Rah Rah Rah Sis-Boom-Bah
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
AnomalousEntity
New Member
Squiggy said:Actually, I'm afraid you're both misinformed. Almost to a man, the economist are proclaiming that the country is in the worst financial situation it has seen since the depression. But keep your heads in the sand because theres nothing much we can do about it now....
And terrorism is still punching out headlines everyday...But I'm sure you miss those cuz W said its not happening...
Well thats what happens when you buy a stock thats worth 400x more than its actual earnings potential now isnt it? I was predicting a crash to my brother 8 months before the bottom fell out.
Of course the economy is in bad shape. Everyone is writing checks their asses cant cash and living way beyond their means. It boosted the economy in the 90s (because of the wild and irresponsible spending) and now its time to pay the piper.
But thats more of a social problem because the entire boom and collapse is largely attributible to the complete lack of responsibility of the modern day generation and culture which naturally over flowed into buisness management as well.
You cant really blame a president (either Clinton nor Bush) for the immensly stupid decisions being made by individuals and corporations over the last 10-15 years. Although Clinton largely egged it on and the Bushs probably profited from it.
AnomalousEntity
New Member
Squiggy said:
Not relevant? I was just replying to your mud slinging with more mud slinging. If mud slinging isnt relevant then many of your posts are irrelevant also. (parts of posts)
And it is relevant if we are talking about the current economic status because the genesis of this situation began under clinton.
There was much more their than a blow job and you know it. Problem was they couldnt get him on any of it so they went for the easy route in much the same way we had to get Al Capone for tax evasion even though we all know what else he was involved in.
Turns out it didnt stick and Im glad it didnt, it would have been much worse for the US if it had.
Squiggy
ThunderDick
AE...You speak in riddles. SPENDING is what creates an economy. The more there is, the better the economy. If you have a millon and I have a million and we're the only people, There is NO econmy until one of us buys something from the other. People had confidence to spend when Clinton was in office and it went away when W took office...Plain & simple.
AnomalousEntity
New Member
Yes but irresponsible spending when you cant pay it back leads to what?
Squiggy
ThunderDick
Well...You've assumed wrong. I don't know that there is much more there. But I'm not an apologist for any politician. I don't think any of them could aspire to the whitehouse without something shady paving their way. I do however, think Bush has much more serious and blatent flaws than did Clinton...And your reasoning still evades my understanding...
AnomalousEntity
New Member
Squiggy said:
Ok, then look at it this way.
in the late 90s Joe Blow spent way more money than he should have (economy up). Joe Blow maxed out his credit, bought a nice house, a nice car, and mortgaged the house (economy up).
Now, Joe blow is having trouble covering the costs of his high credit. First he cuts back on spending and tried to consolidates (economy flat).
That holds him over for a year or two but he is late on a few bills and begins to try and liquidate (economy down).
Eventually he goes bankrupt, his debtors dont get any money, his assests are liquidated for 1/2 of what they are worth, and his buying complete stops (economy depressed).
Now apply that to average america as well as corporate america and youll see why irresponsible spending has gotton us here.
AnomalousEntity
New Member
Squiggy said:
You may want to double check that. The $ spent in previous administrations was not at all different than what we are seeing now. If its not one dammed issue, its another. Its just that this war has been getting alot more press so it "seems" to be more.
No one complained when it was all being spent for some beautification project, or some usless research or arts appropriation, or for some outreach programs to further dependance of the poor on government handouts.
AnomalousEntity
New Member
Squiggy said:Except that thats the direct opposite of what happened during the Clinton years. Where do you get this information?
If you say Rush Limpballs I'm not playing anymore...
Right, Joe Blow did invest and save some money...in stocks that were extremely over valued and for which most analysts knew were risky but wouldnt say because they had a conflict of interest brewing.
Other than above, the scenario is exactly what happened.
Squiggy
ThunderDick
More riddles wrapped in an enema...And TOTALLY WRONG. Your putting out info that even the radical right would see is wrong. Just because you say it in a discussion doesn't make it so. We've gone round & round here many times on these subjects and most of us who participate know the truth from the bull. You can't get away with dumping bull and expecting us to accept it.
AnomalousEntity
New Member
Squiggy said:
Its not bull though. Most of it comes directly from analysts, articles, reports, research, and Public Radio (to name a few).
Its the type of news sources most of you probably dont see or bother to read.
Anyway, Im not really intrested in "proving" my opinion to some guy on an internet Bulletin Board who has his mind made up already.
Ill kindly bow out and find something more entertaining to do while I waste my time.
PS: My ship isnt really sinking. Im in better financial shape than Ive ever been in and I greatly beneifited from the reduced interest rates and taxes brought on by the recession. It is possible to use a recession to do very well financially you just have to work the system differently.
During the Boom, I didnt have money to invest so I couldnt benifit from all of the Prosperity. Instead I was getting slammed by high interest and taxes.
Now I do have money to invest and when the recovery comes, I plan on cashing in on some great bargains that are out there.
I think the turn around will come in the next few years.
I think we can all agree that the past and current administrations are to blame for the economic situation we are in now. As for the economy being in an upswing, well, I'm waiting to see it here. I have been surprised at the construction industry around here, it seems to still be moving, although not at the rate that it was back in the mid-90s. Perhaps that is because of the realization that AE mentioned about the homeowners realizing that 2G a month was a little high for a house payment, perhaps it's becuase there isn't jobs that pay 5G a month readlily available anymore. I suspect it's a little of both.
The problem now is this. Is there a way out of this? Yes. Is there anyone ACTIVELY doing anything about it? No.
The problem now is this. Is there a way out of this? Yes. Is there anyone ACTIVELY doing anything about it? No.
ris
New Member
i'm not sure that in the process of a slow down looking for another 87 billion is a bright move, but it depends how that money is serviced.
the uk has been hovering on the edges of a serious slow down for a while, it looks like next year will be quite tough, especially in the construction industry. as it happens though, government spending on new hospitals and schools through direct and pfi funding initiatives seems to be having an impact in keeping building firms above water. whether it is sustainable in the medium term is yet to be seen.
the uk has been hovering on the edges of a serious slow down for a while, it looks like next year will be quite tough, especially in the construction industry. as it happens though, government spending on new hospitals and schools through direct and pfi funding initiatives seems to be having an impact in keeping building firms above water. whether it is sustainable in the medium term is yet to be seen.
Squiggy said:
We agree here. He is spending money like a Democrat. Get rid of his support of the Prescription Drug Plan & we'll see. Republicans, on paper, support smaller government, less taxes & less interference.
Smaller gov't-
Less Taxes-
Less interference-Catch 22; because of 9/11 there's a need for the increased security. Can't be fully blamed for this one.
In support of him-Howard Dean or JF Kerry are not my idea of good wartime leaders.
Squiggy
ThunderDick
Wrong Gonz...Hes spending money faster than ANY democrat or republican. And, unlike the democrats, hes making sure that NONE of it gets back to the average American. So many of you boo & hiss at a 10 billion dollar social plan but think its fine to spend that much a week just to show off our armament. And those who think the trickle down thing is going to work are just plain lostin illusion...This entire Presidency is going to do no more than widen the gap between the haves and the have nots. At this point I'd love to see the dems run nobody in 2004 and tell Bush to fix his own problems....Otherwise the right will wait and blame everything on whatever dem takes office next.