Guest markham51 Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Wow. The Dow's 2-day loss is the most since 1987!!! Almost 800 pts. The worse EVER for a President elect......hmmmmmm... I think you should put down your National Inquirer and run out and buy a Wall Street Journal. They talk about the markets there, you know, like the worst October retail sales in nearly 40 years and stuff like that. It's ok to invent stories about the election but when it comes to the stock market lets keep it real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tekheavy Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 wow obamas economy now sure looks great...and where is my free check?...i voted for you and im checking the mail.what gives?...wow...i thought osama would have fixed all this by now..osama economy sure does suck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 I think you should put down your National Inquirer and run out and buy a Wall Street Journal. They talk about the markets there, you know, like the worst October retail sales in nearly 40 years and stuff like that. It's ok to invent stories about the election but when it comes to the stock market lets keep it real. I think you're asking a little too much don't you? What you're seeing here is a great example of the partisan simplistic blame game, one could argue was on both sides, that's kept us from honestly dealing with these issues earlier. We had a President that did nothing until it hit him on the head, a Democratic Congress slow to act thinking anything that propped up Wall Street was bad, and a Republican candidate that said the "fundamentals" were just dandy and homeowners didn't need help! Problem was we live in an octopus like economic world where it's not so easy to address one area and not another or think one person's problem in one area of the economy can't become another person's problem in what seems to be an unrelated area of the economy . For many of us our home values have dropped BIG time. At the current rate even those of us that worked hard and put a nice 20% standard down payment are going to find our homes worth less than what we owe. It's a crazyworld out there right now and I'm not sure what the government can do anymore. It's getting to a point with the stock market where the normal rules don't apply. All you have to do is look at the numbers since August. It looks like a seismic quake chart! Things are bad and as long as we play blame game nothing will get any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
39Mustang Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Todays drop in the DOW was the largest EVER post election day in history... Hmm, I wonder why? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that us who were never fooled by the 'preaching speeches' are selling our before this moron can take it away and give it to the people who are too damn lazy to get a job? Every investment I had, SOLD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormeaston Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 It came back even better after the 87 crash, it'll come back again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
39Mustang Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 You were not paying attention to the stock market over the last year?????????????? Cannot blame those huge losses on Obama...........But Bush was and still is the President................ Hey buddy, Bush has nothing to do with the stock market problems we have now and anyone who has been an investor knows this fact. This is just a pathetic excuse liberals used to get elected and so many uneducated and uninformed people fell for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipBeck Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Things are bad and as long as we play blame game nothing will get any better. Gentlemen, This comment is 180° out of phase. When one confronts any type of malice, be it physical, financial, governmental, etc., blame must be affixed in order to correct the problem. Without a proper analysis for the sole purpose of afixing blame so that the source of trouble can be eliminated or mollified, one would be whistling in the wind in a futile attempt to quash symptoms. Only a foolish doctor would spend time trying to get a patient's temperature under control without looking for the source of that high temperature. Is it an infection, the flu, cancer, or something else? Proper measures cannot be taken until the doctor can affix proper blame. When a company is losing money is it because of employee theft, high labor costs, poor product mix, lousy marketing, or something else? Again, proper measures cannot be taken until management can affix proper blame so that corrective measures can be taken. Today's financial market debacle, like the S&L meltdown two decades ago, and like the Medicare/Social Security train wreck that is headed our way are not that hard to analyze. These devastatingly expensive trillion dollar implosion's have only occurred and can only occur when Congress mandates irrational behavior. All legislation is a forced distortion of the free market which reduces efficiency and increases expenses. Recognizing this (which Congress does not), legislative mandates should only be enacted when absolutely necessary and at the minimal level necessary for achieving the mandates objective. Automobile emission standards are an example of a legislative mandate that can be seen as worth the expense and inefficiency they impose. Raising the revenue necessary to operate our government utilizing a tax code that fills more than 3 million constantly changing pages and that is so incomprehensibly complicated that trained IRS agents could not possibly even begin to learn and understand it in a lifetime of study is an example of a mandate whose expense and inefficiency greatly outweighs its benefits. The current Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mortgage melt down is a direct result of foolish legislation enacted primarily (but not exclusively) by Democratic Congressman which mandated that a large percentage (close to 50% in the last few years) of federally chartered mortgage loans be made to the poor and minority households (starting with the "Community Reinvestment Act" under President Jimmy Carter and greatly expanded during Bill Clinton's presidency) regardless of their ability to repay. Banks that failed to meet congressionally mandated objectives were subject to severe criminal penalties and lawsuits brought by attorney generals at the direction of Congress. At the same time, congressionally chartered GSE's (Government Sponsored Enterprises) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were instructed to aggressively purchase these mortgages. With their implicit governmental guarantees, which made the risk of these mortgages a public liability (now costing US taxpayers dearly), but which kept the profit from these mortgages private (which made the Democrat party overlords of these organizations hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses), these mortgages were easy to bundle and resell as securities. With a higher rate of return than US T-bills and an implied United States government guarantee of both principal and interest, the securities were snapped up by financial firms worldwide. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives paid themselves bonuses based upon the dollar amount of mortgages their firms purchased and resold. Credit quality and the soundness of the underlying mortgages was irrelevant. When federal regulators started blowing the whistle on these practices five years ago, it was Democrat Senators Chris Dodd and Barney Frank along with the entire Congressional Black Caucus that ran interference for them. They were furious with the regulators and were insistent that there was no inherent problem with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Any attempt to rein in these mortgage companies by Republican Congressman and federal regulators was successfully thwarted by Democratic Congressman shouting charges of racism as any reforms would result in fewer mortgages being granted to African-Americans and other minorities. Barney Frank said at the time that he wished to "roll the dice even more in the direction of affordable housing" by granting mortgages to even riskier borrowers with abysmal credit records. Banks were happy to make these loans ONLY because they could quickly be resold to Fannie Mae which eliminated the risk to the bank. Fannie Mae was happy to buy these junk loans because bonuses to top management were based upon a dollar volume of mortgages purchased, not the soundness of the mortgages themselves. Corporations were happy to buy these mortgages from Fannie Mae because implied US government guarantees made them look safe. Congressional meddling brought us to the point where anybody could and did get a mortgage. Extremely low interest rates in the wake of 9/11 made owning a home with a cheap interest only loan that required no money down (no skin in the game) cheaper than renting. With everybody, good credit or horrible credit, getting mortgages and buying houses the price of all homes skyrocketed. When interest rates returned to more normal levels and credit requirements were ratcheted up as a result of skyhigh default rates on loans granted to minorities not on the basis of good credit, but because of the color of their skin, foreclosure rates jumped and housing prices fell. Individuals with lousy credit who put no money down had no reason to continue paying when a 20% drop in home values meant they owed 20% more than their homes were worth. So they gave the keys back to the bank and walked. And why not? They're not losing a big down payment, they're not losing anything. No rational individual or organization would have been able to make those loans, repurchase those loans, or bought and held those loans, without foolish and reckless legislation enacted by Congress that mandated those loans in the first place, and enabled reckless behavior by borrowers and lenders alike. Without congressional mandates any financial institution that made such loans would have been snuffed out in its infancy by market forces. The very market forces that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank didn't like (and successfully nullified) because minorities with lousy credit who had proven time and again that they do not pay their bills, wouldn't get mortgages. The blame for this mess can and must be laid precisely where it belongs in order to stop further carnage and to prevent this from happening again. Congressional meddling in the mortgage market is correctly and exclusively responsible for our current economic crisis. Oh yeah....one more thing. The same congressional Democrats who five years ago said there was no problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who showered their Democrat party congressional protectors with tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions) tell us today that there is no serious problem with Social Security. As baby boomers retire and United States government takes responsibility for paying them SS benefits and covering the medical bills of the largest group of retirees in our nations history, the ensuing financial tsunami will make this current mortgage todo look as insignificant as a pimple on an elephant's ass. There is no level of taxation or governmental borrowing possible that will allow the United States to pay promised Social Security and Medicare benefits. All Republican attempts at reform have been successfully thwarted by the same congressional Democrats that stymied reform at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Until we understand the cause of this and affix blame, nothing will get any better. Chip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest markham51 Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Gentlemen, This comment is 180° out of phase. When one confronts any type of malice, be it physical, financial, governmental, etc., blame must be affixed in order to correct the problem. Without a proper analysis for the sole purpose of afixing blame so that the source of trouble can be eliminated or mollified, one would be whistling in the wind in a futile attempt to quash symptoms. Only a foolish doctor would spend time trying to get a patient's temperature under control without looking for the source of that high temperature. Is it an infection, the flu, cancer, or something else? Proper measures cannot be taken until the doctor can affix proper blame. When a company is losing money is it because of employee theft, high labor costs, poor product mix, lousy marketing, or something else? Again, proper measures cannot be taken until management can affix proper blame so that corrective measures can be taken. Today's financial market debacle, like the S&L meltdown two decades ago, and like the Medicare/Social Security train wreck that is headed our way are not that hard to analyze. These devastatingly expensive trillion dollar implosion's have only occurred and can only occur when Congress mandates irrational behavior. All legislation is a forced distortion of the free market which reduces efficiency and increases expenses. Recognizing this (which Congress does not), legislative mandates should only be enacted when absolutely necessary and at the minimal level necessary for achieving the mandates objective. Automobile emission standards are an example of a legislative mandate that can be seen as worth the expense and inefficiency they impose. Raising the revenue necessary to operate our government utilizing a tax code that fills more than 3 million constantly changing pages and that is so incomprehensibly complicated that trained IRS agents could not possibly even begin to learn and understand it in a lifetime of study is an example of a mandate whose expense and inefficiency greatly outweighs its benefits. The current Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mortgage melt down is a direct result of foolish legislation enacted primarily (but not exclusively) by Democratic Congressman which mandated that a large percentage (close to 50% in the last few years) of federally chartered mortgage loans be made to the poor and minority households (starting with the "Community Reinvestment Act" under President Jimmy Carter and greatly expanded during Bill Clinton's presidency) regardless of their ability to repay. Banks that failed to meet congressionally mandated objectives were subject to severe criminal penalties and lawsuits brought by attorney generals at the direction of Congress. At the same time, congressionally chartered GSE's (Government Sponsored Enterprises) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were instructed to aggressively purchase these mortgages. With their implicit governmental guarantees, which made the risk of these mortgages a public liability (now costing US taxpayers dearly), but which kept the profit from these mortgages private (which made the Democrat party overlords of these organizations hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses), these mortgages were easy to bundle and resell as securities. With a higher rate of return than US T-bills and an implied United States government guarantee of both principal and interest, the securities were snapped up by financial firms worldwide. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives paid themselves bonuses based upon the dollar amount of mortgages their firms purchased and resold. Credit quality and the soundness of the underlying mortgages was irrelevant. When federal regulators started blowing the whistle on these practices five years ago, it was Democrat Senators Chris Dodd and Barney Frank along with the entire Congressional Black Caucus that ran interference for them. They were furious with the regulators and were insistent that there was no inherent problem with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Any attempt to rein in these mortgage companies by Republican Congressman and federal regulators was successfully thwarted by Democratic Congressman shouting charges of racism as any reforms would result in fewer mortgages being granted to African-Americans and other minorities. Barney Frank said at the time that he wished to "roll the dice even more in the direction of affordable housing" by granting mortgages to even riskier borrowers with abysmal credit records. Banks were happy to make these loans ONLY because they could quickly be resold to Fannie Mae which eliminated the risk to the bank. Fannie Mae was happy to buy these junk loans because bonuses to top management were based upon a dollar volume of mortgages purchased, not the soundness of the mortgages themselves. Corporations were happy to buy these mortgages from Fannie Mae because implied US government guarantees made them look safe. Congressional meddling brought us to the point where anybody could and did get a mortgage. Extremely low interest rates in the wake of 9/11 made owning a home with a cheap interest only loan that required no money down (no skin in the game) cheaper than renting. With everybody, good credit or horrible credit, getting mortgages and buying houses the price of all homes skyrocketed. When interest rates returned to more normal levels and credit requirements were ratcheted up as a result of skyhigh default rates on loans granted to minorities not on the basis of good credit, but because of the color of their skin, foreclosure rates jumped and housing prices fell. Individuals with lousy credit who put no money down had no reason to continue paying when a 20% drop in home values meant they owed 20% more than their homes were worth. So they gave the keys back to the bank and walked. And why not? They're not losing a big down payment, they're not losing anything. No rational individual or organization would have been able to make those loans, repurchase those loans, or bought and held those loans, without foolish and reckless legislation enacted by Congress that mandated those loans in the first place, and enabled reckless behavior by borrowers and lenders alike. Without congressional mandates any financial institution that made such loans would have been snuffed out in its infancy by market forces. The very market forces that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank didn't like (and successfully nullified) because minorities with lousy credit who had proven time and again that they do not pay their bills, wouldn't get mortgages. The blame for this mess can and must be laid precisely where it belongs in order to stop further carnage and to prevent this from happening again. Congressional meddling in the mortgage market is correctly and exclusively responsible for our current economic crisis. Oh yeah....one more thing. The same congressional Democrats who five years ago said there was no problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who showered their Democrat party congressional protectors with tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions) tell us today that there is no serious problem with Social Security. As baby boomers retire and United States government takes responsibility for paying them SS benefits and covering the medical bills of the largest group of retirees in our nations history, the ensuing financial tsunami will make this current mortgage todo look as insignificant as a pimple on an elephant's ass. There is no level of taxation or governmental borrowing possible that will allow the United States to pay promised Social Security and Medicare benefits. All Republican attempts at reform have been successfully thwarted by the same congressional Democrats that stymied reform at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Until we understand the cause of this and affix blame, nothing will get any better. Chip Ok Chip, Lets get into the blame game then if it makes you feel better. Chip, some of what you say is accurate, much is just more right wing spin. While I agree on some of your points and not others, I have ALWAYS said that part of the blame rests with the Dems and congress which has only been Dem controlled for a short period relative to the creation of the problem. But just for the sake of argument, lets say your view of the Dems fault in this is OK. So now please tell us what the Republicans did (or did not do) so we can apportion their fair share of the blame. If you want I can help you find it in the worlds most respected financial journals (you know, the ones controlled by the Republican establishment). It is indisputable. Then we can all move on which I believe is the net/net behind Jeff's post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVENGE Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Interesting to note that I purchased my GT-500 100% with 401K Money Stock MarketMutual Funds over a year ago.............. Good bet that my car is still in the Garage at the end of the day................ Not sure I can say the same for the Stock Market Money??????????? A while ago I gave serious thought to doing that but then I dismissed it as foolish. Now looking at my 401K I am sad at the moment. Maybe in 3 years I will be happy with my choice. I truly believe I made the right choice but I am sure you are having more fun with your car than I am having looking at my losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Gentlemen, This comment is 180° out of phase. When one confronts any type of malice, be it physical, financial, governmental, etc., blame must be affixed in order to correct the problem. Without a proper analysis for the sole purpose of afixing blame so that the source of trouble can be eliminated or mollified, one would be whistling in the wind in a futile attempt to quash symptoms. Only a foolish doctor would spend time trying to get a patient's temperature under control without looking for the source of that high temperature. Is it an infection, the flu, cancer, or something else? Proper measures cannot be taken until the doctor can affix proper blame. When a company is losing money is it because of employee theft, high labor costs, poor product mix, lousy marketing, or something else? Again, proper measures cannot be taken until management can affix proper blame so that corrective measures can be taken. Today's financial market debacle, like the S&L meltdown two decades ago, and like the Medicare/Social Security train wreck that is headed our way are not that hard to analyze. These devastatingly expensive trillion dollar implosion's have only occurred and can only occur when Congress mandates irrational behavior. All legislation is a forced distortion of the free market which reduces efficiency and increases expenses. Recognizing this (which Congress does not), legislative mandates should only be enacted when absolutely necessary and at the minimal level necessary for achieving the mandates objective. Automobile emission standards are an example of a legislative mandate that can be seen as worth the expense and inefficiency they impose. Raising the revenue necessary to operate our government utilizing a tax code that fills more than 3 million constantly changing pages and that is so incomprehensibly complicated that trained IRS agents could not possibly even begin to learn and understand it in a lifetime of study is an example of a mandate whose expense and inefficiency greatly outweighs its benefits. The current Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mortgage melt down is a direct result of foolish legislation enacted primarily (but not exclusively) by Democratic Congressman which mandated that a large percentage (close to 50% in the last few years) of federally chartered mortgage loans be made to the poor and minority households (starting with the "Community Reinvestment Act" under President Jimmy Carter and greatly expanded during Bill Clinton's presidency) regardless of their ability to repay. Banks that failed to meet congressionally mandated objectives were subject to severe criminal penalties and lawsuits brought by attorney generals at the direction of Congress. At the same time, congressionally chartered GSE's (Government Sponsored Enterprises) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were instructed to aggressively purchase these mortgages. With their implicit governmental guarantees, which made the risk of these mortgages a public liability (now costing US taxpayers dearly), but which kept the profit from these mortgages private (which made the Democrat party overlords of these organizations hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses), these mortgages were easy to bundle and resell as securities. With a higher rate of return than US T-bills and an implied United States government guarantee of both principal and interest, the securities were snapped up by financial firms worldwide. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives paid themselves bonuses based upon the dollar amount of mortgages their firms purchased and resold. Credit quality and the soundness of the underlying mortgages was irrelevant. When federal regulators started blowing the whistle on these practices five years ago, it was Democrat Senators Chris Dodd and Barney Frank along with the entire Congressional Black Caucus that ran interference for them. They were furious with the regulators and were insistent that there was no inherent problem with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Any attempt to rein in these mortgage companies by Republican Congressman and federal regulators was successfully thwarted by Democratic Congressman shouting charges of racism as any reforms would result in fewer mortgages being granted to African-Americans and other minorities. Barney Frank said at the time that he wished to "roll the dice even more in the direction of affordable housing" by granting mortgages to even riskier borrowers with abysmal credit records. Banks were happy to make these loans ONLY because they could quickly be resold to Fannie Mae which eliminated the risk to the bank. Fannie Mae was happy to buy these junk loans because bonuses to top management were based upon a dollar volume of mortgages purchased, not the soundness of the mortgages themselves. Corporations were happy to buy these mortgages from Fannie Mae because implied US government guarantees made them look safe. Congressional meddling brought us to the point where anybody could and did get a mortgage. Extremely low interest rates in the wake of 9/11 made owning a home with a cheap interest only loan that required no money down (no skin in the game) cheaper than renting. With everybody, good credit or horrible credit, getting mortgages and buying houses the price of all homes skyrocketed. When interest rates returned to more normal levels and credit requirements were ratcheted up as a result of skyhigh default rates on loans granted to minorities not on the basis of good credit, but because of the color of their skin, foreclosure rates jumped and housing prices fell. Individuals with lousy credit who put no money down had no reason to continue paying when a 20% drop in home values meant they owed 20% more than their homes were worth. So they gave the keys back to the bank and walked. And why not? They're not losing a big down payment, they're not losing anything. No rational individual or organization would have been able to make those loans, repurchase those loans, or bought and held those loans, without foolish and reckless legislation enacted by Congress that mandated those loans in the first place, and enabled reckless behavior by borrowers and lenders alike. Without congressional mandates any financial institution that made such loans would have been snuffed out in its infancy by market forces. The very market forces that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank didn't like (and successfully nullified) because minorities with lousy credit who had proven time and again that they do not pay their bills, wouldn't get mortgages. The blame for this mess can and must be laid precisely where it belongs in order to stop further carnage and to prevent this from happening again. Congressional meddling in the mortgage market is correctly and exclusively responsible for our current economic crisis. Oh yeah....one more thing. The same congressional Democrats who five years ago said there was no problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who showered their Democrat party congressional protectors with tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions) tell us today that there is no serious problem with Social Security. As baby boomers retire and United States government takes responsibility for paying them SS benefits and covering the medical bills of the largest group of retirees in our nations history, the ensuing financial tsunami will make this current mortgage todo look as insignificant as a pimple on an elephant's ass. There is no level of taxation or governmental borrowing possible that will allow the United States to pay promised Social Security and Medicare benefits. All Republican attempts at reform have been successfully thwarted by the same congressional Democrats that stymied reform at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Until we understand the cause of this and affix blame, nothing will get any better. Chip Good post, Chip, but I agree with Markham51...what is the Republican responsibility for this? Were they able to force the bill out of committee regardless of Frank blocking it? Did the bill come up for a vote on the floor and the Republican majority block it? Could Bush have done anything about it? Over the last two years of Democratic control of congess, did they present a bill to Bush to prevent this? Let's discuss it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moabman Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Good post, Chip, but I agree with Markham51...what is the Republican responsibility for this? Were they able to force the bill out of committee regardless of Frank blocking it? Did the bill come up for a vote on the floor and the Republican majority block it? Could Bush have done anything about it? Over the last two years of Democratic control of Congress, did they present a bill to Bush to prevent this? Let's discuss it all. You're right Snake Doctor - the Republicans in Congress should be blamed for not getting the Republican proposed legislation to address this problem passed. That is failure by omission and is quite different from a failure by commission which is what the Democrats are guilty of. Some Republicans joined with most of the Democrats to defeat the proposed legislation. Let us be clear however, there were NO Democratic proposals to correct the problem. Barack Obama received the second most contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during his short term in the Senate. He stated however, numerous times that the problem with the economy was due to the "deregulations that occurred during the Bush Administration". We can only hope that he was campaigning and stretching the truth and he doesn't really believe this. Finally, you are so predictable Markham51. Now you get religion and castigate someone for "playing the blame game". Do I have to quote all of your posts where you listed in detail the failures of the Bush Administration? Get ready America, you are about to hear about how dire the situation is and how immense the crisis is. Let's lower the expectations. Let's blame it all on the outgoing administration. The optimism which was filling the air so much this fall is fading away with the last leaves off of the trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96season Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 all members of shelby forum buy 1000 shares of sheby(csbi.pk) 4000 members x 1000 shares = 400,000 shares we now own3% of company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipBeck Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Good post, Chip, but I agree with Markham51...what is the Republican responsibility for this? Were they able to force the bill out of committee regardless of Frank blocking it? Did the bill come up for a vote on the floor and the Republican majority block it? Could Bush have done anything about it? Over the last two years of Democratic control of congess, did they present a bill to Bush to prevent this? Let's discuss it all. Gentlemen, I'm happy to discuss it all. Republican House and Senate leaders are guilty of cowardice. They allowed themselves to be muzzled with charges of racism by both their Democratic colleagues and the mainstream media. While they held both the House and the Senate they did have the ability to force a bill out of committee but they never had the 60 votes necessary to defeat a Senate filibuster. Comfortable in their powerful leadership positions and unwilling to fade the heat that would come as a result of restricting mortgage lending to low income individuals, they stood aside. Their's is the guilt of the bystander who sees a woman being assaulted, and, fearing for his own safety, stands by and does nothing. Reprehensible to be sure, but your attempt to equate the cowardice of the bystander with the actions of the assailant is misguided. Republican congressional leaders have earned the rebuke they have just been handed. And, just as we did under Jimmy Carter, America has earned the the coming consequences of the heavy-handed socialist intervention to restrict their freedom that they just voted for. America is justifiably angry at the Republican bystanders who stood by and allowed great harm to be done to them. So America has fired those Republican bystanders and put the Democrat assailants in charge of public safety. The arsonists are now running the fire station's. Everybody has an opinion, some held so deeply that they will not allow facts to get in the way. But here's a couple to consider. Some Republicans are quite liberal (RINOs) and happily restrict individual liberties. A few Democrats (very few) understand the power of personal freedom (the marketplace). So this argument doesn't fall strictly along party lines, but falls along conservative/liberal lines. Socialism has been adopted and/or forced upon numerous societies over the last 200 years. It has never once resulted in increased prosperity and has always resulted in a slower rate of economic growth in relation to more free-market country's. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Socialism has always failed and will always fail for the most basic of reasons. It attempts to both deny and defy human nature. A liberals attempt to argue that people will work just as hard, will produce just as much, will continue to take great financial risks, and will not modify their behavior if, when they succeed, a huge percentage of what they earn will be stripped from them using the force of government and given to those who neither worked for it, or earned it, is foolish in the extreme. My small business paid $2.2 million in taxes last year. I have canceled all expansion plans. I have laid off 20% of my work force. Under an Obama administration, the far less favorable risk/reward ratio combined with the crushing regulatory environment that is sure to accompany it, may be something you relish the prospect of risking your personal capital to expand your company in, but I'm going to have to pass. I'll be spending a lot more time on my boat and in my garage. Obama can take care of the people I laid off. Cheers. Chip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moabman Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Very well stated Chip! Much clearer than my ommision and commission remarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Very well stated Chip! Much clearer than my ommision and commission remarks. Very well stated regardless of the fact that I shared that assessment before you gave it. I suspected as much when the Republicans refused to break the filibuster over Bush's appointments. I'm interested if they will perform the same tactics the Democrats have done for the past 8 years: block everything we can, and blame Obama endlessly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDT Posted November 8, 2008 Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 Hey buddy, Bush has nothing to do with the stock market problems we have now and anyone who has been an investor knows this fact. This is just a pathetic excuse liberals used to get elected and so many uneducated and uninformed people fell for it. If a President is respected enough and able to calm public fear on the verge of a big sell off than he definately has something to do with it and to the other extreme would still be responsible to a certain degree.......................................................................... ........................."BUDDY"?????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDT Posted November 8, 2008 Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 Hmm, I wonder why? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that us who were never fooled by the 'preaching speeches' are selling our before this moron can take it away and give it to the people who are too damn lazy to get a job? Every investment I had, SOLD! I believe the one you refer to as "MORON" educationally puts you to shame!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDT Posted November 8, 2008 Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 A while ago I gave serious thought to doing that but then I dismissed it as foolish. Now looking at my 401K I am sad at the moment. Maybe in 3 years I will be happy with my choice. I truly believe I made the right choice but I am sure you are having more fun with your car than I am having looking at my losses. I do know how you feel as I got "CLOCKED" from the "DOT COM BUBBLE" in 1999/2000 NASDAQ was around 6000 at the peak and "AS ADVISED" I road it out for over a year and a half and finally sold the stock holdings at around 1700.............."OUCH"!!!!!!!!!!! Interesting that this Index has still not recovered now 8 years and counting???????????? Goofy huh?????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.