to control spending or get us back to a surplus. I do feel that one will be much more of a spender... and we cant afford it.

9/16/2008 4:03:57 PM

Quote :

"not like the democrats changed anything. They voted to aprove every spending bill on the war."

So now you wanna be a quitter and let the terrorists win, huh?

Obama will actually cut taxes for most of the middle lower class. The only people he will raise taxes on are the wealthiest people. In a time of economic uncertainty, you wouldn't want to take money out of consumers' hands, would you?

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ]

9/16/2008 4:04:12 PM

^ deflecting valid points with irreverent humor works wonders on the interweb.

9/16/2008 4:05:15 PM

No, I'm using sarcasm to point out your stupid policy positions. Apparently you're dumber than we all thought and can't see it even when it's been laid out right in front of you.

9/16/2008 4:06:45 PM

god, you guys have really bought into McCain's bullshit, haven't you?

We've had a Republican President for 8 years and a Republican congress for 12 of the last 14 years, and you're still able to place the blame for out of control spending on the Democrats? Nice....

I think nobody here is saying the Democrats are saints, or that they don't deserve their fair share of blame (especially for the past 2 do-nothing years). But you need to man-up and admit that your boys in the GOP have completely deserted their Conservative principles.

9/16/2008 4:06:45 PM

IMStoned, using insults to deflect from the policy discussion also works wonders.

9/16/2008 4:08:12 PM

Im not deflecting blame for spending.. The repubs lost congress bc people were pissed about spending, it was time to give the other party a shot.. and nothing changes.

You can not ignore the spending increases proposed by obama and think its a good idea. (as long as I dont have to pay for it.) haha

9/16/2008 4:09:42 PM

What policy are you discussing? From your rhetoric you seem to be indicating that the Republicans have not been in control of Congress for the past 8 years. Is that what you're trying to debate us on? Because we've already shown you that every economic indicator was better under Clinton than ever under Bush. Are you really seriously trying to convince me to vote these guys back into office with the shitstorm they've managed to get us in?

Do you have to pay for it? Not unless you make a whole bunch of money.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 4:14 PM. Reason : ]

9/16/2008 4:11:23 PM

agent,

I never said that. But, I would say that Democrats have talked a good game about reducing the deficit but without ever actually standing up to Bush on anything. Indeed, most of them went right along on his way to war in Iraq--a big source of current deficit woes.

To simply call this a "Republican Problem" is stupid. And Democrats have decided it isn't that big of a problem anyways. Indeed, many Democrats that previously said budget deficits could hamper US growth, have decided that there are bigger fish to fry for the next President...if he's a Democrat (I'm thinking of Paul Krugman here).

As I have come to learn, most Democratic politicians (and amazingly many posters on this board) only care about reducing the deficit as a political talking point. Something the other guys should to do. That's why Obama has already made it clear he isn't interesting in making budget deficit reduction a top priority in his first term.

Bill Clinton was an exception.

PS* IMStoned you are apparently very very very lost.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 4:18 PM. Reason : ``]

9/16/2008 4:11:58 PM

Look, Congress approves the spending that George Bush gives them. If there is overspending then it's because Bush asked for it. They were ready to not sign the bill but Bush politicized the war and they had to give in or completely alienate half the country. They chose the latter, it turned out to be a wise decision in the end. But there is no way you can blame the spending on the Democrats at all.

9/16/2008 4:18:18 PM

Quote :

"Do you have to pay for it? Not unless you make a whole bunch of money. "

That is such a naive way to look at things.


Sounds just like Clinton, middle class tax cuts.. increase taxes on the rich.

9/16/2008 4:21:46 PM

Quote :

"We've had a Republican President for 8 years and a Republican congress for 12 of the last 14 years, and you're still able to place the blame for out of control spending on the Democrats? Nice...."

Hell no. I know damn well that the republicans are to blame for most of it. And I'm not happy about it at all. Do I really think either candidate will start to fix this problem? Not really, but if I had to pick one of course it'd be the Republican. And even if he doesn't, I'd still agree with more of his platform than Obama's.

9/16/2008 4:21:48 PM

IMStoned420 incorrect. That is simply not how Congress works. I suggest re-reading the constitution (particularly Article I). Or maybe taking High School civics over again.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 4:22 PM. Reason : ``]

9/16/2008 4:22:16 PM

Please explain to me how I'm wrong.

9/16/2008 4:25:20 PM

Quote :

"But, I would say that Democrats have talked a good game about reducing the deficit but without ever actually standing up to Bush on anything. .... As I have come to learn, most Democratic politicians (and amazingly many posters on this board) only care about reducing the deficit as a political talking point. ..... Bill Clinton was an exception."

Bill Clinton was an exception..... He is the only Democratic President we've had in almost 30 years, and the only President to produce a balanced budget in that same time, and he's now the exception of the Democrats? He's the only Democrat that has had actual control of the entire budget.
Again, i completely agree that many/most of the Democrats in congress aren't worth their weight in the paper they write their bills on, but it was still Bush who had executive control over the budget and nearly double the deficit

9/16/2008 4:26:09 PM

The past is a sunk cost. What we should be asking ourselves is, based on the platforms and voting records of the two presidential nominees, who is more likely to rein in spending and who is unapologetically promising more than we can reasonably fund?

9/16/2008 5:54:48 PM

Well when you base it on the voting records you get the Republicans (as far as spending more than we can afford).

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 5:58 PM. Reason : ]

9/16/2008 5:57:56 PM

Touche. Although I was thinking more of the current presidential nominees and what kind of leadership they will bring. Leadership based on fiscal conservatism is much needed after the recent spending spree. Even if one were to not agree with his policies, it is hard to deny McCain wouldn't be much, much more fiscally conservative than Obama.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 6:38 PM. Reason : /]

9/16/2008 6:32:29 PM

AIG gets bailed out too.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/16/news/companies/AIG/index.htm?cnn=yes

9/17/2008 9:45:45 AM

It's like we are heading back to a new New Deal.

9/17/2008 10:04:04 AM

Unfortunately, they really had no choice on this. It sucks that they had use our money to do it, but letting AIG go down wasn't an option.

9/17/2008 10:09:14 AM

9/17/2008 10:13:05 AM