Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-06-2013, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,642 posts, read 26,378,527 times
Reputation: 12648

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
It's recovering everything they lost under the last year of BUSH - and a HECK of a lot better than it was when Obama came into office. So, yeah, I'd jump for joy. You think people would rather go back to where they were in Dec of 2008?
Really?



Ken

Two points...

1. Bush didn't cause our economic decline (he also didn't do enough to prevent it), Clinton is largely responsible for that.

Policy News: China Trade Bill Enacted

Clinton: I Was Wrong to Listen to Wrong Advice Against Regulating Derivatives* - ABC News

2. How does Obama's performance stack up against Reagan's?

Phil Gramm: Reagan and Obama: A Tale of Two Recoveries - WSJ.com




"You think people would rather go back to where they were in Dec of 2008?"

I had 1983 in mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-06-2013, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,629,107 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
Any given 401k balance that has doubled in a few years isn't the same as an investment that has doubled. While I'm glad the market has recovered, put it into perspective for the average 401k participant: my balance is the same now as it was in five years ago after I've made five additional years of contributions. That's the reality for most Americans.

Investors who had capital and jumped in at the bottom are the only ones who have anything to cheer about. The rest of America didn't gain anything. In fact, they call it a "lost decade" for a reason.
1. A decade started in 2003 and DOW was around 8000 points. It is over 13 000 today

2. Anyone who saw their 401K recover from a disaster in a matter of a few years should be cheering

When DOW was at the bottom four years ago, many people had money which they spend on stockpiling guns, ammo and canned foods. Those same people today are the ones who claim there is nothing to cheer about. Well, they don't have anything to cheer about because they behaved like idiots. They preach personal responsibility, but when they screw up, they blame the government, and when they see other people succeed when they fail, they try to downplay the success of others. Go figure. Its a loser attitude if you asked me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2013, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,284 posts, read 26,206,502 times
Reputation: 15643
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Two points...

1. Bush didn't cause our economic decline (he also didn't do enough to prevent it), Clinton is largely responsible for that.

Policy News: China Trade Bill Enacted

Clinton: I Was Wrong to Listen to Wrong Advice Against Regulating Derivatives* - ABC News

2. How does Obama's performance stack up against Reagan's?

Phil Gramm: Reagan and Obama: A Tale of Two Recoveries - WSJ.com


"You think people would rather go back to where they were in Dec of 2008?"

I had 1983 in mind.
Couldn't open your link on Phil Gramm. but I will take the 90's anyday over the 80's, balanced budgets vs record debt.


Comments from David Stockman, Reagans budget director:
.....
Quote:
That was back in late 1981 when he gave a long interview to William Greider for the Atlantic magazine. In a piece titled “The Education of David Stockman,†the young former congressman from Michigan acknowledged that Reagan’s tax cut was “a Trojan horse†to bring down the top tax rate.
“The supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down’,†he told Greider. "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers.â€
David Stockman takes President Obama and Rep. Paul Ryan to the woodshed - CSMonitor.com


Better yet read Stockman's book“The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failedâ€
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2013, 08:17 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,330,678 times
Reputation: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Two points...

1. Bush didn't cause our economic decline (he also didn't do enough to prevent it), Clinton is largely responsible for that.

Policy News: China Trade Bill Enacted

Clinton: I Was Wrong to Listen to Wrong Advice Against Regulating Derivatives* - ABC News

2. How does Obama's performance stack up against Reagan's?

Phil Gramm: Reagan and Obama: A Tale of Two Recoveries - WSJ.com


"You think people would rather go back to where they were in Dec of 2008?"

I had 1983 in mind.
Yes, you are right the Bush did not cause the economic decline - but as you mention he did NOTHING to stop it. And what happens on YOUR WATCH is ultimately YOUR responsibility. The President is not supposed to be an "autopilot" - doing nothing but keeping us on the same course. He's supposed to be the "Captain of the Ship" - and when an iceburg comes up over the horizon you are supposed to DO SOMETHING about it. What's the sense of even HAVING A PRESIDENT if he's not going to DO SOMETHING when he sees trouble ahead. When it became clear that derivatives were threatening the entire economy the issue should have been addressed.

Yes, deregulation of derivatives was a BAD CALL and Clinton should not have done it - but not everything is foreseeable - especially THAT FAR in advance. In addition - as the article states - this was an issue pushed by the Right (who pretty much always see deregulation as a good thing). It wasn't JUST Clinton who wanted it and who thought it was a good idea.

Regarding Obama vs Reagan - yes Reagan's recovery was more successful - but you know it's WHOLE DIFFERENT WORLD today than it was in 1980. In those days America had no real competition in critical areas like manufacturing because the Third World countries were still relatively backwards and undeveloped. Today that's not at ALL the case. One of the megatrends going on right now is the rise of those formerly destitute Third World countries. In addition, advances in technology - especially the development of the Internet - makes it possible for business to be managed at the global level - meaning work can be done ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD - not just at the site of the factory. That new "global" aspect - combined with the HUGE increases in automation that have taken place since 1980 changes EVERYTHING. The economic playing field has been leveled and the US no longer has the huge economic advantages it once had - all of which makes economic recovery much much more challenging today than it was in the 1980s'

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2013, 08:22 AM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,051,128 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Geeze!
How many times does it have to be said?
It's helps nearly everyone with either a 401K and/or a pension - and there are 50 MILLION Americans with a 401K - 50 MILLION!!!!!

If you don't HAVE ONE then maybe you should be taking your own advice and take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for you economic future. Isn't that the matra of the Right? - "Personal Responsibility"?
Even if your employer doesn't offer a 401K you can open your OWN similar retirement plan. Stop whining about the fact that OTHERS have benefitted from the stock market rise and DO SOMETHING so that YOU can join them. It's NOT just the RICH who benefit from the stock market rising.

Ken
I have investments, but not a dime in the stock market. I prefer tangible assets like real estate.

I will occasionally buy a car or a boat from someone that I know I can flip for profit right away.

The stock market crashes over and over and over again.

Why do I want to ride that roller coaster?

I understand that housing prices fluctuate, but unless I'm selling at the bottom of the market, it doesn't affect me at all. The mortgage payment and rent are the same.

In fact, I've benefited greatly by the housing crash!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2013, 08:32 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,330,678 times
Reputation: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
I have investments, but not a dime in the stock market. I prefer tangible assets like real estate.

I will occasionally buy a car or a boat from someone that I know I can flip for profit right away.

The stock market crashes over and over and over again.

Why do I want to ride that roller coaster?

I understand that housing prices fluctuate, but unless I'm selling at the bottom of the market, it doesn't affect me at all. The mortgage payment and rent are the same.

In fact, I've benefited greatly by the housing crash!
As I said, the fact that the Stock Market recovery doesn't help YOU doesn't mean it doesn't help a LOT of other Americans. 50 MILLION people with 401Ks is a LOT of people - and nearly all those people were helped (or at the very least had the ABILITY to be helped) by the recovery in the Stock Market so it's a pretty darned big deal.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2013, 08:37 AM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,051,128 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
As I said, the fact that the Stock Market recovery doesn't help YOU doesn't mean it doesn't help a LOT of other Americans. 50 MILLION people with 401Ks is a LOT of people - and nearly all those people were helped (or at the very least had the ABILITY to be helped) by the recovery in the Stock Market so it's a pretty darned big deal.

Ken
There is absolutely no way that the market will continue to climb under obama's policies.

What will you say when the crash happens?

All of those millions of people will lose most of their wealth.

Unless you have retired in the last two years, or are of age to take your money from the market, you'll be pretty well screwed.

If I were of age, and were invested in the market, I would take every dime out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2013, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,629,107 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Yes, you are right the Bush did not cause the economic decline - but as you mention he did NOTHING to stop it. And what happens on YOUR WATCH is ultimately YOUR responsibility.
He contrinuted to the problem by slashing lending standards some 40 times and announcing his "mission" was to place low income hispanics to homes when they would not qualify for a mortgage. When he did all this, he should have been doing the exact opposite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2013, 08:42 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,330,678 times
Reputation: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
There is absolutely no way that the market will continue to climb under obama's policies.

What will you say when the crash happens?

All of those millions of people will lose most of their wealth.

Unless you have retired in the last two years, or are of age to take your money from the market, you'll be pretty well screwed.

If I were of age, and were invested in the market, I would take every dime out.
That's tha same ignorant nonsense spouted back in 2009.
How'd THAT work out?
Oh yeah - the S&P DOUBLED!!!!


Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2013, 08:45 AM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,051,128 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
That's tha same ignorant nonsense spouted back in 2009?
How'd THAT work out?


Ken
Historical Stock Market.....notice the peaks and valleys?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:59 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top