Bush did it.

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: BassBomb
nice how you are infering causation

The president has much to do with the economy, but he isn't alone. He should get some blame. Heck, he took credit when the stock market went up for a bit, so he should take blame when it falls.

how did you get from 20% loss to 40% after adjusting for inflation... since when did inflation go up that much?

Official CPI numbers.

Jan 2000: 168.8
Dec 2008 (since Jan 2009 numbers aren't in yet): 210.228

Thus, inflation caused items to go up by 210.228 / 168.8 - 1 = 24.5%. Adjusting yesterday's close of 8281 down by 24.5% gives: 8281.22 / 1.24543 = 6649.3 in Jan 2000 terms. On constant Jan 2000 dollars, the DJIA dropped by 37.2%. Math: 1 - 6649.3 / 10587 = 37.2%.

Not far off, according to: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

"If in the year " __2000__ ", I purchased an item for $" ___1.00___ ", then in the year " ___2008____ ", it would cost: "

$1.22

Note that is a 22% increase over the year 2000.

Hmmm, data directly from the bls, or data from an unknown website?

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: BassBomb
nice how you are infering causation

The president has much to do with the economy, but he isn't alone. He should get some blame. Heck, he took credit when the stock market went up for a bit, so he should take blame when it falls.

how did you get from 20% loss to 40% after adjusting for inflation... since when did inflation go up that much?

Official CPI numbers.

Jan 2000: 168.8
Dec 2008 (since Jan 2009 numbers aren't in yet): 210.228

Thus, inflation caused items to go up by 210.228 / 168.8 - 1 = 24.5%. Adjusting yesterday's close of 8281 down by 24.5% gives: 8281.22 / 1.24543 = 6649.3 in Jan 2000 terms. On constant Jan 2000 dollars, the DJIA dropped by 37.2%. Math: 1 - 6649.3 / 10587 = 37.2%.

Not far off, according to: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

"If in the year " __2000__ ", I purchased an item for $" ___1.00___ ", then in the year " ___2008____ ", it would cost: "

$1.22

Note that is a 22% increase over the year 2000.

Hmmm, data directly from the bls, or data from an unknown website?

I'm not saying some random website that I found on google is 100% accurate.

Though likely this "unknown website" is using the freely available BLS numbers to do it's calculations (maybe a newer or older copy, hence the slight difference between 24.5% and 22%).

My point was that it's corroborating evidence, not contradictory evidence. It lends some credence to Dullard's 24.5% number.

 

[ericlp]

This ought to be interesting. Now that Obama is the main man, I'm sure the bush doers will be pointing fingers at him tomorrow. Even tho, I don't see how someone can fix 8 years of bush fuck ups in even 4 years. The dude was a basket case and will need probably 10 years to fix.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: ericlp
This ought to be interesting. Now that Obama is the main man, I'm sure the bush doers will be pointing fingers at him tomorrow. Even tho, I don't see how someone can fix 8 years of bush fuck ups in even 4 years. The dude was a basket case and will need probably 10 years to fix.

I guess someone forgets the q3 2000 recession being W's fault.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: ericlp
This ought to be interesting. Now that Obama is the main man, I'm sure the bush doers will be pointing fingers at him tomorrow. Even tho, I don't see how someone can fix 8 years of bush fuck ups in even 4 years. The dude was a basket case and will need probably 10 years to fix.

Dont worry. There will still be plenty of the same ol, same ol members in here who will continue to blame Bush for everything under the sun until their dying day. It'll all balance out.

 

[0marTheZealot]

The Bush Administration ignored the warning signs of the mortgage crisis way back in 2006.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28001417/

So yea, the blame lies solely at his feet. Let's see you Republicans defend this one.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Apparently the POTUS controls the markets now?

Only when it goes down during a Republican administration or up during a Democratic administration.

It actually follows that pattern..

 

[sandorski]

Todays drop had nothing to do with Obama. It was more Banking heebee geebees.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
The Bush Administration ignored the warning signs of the mortgage crisis way back in 2006.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28001417/

So yea, the blame lies solely at his feet. Let's see you Republicans defend this one.

I'm not a Republican, but I can see your article with this link:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot....orm-of-fannie-mae.html

If I recall, it was Democrats, under Clinton, that pushed through the bills that allowed for this eventual downward spiral in the first place by loosening lending standards too.

I guess I'll end with the puffy - Let's see you Democrats defend that one.

:roll:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
The Bush Administration ignored the warning signs of the mortgage crisis way back in 2006.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28001417/

So yea, the blame lies solely at his feet. Let's see you Republicans defend this one.

I'm not a Republican, but I can see your article with this link:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot....orm-of-fannie-mae.html

If I recall, it was Democrats, under Clinton, that pushed through the bills that allowed for this eventual downward spiral in the first place by loosening lending standards too.

I guess I'll end with the puffy - Let's see you Democrats defend that one.

:roll:

Completely wrong and dishonest since you've been shown it before.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
The Bush Administration ignored the warning signs of the mortgage crisis way back in 2006.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28001417/

So yea, the blame lies solely at his feet. Let's see you Republicans defend this one.

I'm not a Republican, but I can see your article with this link:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot....orm-of-fannie-mae.html

If I recall, it was Democrats, under Clinton, that pushed through the bills that allowed for this eventual downward spiral in the first place by loosening lending standards too.

I guess I'll end with the puffy - Let's see you Democrats defend that one.

:roll:

Completely wrong and dishonest since you've been shown it before.

Yeah, I've seen the refutation, and the refutation of the refutation. So what?

 

[irwincur]

If I recall, it was Democrats, under Clinton, that pushed through the bills that allowed for this eventual downward spiral in the first place by loosening lending standards too.

Not to mention the Dem committee leads that were literally gifted millions from Fannie and Freddie. Or that guy Obama who profited from the same people to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Or that guy Obama just hired who managed to bankrupt CitiGroup not once but twice in the past year.

Sorry, but presidents do not write the laws, they execute those that have been written and passed by congress. Congress is almost always to blame but sadly get to hide behind the sitting president when the shit hits the fan.

 

[First]

Bush wasn't responsible for half of this collapse, and even that is harsh. Let's not be ridiculous, administrations don't have nearly that much power over economic cycles. If they did, it wouldn't really be all that hard to steer the U.S. into a slow but stable upward trajectory ad infinitum. Fact is that Bush's economic policies were terrible, and I agree that he made plenty of mistakes by not reacting to the mortgage meltdown early enough (it was known full well by 07, and as early as 06 depending on the data you looked at). But the overwhelming evidence shows he merely had poor policies in place, not that he caused the great majority of the current recession (which, btw, is nothing like the Great Depression, and it's annoying to keep hearing the comparisons).

 

[irwincur]

My point is, that presidents do not create policy - congress does. I find it amazing that people always miss this simple fact of American politics. Every policy in place went through congress first - a Democrat congress.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: BassBomb
nice how you are infering causation

The president has much to do with the economy, but he isn't alone. He should get some blame. Heck, he took credit when the stock market went up for a bit, so he should take blame when it falls.

how did you get from 20% loss to 40% after adjusting for inflation... since when did inflation go up that much?

Official CPI numbers.

Jan 2000: 168.8
Dec 2008 (since Jan 2009 numbers aren't in yet): 210.228

Thus, inflation caused items to go up by 210.228 / 168.8 - 1 = 24.5%. Adjusting yesterday's close of 8281 down by 24.5% gives: 8281.22 / 1.24543 = 6649.3 in Jan 2000 terms. On constant Jan 2000 dollars, the DJIA dropped by 37.2%. Math: 1 - 6649.3 / 10587 = 37.2%.

Not far off, according to: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

"If in the year " __2000__ ", I purchased an item for $" ___1.00___ ", then in the year " ___2008____ ", it would cost: "

$1.22

Note that is a 22% increase over the year 2000.

Hmmm, data directly from the bls, or data from an unknown website?

I'm not saying some random website that I found on google is 100% accurate.

Though likely this "unknown website" is using the freely available BLS numbers to do it's calculations (maybe a newer or older copy, hence the slight difference between 24.5% and 22%).

My point was that it's corroborating evidence, not contradictory evidence. It lends some credence to Dullard's 24.5% number.

If you want a more "credible" source, here is one from the Fed - http://www.minneapolisfed.org/

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: irwincur
My point is, that presidents do not create policy - congress does. I find it amazing that people always miss this simple fact of American politics. Every policy in place went through congress first - a Democrat congress.

negative

 

[Starbuck1975]

A President has little control over the cyclical nature of markets, nor can they completely dictate or control market behavior...Presidents, and Congress, are often in the unenviable position of reacting to economic crisis, and sometimes in the advantageous position of staking claim to market upturns.

The current recession is the result of credit driven, unsustainable revenue streams and high risk/high reward financial policy on Wall Street. Our society as a whole owns some of the blame for the current mess. Government intervention in the sense of attempting to expand homeownership had the unintended consequence of a significant market bubble...that is now collapsing spectacularly.

Government attempts to control market behavior rarely have good outcomes.

What Obama CAN do is attempt to increase federal regulation of banks and loan institutions, ensure that bailout funds reach their intended destinations, and ensure we do not witness a complete market collapse...there will be sacrifices, and America as a society will have to revisit its spending behavior.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Looks like the market isn't real confident in Obama.. Market down today 300 points I believe.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Looks like the market isn't real confident in Obama.. Market down today 300 points I believe.

that was due to a 20%-30% drop across the board for the bank stocks. RBS dropped 70% and it had nothing to do with Obama.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: winnar111
In not so recent news, we had a stock market bubble in 2000-2001.

Even if you claim that it was overinflated, that would mean the market was stagnant for 8 years. That's not much better

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: boomerang
Day one of the Obama administration and his most ardent followers are already doing damage control.

Blaming his failures on his predecessor and the man hasn't even spent one night in the White House yet. How truly sad.

This thread is ABOUT BUSH, you're the one bringing Obama into this; he has been in office for less than a day!

The economy tanked during Bush's 8 years. That's a fact. It has nothing to do with Obama.

 

[Kanalua]

Move On


.org

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
Move On


.org

A very good organization!!