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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-07-2009, 12:17 AM
 
Location: Fort Myers Fl
2,305 posts, read 3,028,608 times
Reputation: 921

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
The market going up is "BUBBLE".

The fundamentals are not up..some are down in fact.
The market doesn't price stocks on fundamentals, rather it prices stocks on an emotional reaction to fundamentals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2009, 06:33 AM
 
30,063 posts, read 18,663,011 times
Reputation: 20880
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdavid002 View Post
Credit goes to the investors who drove the market up..not based on anything that BHO did...simply a function of buying and selling...
Agreed. Should blame be placed when the market falls again? If Bammer can reduce the debt, increase unemplyment and wages, the nation will support him. If not, there will be trouble in 2012 for him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2009, 08:05 AM
 
3,153 posts, read 3,593,793 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE View Post
Then I guess he shouldn't get the blame when it goes down either, it's just investors loosing their nerve and pulling out. It is all the fault of the investors, up or down. Yea BHO is free from this one. I'm sure he will rest easier tonight.
Fluctuations in the market do not reflect sustainable confidence by investors but normal market behavior. Profit taking will happen and buying will occur, some of it spurred by economic indicators, some of it sector specific and some of it driven by earnings..etc. Real market moves where you have strong buying with heavy volume coupled with solid economic growth based on actions taken by the Government can be touted..or denied depending on which way the market went. So you cannot just make a blanket statement. Obama's mistake and ultimate demise is being caused by his spending which is on hyper track. His monetizing of the debt, and his ideology which has never worked anywhere or at any time in history...period. This combined with a weak dollar getting weaker is not good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2009, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,963 posts, read 22,147,086 times
Reputation: 13799
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
the point is that a high stock market is actually not a good thing

look at history people (not dem-vs-rep)

prices on almost everything tripled (and insome cases quadrupled) during the 80's, 90's and early 00's

stock market went from 1000 to 14000,,,when is SHOULD BE AROUND 4500-5000


The bg gains during reagan/bush1/clinton/bush2 were not good for america, especially its people



you might ask why I say thins:....because as the stockmarket (profits) increase so does the prices of things...ie the cost of living....................why should a midsize chevy BRAND NEW in 1970 be 2500, but now be 22k....why should a house that was 150k in 1995 be 450k in 2005.............................................. ....why..................because the VALUE of the DOLLAR is in the TOILET
Here is an article that tries to explain why the upsurge in market activity may be a bad thing.

Quote:
Stocks rallied to start the week thanks to a better-than-expected ISM services sector report and a Goldman Sachs upgrade of big banks, including Wells Fargo, Comerica and Capital One.

But all is not right in either the economy or the banking sector, according to Christopher Whalen, managing director at Institutional Risk Analytics. In fact, Whalen says most observers are drawing the wrong economic conclusions from the stock market's robust rally.

"Why is liquidity going into the financial sector? It's because the real economy is dying [and] everyone is fleeing into the stocks and bonds because they're liquid at the moment," Whalen says. "That's not a good sign."

"The real economy is shrinking because of a lack of credit."

The "Real" Economy Is Dying Q4 "Going to Be a Bloodbath" Whalen Says: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2009, 08:32 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,319 posts, read 8,984,492 times
Reputation: 3396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawdustmaker View Post
Nope. Bush proposed regulation of Fannie and Freddie as early as 2003.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - The New York Times

Hardly a Nancy Pelosi idea.

[/indent]
So Bush was AWARE of the looming HOUSING CRISIS back in 2003, when Republicans controlled ALL BRANCHES of government, and yet he did not correct the situation when he could have?

Republicans were in controll for FOUR YEARS beginning in Jan 2003.

Sound like BUSH dropped the ball BIG TIME!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2009, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,480,794 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050 View Post
So Bush was AWARE of the looming HOUSING CRISIS back in 2003, when Republicans controlled ALL BRANCHES of government, and yet he did not correct the situation when he could have?

Republicans were in controll for FOUR YEARS beginning in Jan 2003.

Sound like BUSH dropped the ball BIG TIME!!!
yes they were aware and were yelling up an down to fix it,, but the republicans only has a minor majority, (1 seat in the senate (48d-50r-1I), and and 11 seat in the house (209d-222r-1I)................compare to TODAY when the dems have a major majority and cant get bills passed


the dems stopped it , all they cared about was giving mortgages to the poor that couldnt afford the mortgages to begin with,,, it falls squarely on the liberals


House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios

Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:

Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?

---------------------

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.

Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals.
------------------------------
Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

Mr. Raines?

Mr. Raines: No, sir.

Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?

Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .

Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.

----------------------------

Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission.

-----------------------
Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004:

Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): What is the wrong that we're trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we're trying to avert?

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: Well, I think that that is a very good question, senator.

What we're trying to avert is we have in our financial system right now two very large and growing financial institutions which are very effective and are essentially capable of gaining market shares in a very major market to a large extent as a consequence of what is perceived to be a subsidy that prevents the markets from adjusting appropriately, prevents competition and the normal adjustment processes that we see on a day-by-day basis from functioning in a way that creates stability. . . . And so what we have is a structure here in which a very rapidly growing organization, holding assets and financing them by subsidized debt, is growing in a manner which really does not in and of itself contribute to either home ownership or necessarily liquidity or other aspects of the financial markets.

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don't want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that's been done here. And that shouldn't be lost in this debate and discussion.
-------------------------

Senate Banking Committee, April 6, 2005:

Sen. Schumer: I'll lay my marker down right now, Mr. Chairman. I don't think Fannie and Freddie need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera. Don't undo Fannie and Freddie.

---------------------------

Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:

Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah): I think we do need a strong regulator. I think we do need a piece of legislation. But I think we do need also to be careful that we don't overreact.

I know the press, particularly, keeps saying this is another Enron, which it clearly is not. Fannie Mae has taken its lumps. Fannie Mae is paying a very large fine. Fannie Mae is under a very, very strong microscope, which it needs to be. . . . So let's not do nothing... we need to fix this before its too late.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, "Let's dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie," when that is not what's called for as a result of what's happened here. . . .

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): Mr. Chairman, what we're dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of -- the best we can say is, "It's no Enron." Now, that's a hell of a high standard.






NOTICE SOMETHING?????? its the liberals that are saying F and F are fine
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2009, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,231 posts, read 16,935,949 times
Reputation: 5932
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdavid002 View Post
Credit goes to the investors who drove the market up..not based on anything that BHO did...simply a function of buying and selling...
BINGO! If you cannot give him credit, which is accurate, you cannot blame him. To blame Obama, or any other President, for the state of the economy and expecting them to "fix" it makes one a Socialist, plain and simple.
Now as for the news, it is good news, let's hope for more, even though some seem to be praying for worse.
Casper
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2009, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,771 posts, read 104,726,020 times
Reputation: 49248
I know nothing about economics except what our investments are doing. A 5 year old knows as much as I do, but according to Cavuto (Spelling) the market fluxuation has little to do with who is or is not Pres. David said it best. Now, we can stop blaming or taking credit, regardless of what side we are on..

Nita
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2009, 07:02 PM
 
10,181 posts, read 10,257,364 times
Reputation: 9252
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050 View Post
So Bush was AWARE of the looming HOUSING CRISIS back in 2003, when Republicans controlled ALL BRANCHES of government, and yet he did not correct the situation when he could have?

Republicans were in controll for FOUR YEARS beginning in Jan 2003.

Sound like BUSH dropped the ball BIG TIME!!!
Noooooooo.......that wasn't it big guy!

You obviously choose not to read any of the links.

But before you say you did before you say you didn't, why don't you go and do your own research on the subject instead of taking information/rhetoric from the uninformed....you MAY find out when this issue really started, who caused it and why and THEN you might have something intelligent to debate. Until then , I don't think so.

Good luck. Get back to us and we'll grade you on how well you learned yourself something new and then try to spin the facts. You won't be able to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2009, 10:54 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,319 posts, read 8,984,492 times
Reputation: 3396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawdustmaker View Post
Noooooooo.......that wasn't it big guy!

You obviously choose not to read any of the links.

But before you say you did before you say you didn't, why don't you go and do your own research on the subject instead of taking information/rhetoric from the uninformed....you MAY find out when this issue really started, who caused it and why and THEN you might have something intelligent to debate. Until then , I don't think so.

Good luck. Get back to us and we'll grade you on how well you learned yourself something new and then try to spin the facts. You won't be able to.
Sorry ... but nothing to spin here.

Republicans knew a housing crisis was buiding back in 2003.

The NY Times link in a previous post confirms this.

Republicans controlled all of government for 4 years, beginning in 2003.

And they did NOTHING to prevent the crisis from happening!

FOUR YEARS is a LONG TIME!

Don't try to shift the blame.

Republicans had the opportunity to prevent this economic crisis early on, and they blew it!

The only thing Republicans managed to do pre-emtively in 2003, was start an UNNECESSARY war!
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 08:40 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