Stock Market Crash

Post by **CronoTriggerfan** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:38 pm

Rekarp wrote:
Harshboy wrote:Our Government really sucks, there needs to be change...

Aw dammit, now sound like freaking Obama.
NO SOCIALISM!!! GO RON PAUL!!

NO ANARCHISM, EITHER! DON'T VOTE FOR A POTHEAD, 9/11 TRUTHER!

(aka vote Fred Thompson) XD

Okay, lemme say this right now. I will not lock this thread, this is too much fun for me. Seeing as bic didn't, I'll keep it open, but I can see this getting violent...

Here's how this all went down, for those of you who don't know. Democrats stood up, pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up bad mortgages in addition to having a policy to sell mortgages for people who couldn't afford them. Some crooked executives and political high-rollers played a profiteering role and made off with a lotta taxpayer money, and when Fannie and Freddie collapsed, all the banks that sold them their bad loans went down with 'em. Should the Republicans in Congress tried to stop this BS? Absolutely. But no one here should forget where the problem originated. The bill being debated right now is pure Socialism, and it has no place in America. Some sort of bailout needs to happen, but I'm damned happy there are still some Conservatives in Washington who were willing to stand up to those blowholes Pelosi and Reid.

Here's some CSPAN cuts if you don't believe me.

bic wrote:What gets me is that if we stuck with the economic plan laid out by Bill Clinton, we could have had a balanced budget by now. (No national debt.)

Yeah right.

I'm sorry, but a tax and spend policy is a short-term plan at best. With the way Clinton expanded the size of the federal government, it would've caught up with him sometime. You also have to take into consideration the fact that the military cuts he made (along with Bush '41) are what we're paying for right now in the Middle East. I'm sure that if 9/11 never happened, you'd be right. Our budget would probably be balanced. But to tell you the truth, I don't care how much the government owes itself and China, and neither should anyone else. I care about how much is in my bank account at the end of the month, and if I have to pay the government extra money to line its pockets for junk like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, then I say "up yours".

Even with all that in mind, good 'ol Bill Jefferson "B.J." Clinton, along with that peanut farming illiterate Jimmy Carter, were the ones who passed policy to expand power to Fannie and Freddie in the first place.

If people don't have the right to fail, then they no longer have the right to succeed. When that happens, we no longer have the right to be free.

vskid · Post by **vskid** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:51 pm

CronoTriggerfan wrote:If people don't have the right to fail, then they no longer have the right to succeed. When that happens, we no longer have the right to be free.

True, but unfortunately they found a way to take down a lot of other people, too.
I don't know about you guys, but in my area, houses are still being built (and staying empty).

Jongamer · Post by **Jongamer** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:58 pm

vskid wrote:
CronoTriggerfan wrote:If people don't have the right to fail, then they no longer have the right to succeed. When that happens, we no longer have the right to be free.
True, but unfortunately they found a way to take down a lot of other people, too.
I don't know about you guys, but in my area, houses are still being built (and staying empty).

ditto

Post by **SpongeBuell** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:18 pm

I'm a bit tied up with this... I really don't want to see anybody losing their homes either way, (not sure if that was much of a risk to begin with) and I also don't want to see CEOs getting off with their enormous salaries/bonuses/severance packages while the low-level employees are struggling at best to make ends meet.

Also, if this guy did pass, I'm sure you can see our dollar getting as weak as Palin's foreign policy experience (sorry, I'll stop on that one, had to say it

). That, and our debt getting as high as cennar. Not a good combination.

@CTFan: I think you'd enjoy seeing this

Post by **CronoTriggerfan** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:22 pm

Comical, but like I said before, I don't give a hoot in hell about how rich the government is.

EDIT: I can actually see this debate remaining civil, let's hope for the best!

Post by **benheck** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:40 pm

Well, a stock crash is bad, but at least it's the market correcting itself.

If we just prop it up without fixing the problem it'll happen again in another 20 years.

It's like those kids on that Intervention show - as long as the parents keep lending them 20 bucks, they'll keep getting high.

This November - whoever wins, we LO$E!!!!

Rekarp · Post by **Rekarp** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:44 pm

benheck wrote:Well, a stock crash is bad, but at least it's the market correcting itself.

If we just prop it up without fixing the problem it'll happen again in another 20 years.

It's like those kids on that Intervention show - as long as the parents keep lending them 20 bucks, they'll keep getting high.

This November - whoever wins, we LO$E!!!!

Yep. Thats why I plan to buy a boat and sail on international waters someday.

Post by **CronoTriggerfan** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:47 pm

benheck wrote:Well, a stock crash is bad, but at least it's the market correcting itself.

If we just prop it up without fixing the problem it'll happen again in another 20 years.

It's like those kids on that Intervention show - as long as the parents keep lending them 20 bucks, they'll keep getting high.

This November - whoever wins, we LO$E!!!!

Couldn't have said it better myself. Where's Reagan when you need him...

HBN · Post by **HBN** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:34 pm

bicostp wrote:What gets me is that if we stuck with the economic plan laid out by Bill Clinton, we could have had a balanced budget by now. (No national debt.)

Clinton created NAFTA... NAFTA is sending American jobs overseas... So Clinton not only CAUSED this, but sold the US out to China, at the same time.

Research. Wonderful thing.

And it dropped to 701.01...not 777. I was watching the news when it happened. Either way, it was damn scary.

Jongamer · Post by **Jongamer** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:44 pm

HBN wrote:
bicostp wrote:What gets me is that if we stuck with the economic plan laid out by Bill Clinton, we could have had a balanced budget by now. (No national debt.)
Clinton created NAFTA... NAFTA is sending American jobs overseas... So Clinton not only CAUSED this, but sold the US out to China, at the same time.

Research. Wonderful thing.

And it dropped to 701.01...not 777. I was watching the news when it happened. Either way, it was damn scary.

I was gonna mention that too, but I didn't have all the details.

HBN · Post by **HBN** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:49 pm

Jongamer wrote:
HBN wrote:
bicostp wrote:What gets me is that if we stuck with the economic plan laid out by Bill Clinton, we could have had a balanced budget by now. (No national debt.)
Clinton created NAFTA... NAFTA is sending American jobs overseas... So Clinton not only CAUSED this, but sold the US out to China, at the same time.

Research. Wonderful thing.

And it dropped to 701.01...not 777. I was watching the news when it happened. Either way, it was damn scary.
I was gonna mention that too, but I didn't have all the details.

I just wanted to mention it cuz everybody seems to think that Bush caused all of the US's problems with the economy. Which is just not true. Has he helped it any? No...not really. But he didn't cause it. And in fact, the way it was written, Bush couldn't have done anything about it anyway.

grossaffe · Post by **grossaffe** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:00 pm

Rekarp wrote:
Harshboy wrote:Our Government really sucks, there needs to be change...

Aw dammit, now sound like freaking Obama.
NO SOCIALISM!!! GO RON PAUL!!

Ron Paul dropped out. Go Bob Barr!

grossaffe · Post by **grossaffe** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:04 pm

SpongeBuell wrote:I'm a bit tied up with this... I really don't want to see anybody losing their homes either way, (not sure if that was much of a risk to begin with) and I also don't want to see CEOs getting off with their enormous salaries/bonuses/severance packages while the low-level employees are struggling at best to make ends meet.

Also, if this guy did pass, I'm sure you can see our dollar getting as weak as Palin's foreign policy experience (sorry, I'll stop on that one, had to say it ). That, and our debt getting as high as cennar. Not a good combination.

@CTFan: I think you'd enjoy seeing this

who honestly considers George Bush a fiscal conservative?

Post by **CronoTriggerfan** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:23 pm

HBN wrote:
bicostp wrote:What gets me is that if we stuck with the economic plan laid out by Bill Clinton, we could have had a balanced budget by now. (No national debt.)
Clinton created NAFTA... NAFTA is sending American jobs overseas... So Clinton not only CAUSED this, but sold the US out to China, at the same time.

Research. Wonderful thing.

And it dropped to 701.01...not 777. I was watching the news when it happened. Either way, it was damn scary.

Look, as a staunch Conservative, I hate B.J. Clinton for a myriad of reasons, but NAFTA isn't one of 'em. Mexico and Canada are HUGE oil reserves for the US, and the trade we share with them is 100% beneficial. If you wanna talk about why our jobs are going overseas, talk about the bureaucrats enforcing all this regulation crap, taxing corporations up the ass, and the Union machine decreasing the efficiency of American industry and ingenuity. Honestly, if you're a company, why would you wanna do business here? Our corporate taxes are almost criminal...

Though I agree with the China bit, read The China Threat by Bill Gertz if you're interested in the matter, it's insane how he sold our souls to that vile country.

And grossaffe, I'd agree. Bush isn't my least favorite president, not by far. But with his administration's strategic blunders in Iraq (a war I support fully, mind you) and now this Socialist bid they're throwing up, he may just fall out of my good graces before the year is out. So much for legacy building.

Also, I'm not getting the correlation between national debt and stock prices. Last time I checked, the free market operated on ebbs and flows. If the national debt were correlative to the economy, then the 1997 dip never should've happened and the tech bubble never should've burst under Clinton. The Bush administration should've never experienced a bull market, either...

Post by **SpongeBuell** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:37 pm

CronoTriggerfan wrote:Comical, but like I said before, I don't give a hoot in hell about how rich the government is.

Well, when the government is deep in debt, do you really think our dollar will be worth a whole lot?

That said, I'll admit that I do think that Bill Clinton was given a little too much credit for the 90's and its economy. The Internet era was just starting, which was a HUGE boost to the economy and everything.