|
Post by hoofie on Jul 19, 2019 5:21:46 GMT -7
I don't remember what happened in the stock market on election day, but I do remember that the stock market went from 7000 to 20000 while Obama was president. I only mention this because you broght it up. I personally don't believe the stock market is an indicator of how well working class people are doing. The main reason for the crash was that the financial industry under Bush was allow to create all kinds of previously regulated derivative instruments into which they bundled the toxic loans house loans. By being in the bundle, the toxic loans were hidden from view of the buyer of the derivative. The only information about them was their rating from Moody and I believe one other rating agency, who conspired with the financial industry to rate these derivatives AAA instead of "junk" as they should have been. Banks had a feeding frenzy of selling balloon loans to people who had no possibility of making the payments when the balloon hit. There was a woman heading up Bush's economic watchdog agency who sounded the alarm early on that these CDOs and other derivatives were financial frauds. But Paulson had Bush's ear, and told him that investment banks should not be stopped from fraudulent transactions, because the basis of capitalism is "buyer beware". That woman of course was quickly fired. Meanwhile the financial institutions leveraged credit default swaps up to some enormous amount like $50 trillion to try to insure themselves against default of loans that many insiders knew were toxic. It was a gigantic house of cards totally created by the unregulated financial industry. The difference between 2008 and 1929 was that the Republican president still had 3 more years in office after the crash, 3 more years to continue the policies that were the cause of the Depression. If Bush had still had 3 more years in office after his crash, it would have been of a magnitude similar to the Depression. Instead of complaining about a sluggish recovery, we should be grateful we didn't wind up in a soup line. Democrats had their filibuster-proof Senate majority for only a short time, not for 2 years. I thought it was 6 wekks, but Ranger corrected me about that a year or two ago - I believe the correct number was 4 months - maybe you remember, Ranger. Besides that, it 56 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 2 DINOS who usually voted with Republicans.
You actually supported my answer. The finance institutions were bundling and trying to avoid losses on home loans created in the late 90s and early 2000s spurred mostly by the Community Investment Act which sought to approve mortgages to lower income people. Sound familiar? Camilla Harris has recently proposed a 'plan' to grant cash to help lower income minorities put a down payment on a home and qualify for a mortgage. The behind the scenes stuff in the Bush administration was an attempt to hide the problem. I believe that there was some illegal activity somewhere as it came to light that these derivatives were not dispersing pieces of various pies, but they were in fact all the same pie. Not a Ponzi scheme but more like slight of hand. All it did was delay the inevitable housing market crash until 2008. Most working Americans should be interested in a successful stock market. It drives most of our 401K and IRA accounts. If you have a 401K or IRA you are indirectly investing in stocks and bonds. I'm still waiting for an Obama accomplishment. Not the Peace Prize. We all know that was his participation trophy for being the first minority POTUS.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Jul 19, 2019 5:53:40 GMT -7
Democrats had their filibuster-proof Senate majority for only a short time, not for 2 years. I thought it was 6 wekks, but Ranger corrected me about that a year or two ago - I believe the correct number was 4 months - maybe you remember, Ranger. Besides that, it 56 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 2 DINOS who usually voted with Republicans.
Obama's term had Senate majorities the first 6 years. It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture under Senate Rule XXII. In the 111th Congress (1/09-1/11) they did have this number twice with 58 Dems and 2 Inds (7/09-8/09 and 9/09-2/10). Roughly, this was about 6 weeks the first time and 4 months the second. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_CongressThe 112th Congress (1/11-1/13) had majority Dems + Inds, but 53 was the max number. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_CongressThe 113th Congrees (1/13-1/15) had majority Dems + Inds, but 55 was the max number. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/113th_United_States_CongressThe 114thCongress (1/15-1/17) had majority GOP at 54. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/114th_United_States_Congress
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Jul 23, 2019 5:01:05 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Aug 2, 2019 7:14:27 GMT -7
Did this week's round of debates shed any light for anyone?
|
|
|
Post by badman on Aug 4, 2019 12:35:31 GMT -7
Did this week's round of debates shed any light for anyone? The Gabbard/Harris exchange was fun. MSM to the rescue!
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Aug 5, 2019 4:43:45 GMT -7
All of the sound bites from the candidates this morning are yelling for extensive background checks for gun ownership. Still crickets on the subject of illegal aliens. Shouldn't we vet them too?
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Aug 6, 2019 13:15:26 GMT -7
All of the sound bites from the candidates this morning are yelling for extensive background checks for gun ownership. Still crickets on the subject of illegal aliens. Shouldn't we vet them too? Gabbard is already a vet a much better looking than Harris. Actually, she's the best looking of the whole gang.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Aug 7, 2019 4:58:59 GMT -7
All of the sound bites from the candidates this morning are yelling for extensive background checks for gun ownership. Still crickets on the subject of illegal aliens. Shouldn't we vet them too? Gabbard is already a vet a much better looking than Harris. Actually, she's the best looking of the whole gang. I used the word 'vet' as in check out references. People want background checks for gun purchases but have no problem letting illegals walk about our country with no checks. I don't understand the concept. Now they want to give illegals free healthcare while they want to fine me for not having coverage. What are they smoking?
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Aug 7, 2019 8:14:35 GMT -7
Gabbard is already a vet a much better looking than Harris. Actually, she's the best looking of the whole gang. I used the word 'vet' as in check out references. People want background checks for gun purchases but have no problem letting illegals walk about our country with no checks. I don't understand the concept. Now they want to give illegals free healthcare while they want to fine me for not having coverage. What are they smoking? I already knew your meaning but thought you'd like the pun.
I am a combat vet but never fought a broad (abroad).
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Aug 7, 2019 10:38:07 GMT -7
You're pretty good at this ranger. Funny.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Aug 9, 2019 5:54:58 GMT -7
|
|