Faber Warns Of Hyperinflation - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***shmessy*** · 05-28-2009, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyPatriot

I'm going to Home Depot tomorrow to get a bucket to replace my wallet.
Was Obama smoking a doob during 1920's history class when they discussed Germany ... or Hungary of the 1940's.

Like I keep saying either Bush did not spend enough or Obama is spending too much ... the media needs to report this correctly. Obama's people keep saying Bush spent too much ... but how is that possible if Obama felt the need to spend even more to correct things?

Bush didn't need to correct anything - - he was handed the unrivaled top economy in the world (with a budget surplus, no less) in January 2001 and decided to total daddy's yacht. Obama was handed a burning building and has to break down a few walls to save it.

65% of the American public understands what you don't.

Fogbuster · 05-28-2009, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Bush didn't need to correct anything - - he was handed the unrivaled top economy in the world (with a budget surplus, no less) in January 2001 and decided to total daddy's yacht. Obama was handed a burning building and has to break down a few walls to save it.

65% of the American public understands what you don't.

Bush was "handed" a ticking time bomb. With the CRA-engine driving the artificially hyped real estate values all across America, and with the banks handing out TRILLIONS of dollars like it was candy at Christmas, the recipe for this economic holocaust was set.

For all the deniers out there, anybody with a mind of their own knows that you cannot have most people playing by the rule of "prepare for the mortgage, get the money ready, and pay it off as PROMISED" while out of the other side of the mouth say: "You want a mortgage?? No problem, the federal government will back you up no matter who you are, no matter if you are a speculator or a dead-beat, no matter what; you got a pulse, you get a loan. Because 'we care.'"

People with NO STAKE in the economy have NO BUSINESS getting involved with the economy, yet this is precisely what has happened under Carter, Clinton, and the Democrat Congresses.

Zimbabwe may turn out to be a picnic compared to the "party hearty-got my $500 sneakers on, ain't I cool" crowd who have taken over. I'd say, "God help us", but even God cannot make up for shear stupidity and the arrogance of do-gooderism.

//

***patsfan13*** · 05-28-2009, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Bush didn't need to correct anything - - he was handed the unrivaled top economy in the world (with a budget surplus, no less) in January 2001 and decided to total daddy's yacht. Obama was handed a burning building and has to break down a few walls to save it.

65% of the American public understands what you don't.

Bush was 'handed' a country in recession. Look at the stock indexes in March 2000, they were at a peak, by the time Bush entered office the economy was in recession. Then 9-11 hammered the market and business spending. HE did a good job then. Later as we know he allowed the congress to spend way too much.

Obama is pouring gas on the burning building.

atomdomb · 05-28-2009, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Bush didn't need to correct anything - - he was handed the unrivaled top economy in the world (with a budget surplus, no less) in January 2001 and decided to total daddy's yacht. Obama was handed a burning building and has to break down a few walls to save it.

65% of the American public understands what you don't.

Shmessy, you of all people should know what Bush was handed. I am sure you noticed the trend of the Nasdaq as Clinton was headed out of office. Bush was handed a bubble that was about to burst. Bush actually had to deal with the Internet bubble and the housing bubble. Obama was handed just what Ron Reagan was handed. An economy in the midst of a brutal recession. Reagan did a pretty good job. Time will tell for Obama.

Real World · 05-28-2009, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Bush didn't need to correct anything - - he was handed the unrivaled top economy in the world (with a budget surplus, no less) in January 2001 and decided to total daddy's yacht. Obama was handed a burning building and has to break down a few walls to save it.

65% of the American public understands what you don't.

No he did not. Dude, you can keep parroting the DNC talking points all you want, but GW inherrited a receding economy, and no budget surplus. Where was this surplus that everyone talks about? They "projected" a surplus, which was more BS, cuz the rug was pulled out from the economy, immediately there after.

***shmessy*** · 05-28-2009, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Bush was 'handed' a country in recession. Look at the stock indexes in March 2000, they were at a peak, by the time Bush entered office the economy was in recession. Then 9-11 hammered the market and business spending. HE did a good job then. Later as we know he allowed the congress to spend way too much.

Obama is pouring gas on the burning building.

The United States was NOT in a "recession" when Bush was inaugurated.

The definition of a recession is two straight quarters+ of negative GDP. It has no direct reading from stock market performance.

You are confusing stock market indexes with national economic performance. They are a factor, but not the same thing. Our markets are up 20%+ in the past 2 months. Are we in a growth period?

"Later as we know he allowed the congress to spend way too much."

Oh, if you want to play THAT game, let's examine closer. Clinton had an opposition party Congress 6 of his 8 years. Bush had it 2 of his 8 years. Who is more culpable for "letting" Congress run roughshod over him?

I see. I guess it was "Congress'" idea to install two major tax cut reforms and blow a trillion on building Iraq's infrastructure at the same time. He was the version of parent who says 'Yes, Junior, you can skip class, not do homework, eat nothing but junk food and you will become a Healthy Rhodes Scholar'. Many people wanted to believe that.

***patsfan13*** · 05-28-2009, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

The United States was NOT in a "recession" when Bush was inaugurated.

The definition of a recession is two straight quarters+ of negative GDP. It has no direct reading from stock market performance.

The recession started in Q4 2000, neg growth, continued in Q1 2001.

Quote:

You are confusing stock market indexes with national economic performance. They are a factor, but not the same thing. Our markets are up 20%+ in the past 2 months. Are we in a growth period?

As above neg GDP....

Quote:

"Later as we know he allowed the congress to spend way too much."

So you were OK with the spending of congress under Bush and that he didn't try harder to restrain spending???

Quote:

Oh, if you want to play THAT game, let's examine closer. Clinton had an opposition party Congress 6 of his 8 years. Bush had it 2 of his 8 years. Who is more culpable for "letting" Congress run roughshod over him?

Under Gingrich and the COntract w America Welfare reform was passed and the deficits were reduced. IOW Clinton's major accomplishments happened with the passage of much of the CwA...

Quote:

I see. I guess it was "Congress'" idea to install two major tax cut reforms and blow a trillion on building Iraq's infrastructure at the same time. He was the version of parent who says 'Yes, Junior, you can skip class, not do homework, eat nothing but junk food and you will become a Healthy Rhodes Scholar'. Many people wanted to believe that.

The tax cuts prevented a major recession ofter 9/11, business were cutting back drastically on spending. I have first hand experience with this.

Revenues went way up as a result of the tax cuts, congress spent it all.

Obama is pouring gas on the fire, He has quadrupled the debt in 1 freakin year. Mostly on dem pork.

***tanked_as_usual*** · 05-28-2009, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

The United States was NOT in a "recession" when Bush was inaugurated.

The definition of a recession is two straight quarters+ of negative GDP. It has no direct reading from stock market performance.

You are confusing stock market indexes with national economic performance. They are a factor, but not the same thing. Our markets are up 20%+ in the past 2 months. Are we in a growth period?

"Later as we know he allowed the congress to spend way too much."

Oh, if you want to play THAT game, let's examine closer. Clinton had an opposition party Congress 6 of his 8 years. Bush had it 2 of his 8 years. Who is more culpable for "letting" Congress run roughshod over him?

I see. I guess it was "Congress'" idea to install two major tax cut reforms and blow a trillion on building Iraq's infrastructure at the same time. He was the version of parent who says 'Yes, Junior, you can skip class, not do homework, eat nothing but junk food and you will become a Healthy Rhodes Scholar'. Many people wanted to believe that.

it was not in recession, but from Jan 2000 until election day, the NASDAQ lost over half its value (short term capital gains of NASDAQ listings were almost entirely responsible for creating the budget surplus)

the economy under clinton did not do anything until the republicans took over the house and senate.......'92-'94 were just as bad under clinton as they were under bush I

if we could reproduce '94-'00 based on a dem prez and a republican legislation, I would take it every time

like I mentioned elsewhere, I believe the market was oversold which cause the 20% returns of the last couple of months

***shmessy*** · 05-28-2009, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

The recession started in Q4 2000, neg growth, continued in Q1 2001.

As above neg GDP....

So you were OK with the spending of congress under Bush and that he didn't try harder to restrain spending???

Under Gingrich and the COntract w America Welfare reform was passed and the deficits were reduced. IOW Clinton's major accomplishments happened with the passage of much of the CwA...

The tax cuts prevented a major recession ofter 9/11, business were cutting back drastically on spending. I have first hand experience with this.

Revenues went way up as a result of the tax cuts, congress spent it all.

Obama is pouring gas on the fire, He has quadrupled the debt in 1 freakin year. Mostly on dem pork.

Once again, your definition of a recession is flatly wrong.

The negative growth started in Q4 2000 (by the way, the stock and credit markets accelerated down based on the CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS facing the country in November and December of that year). By your telling, when Bush was inaugurated on January 20th, we had one quarter of declining GDP (once again, mostly due to Constitutional Crisis).

"So you were OK with the spending of congress under Bush and that he didn't try harder to restrain spending???"

Of course not!!!! Please understand, however, that "spending by Congress" was done 6 out of 8 years by a Republican Congress at the behest of GWB. The man didn't exercise a SINGLE veto during his first 7 years. Especially after 9/11, when the Shrub said "jump" they asked "how high?" - - a fact that destroyed several Dem primary campaigns in 2008 and dogs Pelosi (who DOES need to be removed for the good of the country) today.

"The tax cuts prevented a major recession ofter 9/11, business were cutting back drastically on spending. I have first hand experience with this.
Revenues went way up as a result of the tax cuts, congress spent it all.
Obama is pouring gas on the fire, He has quadrupled the debt in 1 freakin year. Mostly on dem pork."

Short-term emergency measures often need to be taken. I have no problem with Bush's IMMEDIATE economic policy to 9/11. What his fatal error (for the national economy) was his lack of longer-term vision to provide for the sustainability of our economic power. Give a kid a sugary drink and he will be buzzed for a couple of hours.......but then what?

Obama will be judged (like Bush - after several years, not 3 months) based on what he does for the economy AFTER the initial sugar-rush.

ANY IDIOT can cut taxes or stimulate spend. The REAL proof comes with the SECOND stage of the plan.

Fogbuster · 05-28-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

I see. I guess it was "Congress'" idea to install two major tax cut reforms and blow a trillion on building Iraq's infrastructure at the same time. He was the version of parent who says 'Yes, Junior, you can skip class, not do homework, eat nothing but junk food and you will become a Healthy Rhodes Scholar'. Many people wanted to believe that.

It was Congress -- even under Repub control -- that would hear: "... if you don't support the 'new economics' of 'free money for real estate', (GUARANTEED by the CRA) you are nothing but a racist. You HATE black people if you say one word about the CRA (even if it is a total sham forked-tongue policy)". The Dems used this mantra all throughout the past 30+ years.

Free money?? People who don't know how to protect it and put it to good use -- ie, for the public benefit -- will always throw it away or lose it. Every single time. The housing bubble burst proves it beyond any doubt.

//