Fiscal Conservatism in Action

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
The PRESIDENT can borrow and pump trillions into the economy? Wow, I missed that in civics.

Uh ... have you been paying attention recently? Bush just did exactly that. $750 Billion to start, and the experts are claiming the true cost could easily expand to $3 Trillion.

Guess it's time to revise the civics textbooks, huh?

So you're just going to deny that it took a CONGRESSIONAL vote (several, actually), for that bailout to pass? Presidents can propose all sorts of things - remember Clinton's health plan? remember W's SS reform? - but unless Congress passes them, proposals don't mean jack.

As for the last 8 years, the fiscal irresponsibility needs to be blamed as much on the Congress (controlled by the GOP for most of the time) as the president, who also failed to demonstrate leadership. But please, can we stop with the falsehoods about presidents controlling so much of the economy?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

BTW OP you need to add some comment in the first post.

If you're bashing Republicans, the forum rules don't apply.

 

[TheSlamma]

W. Bush is a social conservative, not a fiscal conservative. An 8 year old could figure that out. Not that I'm defending anything here.. I just like facts.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
The PRESIDENT can borrow and pump trillions into the economy? Wow, I missed that in civics.

Uh ... have you been paying attention recently? Bush just did exactly that. $750 Billion to start, and the experts are claiming the true cost could easily expand to $3 Trillion.

Guess it's time to revise the civics textbooks, huh?

Yup.... Congress had absolutely NOTHING to do with that.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize

Well, the good news is, your paying off your house and getting yourself into a good financial position, you owe all that to BUSH! I charted out a graph that PROVES it!

LOL, if that's true, then I guess I can give my 45% paycut (100% overtime cut and 5% paycut on base) + my 50% decline in my equity accounts on him too, especially since 100% of the above occured on his watch!

My chart states that I'm declining! You must have stopped charting me at DOW 14,000 also! :Q

No I stopped at 14,000 becuase I had to "prove" that it was a direct result of who was president

At the end of the day, I'm not defending bush's fiscal policies because most of them are indefensible as they are predicated on going deeper into debt. My point is that the notion that the (D) or (R) at the end of the presidents name is somehow directly and conclusively tied to the stock market is silly, and a partisan game.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow, you are pretty good at hallucinating arguments from the opposition that were never posed. Are you one of those guys who walks around always swatting at imaginary flies by chance?

Well from your complete lack of commentary, your title, and your link to a cherry-picked partisan "analysis", what other conclusion was one to draw?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
The PRESIDENT can borrow and pump trillions into the economy? Wow, I missed that in civics.

Uh ... have you been paying attention recently? Bush just did exactly that. $750 Billion to start, and the experts are claiming the true cost could easily expand to $3 Trillion.

Guess it's time to revise the civics textbooks, huh?

Yup.... Congress had absolutely NOTHING to do with that.

Dealmonkey?? I must have missed the veto-proof supermajority that Republicans had in congress to slam that through?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

BTW OP you need to add some comment in the first post.

If you're bashing Republicans, the forum rules don't apply.

Yep. Too bad theres no one who could address the political bias thats present in the forums.......

 

[Stuxnet]

Where are the OP's comments/analysis? Isn't there a hard and fast rule around here that you can't just spew links?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Maybe if Bush hadn't pushed piss poor fiscal policy (i.e. higher spending and deficits), maybe he wouldn't have been "as bad". Of course, the trillion dollar bandaid at the end might get him to break even on the markets, well, at least the dow. The rest of the markets (general S&P, Nasdaq) are pretty much a lost cause for Bush.

And if by some stroke of chance, this collapse was delayed 6 months, there would be a very different picture.

Reagan, Bush 43, and now Obama inherited recessions from their predecessors. Clinton was lucky enough not to. Guess we should give him a medal.

 

[Elias824]

I think the numbers are abit skewed because of hoover, given the guy was an idiot, but alot more things lead to the depression. I agree with alchemize, the market acts in odd ways and is often influenced very little by who is president at the time. Its hardly a way to determine the best candidate. Bush kind of had the short end of the stick when he got in office, but he hasnt done alot to correct it. I can say though that Clinton is all that deserving of his luck in economics as well though.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
The PRESIDENT can borrow and pump trillions into the economy? Wow, I missed that in civics.

Uh ... have you been paying attention recently? Bush just did exactly that. $750 Billion to start, and the experts are claiming the true cost could easily expand to $3 Trillion.

Guess it's time to revise the civics textbooks, huh?

Yup.... Congress had absolutely NOTHING to do with that.

Dealmonkey?? I must have missed the veto-proof supermajority that Republicans had in congress to slam that through?

The bail out certainly wasn't the idea of Congress. Yes, of course they had to pass it, but the idea to spend that kind of taxpayer dollars originated in W's administration. Let's give credit for the bad idea to the originator of the bad idea, shall we?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow, you are pretty good at hallucinating arguments from the opposition that were never posed. Are you one of those guys who walks around always swatting at imaginary flies by chance?

Well from your complete lack of commentary, your title, and your link to a cherry-picked partisan "analysis", what other conclusion was one to draw?

Sorry, your attempt to justify your utterly inane response failed.

 

[PokerGuy]

Geeez, hasn't anyone ever read anything about how the government works? Last time I checked the president does not determine how much is spent on anything. Congress controls the purse strings. The president is the head of the executive branch.

These kinds of charts are meaninless, there are way too many factors that need to be considered to make it a relevant analysis -- certainly more than "hey, the president was a republican / democrat".

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow.

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow, you are pretty good at hallucinating arguments from the opposition that were never posed. Are you one of those guys who walks around always swatting at imaginary flies by chance?

Well from your complete lack of commentary, your title, and your link to a cherry-picked partisan "analysis", what other conclusion was one to draw?

Sorry, your attempt to justify your utterly inane response failed.

Stupid contest? OK, Gold goes to boyowar821, Silver to Mani.

DealMonkey is DQ'ed, no bronze awarded.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
Where are the OP's comments/analysis? Isn't there a hard and fast rule around here that you can't just spew links?

That rule must be grouped in with the "worthless reply to a thread" rule, which you seem to be in violation of on a regular basis.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow.

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow, you are pretty good at hallucinating arguments from the opposition that were never posed. Are you one of those guys who walks around always swatting at imaginary flies by chance?

Well from your complete lack of commentary, your title, and your link to a cherry-picked partisan "analysis", what other conclusion was one to draw?

Sorry, your attempt to justify your utterly inane response failed.

Stupid contest? OK, Gold goes to boyowar821, Silver to Mani.

DealMonkey is DQ'ed, no bronze awarded.

Wow, you know someone is really in a sad state when they pull out "stupid contest". Keep posting - this is fantastic insight you are bringing to this forum.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow.

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow, you are pretty good at hallucinating arguments from the opposition that were never posed. Are you one of those guys who walks around always swatting at imaginary flies by chance?

Well from your complete lack of commentary, your title, and your link to a cherry-picked partisan "analysis", what other conclusion was one to draw?

Sorry, your attempt to justify your utterly inane response failed.

Stupid contest? OK, Gold goes to boyowar821, Silver to Mani.

DealMonkey is DQ'ed, no bronze awarded.

Wow, you know someone is really in a sad state when they pull out "stupid contest". Keep posting - this is fantastic insight you are bringing to this forum.

Please stop bukkake'ing us with your Stupid. You haven't said a single thing in this thread, starting with the OP. Go back to Off Topic.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow.

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow, you are pretty good at hallucinating arguments from the opposition that were never posed. Are you one of those guys who walks around always swatting at imaginary flies by chance?

Well from your complete lack of commentary, your title, and your link to a cherry-picked partisan "analysis", what other conclusion was one to draw?

Sorry, your attempt to justify your utterly inane response failed.

Stupid contest? OK, Gold goes to boyowar821, Silver to Mani.

DealMonkey is DQ'ed, no bronze awarded.

Wow, you know someone is really in a sad state when they pull out "stupid contest". Keep posting - this is fantastic insight you are bringing to this forum.

Please stop bukkake'ing us with your Stupid. You haven't said a single thing in this thread, starting with the OP. Go back to Off Topic.

Pretty funny coming from the guy who posted the most imbecilic reply in this thread (and that's saying a lot), then followed it up with "stupid contest".

Really dude, keep it up - the comedy writes itself with you.

 

[alchemize]

OK Mani you stupid fuck - why don't you describe WHY those charts as you seem to think are true, are? Please, enlighten us as to HOW a president enables high stock market returns.

I eagerly await your next bout of stupidfuckishness.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: alchemize
OK Mani you stupid fuck - why don't you describe WHY those charts as you seem to think are true, are? Please, enlighten us as to HOW a president enables high stock market returns.

I eagerly await your next bout of stupidfuckishness.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize
OK Mani you stupid fuck - why don't you describe WHY those charts as you seem to think are true, are? Please, enlighten us as to HOW a president enables high stock market returns.

I eagerly await your next bout of stupidfuckishness.

Relax - wouldn't want you to suffer an aneurysm and possibly lose your lone brain cell. Tell you what, because I feel sorry for you, I'll take the time to educate you a little.

There's about a million ways a president can and does affect fiscal policy, which can and does affect stock market returns during his tenure. Just to give you an inkling: Taxation, free trade policy, running a deficit, appointees to treasury secretary and thus fed monetary policy, tax incentives, policy influence over GSEs like Fannie and Freddie, government investment into private industry, government subsidization of industry, and regulation/de-regulation tendencies. ALL of these things are either directly or indirectly influencable by Presidents, and ALL can and do have impacts on stock market performance within 4 years.

Now let's see if you're capable of comprehending this without responding with your usual verbal diarrhea.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: alchemize
My point is that the notion that the (D) or (R) at the end of the presidents name is somehow directly and conclusively tied to the stock market is silly, and a partisan game.

Does that mean that all of those that mentioned "Clinton's bubble" (in this thread) are wrong?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
OK Mani you stupid fuck - why don't you describe WHY those charts as you seem to think are true, are? Please, enlighten us as to HOW a president enables high stock market returns.

I eagerly await your next bout of stupidfuckishness.

Relax - wouldn't want you to suffer an aneurysm and possibly lose your lone brain cell. Tell you what, because I feel sorry for you, I'll take the time to educate you a little.

There's about a million ways a president can and does affect fiscal policy, which can and does affect stock market returns during his tenure. Just to give you an inkling: Taxation, free trade policy, running a deficit, appointees to treasury secretary and thus fed monetary policy, tax incentives, policy influence over GSEs like Fannie and Freddie, government investment into private industry, government subsidization of industry, and regulation/de-regulation tendencies. ALL of these things are either directly or indirectly influencable by Presidents, and ALL can and do have impacts on stock market performance within 4 years.

Now let's see if you're capable of comprehending this without responding with your usual verbal diarrhea.

The market tanked in 2001. Please explain which of these were implemented/altered by by Bush and somehow had the effects of this policy spread so quickly.