Obama won.. (Read 1493 times)


Closed for repairs

    Yep. Good time to buy.

     

    Always true, just depends what you're buying. 

     

    One interesting thing is that one of the best performing asset classes over the last three years has been real estate. 

     

    And KCD, if you're not hearing too many people say it's a good time to buy, then Jeff's probably right. 

     

    That said, based on Jeff's chart, I'm seeing more people selling over the last 6 months than buying (even though that is not what the market overall has done).  And I'm nervous if I'm thinking about adding large sums right now after a nearly 90% gain over 3.5 years.  All it takes to confirm that is how nearly financially wrecked many near-retirees were in 2008-2009. 

     

      Sorry, I don't think I've read from many people that its a good time to buy. It was more of a chuckle, as I assume you we're kidding.

       

      Nope, I'm pretty much your standard fare idiot blinded by ideology.

       

      MTA: for all the other standard fare idiots out there. Let me see if I can state the obvious point more obviously. If you are judging a president by the performance of the market on his watch (dubious measure), then there's not a lot to say that's negative about Obama except for the last week. That was my point.

       

      I'm not a "financial analyst" at all, and I don't "buy" into the market to try to time it. The only thing I know is that the market has been going up for a long time and my guess is that this little dip doesn't have much to do with the election since anyone paying attention already knew who was going to win.


      Feeling the growl again

        Sorry, but this is a totally specious argument here, as obviously deregulation is neither good nor bad in itself. When Clinton did it, it helped the economy. Bush and his advisers failed to see the way in which speculation ran amok and how it was creating a bubble. I can perfectly logically say that intelligent deregulation is good at some moments then needs to be curtailed at other moments.

         

        So apparently you know more about this than Obama?

         

        . "Over the (past) seven years, we have tried to modernize the economy," Clinton enthused as he signed the Financial Services Modernization Act that repealed key New Deal legislation, adding, "And today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down those antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority." Modernizing was the propaganda constant, as in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that Clinton signed, thus shielding financial derivatives from any government regulation.

        That deregulation, as Obama concedes in his WSJ column, led to "a lack of proper oversight and transparency (that) nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale depression."

        "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

         

          So apparently you know more about this than Obama?

           

          . "Over the (past) seven years, we have tried to modernize the economy," Clinton enthused as he signed the Financial Services Modernization Act that repealed key New Deal legislation, adding, "And today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down those antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority." Modernizing was the propaganda constant, as in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that Clinton signed, thus shielding financial derivatives from any government regulation.

          That deregulation, as Obama concedes in his WSJ column, led to "a lack of proper oversight and transparency (that) nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale depression."

           

          Hey spaniel, I know we're not supposed to get along, and all but the point I was making was that Clinton's deregulation may have yes led to certain unintended consequences, but that those consequences came to fruit on GWB's watch. 

           

          If it makes you feel better, I could blame Clinton for what happened, but it also seems to me like the guy who had been in office for the 8 years prior to the economic collapse might have seen it coming better than the guy who left office 8 years before. But hey yeah I'm just a dumbfuck liberal.

           

          MTA: Also, I know that you think I am a know-it-all who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. That's not the case. I'm just a guy with an opinion. I've been wrong before, and I could be wrong about all of this stuff.


          Feeling the growl again

            Hey spaniel, I know we're not supposed to get along, and all but the point I was making was that Clinton's deregulation may have yes led to certain unintended consequences, but that those consequences came to fruit on GWB's watch. 

             

            If it makes you feel better, I could blame Clinton for what happened, but it also seems to me like the guy who had been in office for the 8 years prior to the economic collapse might have seen it coming better than the guy who left office 8 years before. But hey yeah I'm just a dumbfuck liberal.

             

            MTA: Also, I know that you think I am a know-it-all who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. That's not the case. I'm just a guy with an opinion. I've been wrong before, and I could be wrong about all of this stuff.

             

            Actually no, you said my argument was specious and when Clinton did it it helped the economy.  This is false.  When Clinton did it, it led to a short-term boom because a lot of people that had no business getting mortgages and credit got them.  This is not "good for the economy", it set us on the road to massive failure.  What is good and bad for the economy is not a 4-year term that coincides with presidential tenure.  These policies failed us, and everyone who was complicit in promoting them shares blame.  It took 15 years for the housing bubble to build and bust, not the 8 Bush was in office.  Though Bush continued the same policies.

             

            Whether they could see what was coming is immaterial to placing blame for starting the policies, though if you actually read the link I posted some of the language used is pretty damning.  Any idiot should know that people who can't put together cash for a downpayment and payments shouldn't be getting a mortgage, but apparently Clinton's policymakers didn't and he proudly signed off on it.

             

            You're a smart guy.  All I'm asking is for you to think for yourself and not just parrot the party line.

            "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

             

              Actually no, you said my argument was specious and when Clinton did it it helped the economy.  This is false.  When Clinton did it, it led to a short-term boom because a lot of people that had no business getting mortgages and credit got them.

               

              This entire debate thus far seems to me to both give the president too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things fail. The "Clinton deregulation of the banks" was written/introduced by 3 republicans (Phill Gramm, Jim Leach and Thomas Bliley). The bill initially passed the Senate by a vote of 53 republicans and 1 democrat in favor of passage and 44 democrats opposed (a version passed in the house with more bipartisan support).  After the differences between the House and Senate bills were resolved, Clinton signed the bill into law rather than veto it.

               

              So to me, it seams like both republicans and democrats are guilty in the initial steps that led to the collapse and then neither party fixed it under Bush. I just can't see either party as blameless in this one. Now it's time for the politicians to shut up about WHO caused it and start working together to put the economy back together.


              Feeling the growl again

                This entire debate thus far seems to me to both give the president too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things fail.

                .

                .

                .

                 

                So to me, it seams like both republicans and democrats are guilty in the initial steps that led to the collapse and then neither party fixed it under Bush. I just can't see either party as blameless in this one. Now it's time for the politicians to shut up about WHO caused it and start working together to put the economy back together.

                 

                Exactly.  Your first sentence is taken almost word-for-word from a post of mine earlier in this thread.

                 

                Should we blame Obama for high gas prices?  Eh, no.

                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                 

                  Actually no, you said my argument was specious and when Clinton did it it helped the economy.  This is false.  When Clinton did it, it led to a short-term boom because a lot of people that had no business getting mortgages and credit got them.  This is not "good for the economy", it set us on the road to massive failure.  What is good and bad for the economy is not a 4-year term that coincides with presidential tenure.  These policies failed us, and everyone who was complicit in promoting them shares blame.  It took 15 years for the housing bubble to build and bust, not the 8 Bush was in office.  Though Bush continued the same policies.

                   

                  Whether they could see what was coming is immaterial to placing blame for starting the policies, though if you actually read the link I posted some of the language used is pretty damning.  Any idiot should know that people who can't put together cash for a downpayment and payments shouldn't be getting a mortgage, but apparently Clinton's policymakers didn't and he proudly signed off on it.

                   

                  You're a smart guy.  All I'm asking is for you to think for yourself and not just parrot the party line.

                   

                  I agree with a lot of this, but I see it as one sided because to my mind the financial industry is at least as much to blame, and to my mind (again I could be wrong) the major reason that this stuff got hidden from everyone was because the financial industry was basically selling all this bad debt down the river and hiding it in collusion with ratings agencies.

                   

                  Now, could Bush and his team have figured this out? I don't know. Should they have? I don't know.

                   

                  I do think that the Clinton policies were fair minded, but they were taken advantage of by some folks who got in over their heads with their houses, but primarily (seems to me) the policies were taken advantage of by the financial industry that began to explicitly target these sorts of folks late in the game in the 2000s... I do see your point that Clinton's policies share the blame. But we should also blame all of the actors -- and in part because I have a liberal temperament, I tend to target the most powerful with the most blame.

                   

                  However, I would like to note that all of this arguing about Bush or Clinton came in response to my suggestion that Obama does not have the blame for the current financial crisis (though I think he does have to take some of the blame for the slow pace of recovery) -- which is the most salient point, and folks understood this, which is why they re-elected him.

                   

                  Finally, I will just say that my point of view, sure, is generally liberal, but this economic collapse has impacted my career to a huge extent (received my PhD in 2009), and due to fortunate and unfortunate circumstances I am also fully familiar with the costs of health care in this country. I've got skin in the game like everyone else. That's what motivates my views.

                   

                  I rarely learn from these sorts of threads, I will admit. I certainly could do better. But I do appreciate and sometimes even enjoy the exchange when it is civil. 


                  Feeling the growl again

                    I agree with a lot of this, but I see it as one sided because to my mind the financial industry is at least as much to blame, and to my mind (again I could be wrong) the major reason that this stuff got hidden from everyone was because the financial industry was basically selling all this bad debt down the river and hiding it in collusion with ratings agencies.

                     

                    Now, could Bush and his team have figured this out? I don't know. Should they have? I don't know.

                     

                    I do think that the Clinton policies were fair minded, but they were taken advantage of by some folks who got in over their heads with their houses, but primarily (seems to me) the policies were taken advantage of by the financial industry that began to explicitly target these sorts of folks late in the game in the 2000s... I do see your point that Clinton's policies share the blame. But we should also blame all of the actors -- and in part because I have a liberal temperament, I tend to target the most powerful with the most blame.

                     

                    However, I would like to note that all of this arguing about Bush or Clinton came in response to my suggestion that Obama does not have the blame for the current financial crisis (though I think he does have to take some of the blame for the slow pace of recovery) -- which is the most salient point, and folks understood this, which is why they re-elected him.

                     

                    Finally, I will just say that my point of view, sure, is generally liberal, but this economic collapse has impacted my career to a huge extent (received my PhD in 2009), and due to fortunate and unfortunate circumstances I am also fully familiar with the costs of health care in this country. I've got skin in the game like everyone else. That's what motivates my views.

                     

                    I rarely learn from these sorts of threads, I will admit. I certainly could do better. But I do appreciate and sometimes even enjoy the exchange when it is civil. 

                     

                    Oh I think we can agree to blame the financial industry, I'll give them more blame than both parties.  That was part of the reason that "too big to fail" and allowing them to keep their fat bonuses so that they "wouldn't lose their talent " -- the talent that created the mess -- infuriated me so.

                     

                    But, both administrations should have seen it coming.  From my link to the Clinton administration era:

                    "For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership."

                     


                    So if people can't afford the downpayment or monthly mortgage payments, we should still use "creative" means to allow them to own a home?  I don't think it takes much in the way of brains to see where that is going to lead.

                     

                    If I had owned any stock when I bought my house in 2007 I would have sold it.  It was a scary, eye-opening experience.  No income verification, no liability verification, no employment verification, and they approved me for double what I ever thought I could afford.  At that moment I imagined this process being offered to the general population and thought "Oh Hell..."  Now, when I refi'd two years later I had a stack of paperwork 4 inches tall...more the way it should be when you are talking that kind of money.

                     

                    I think we can agree the Obama administration didn't cause the recession...he wasn't in office yet.  I never meant that.  I was just chiming in on the illogical nature of the "blame Bush" mentality.  Neither party has clean hands in this one.  Many of those currently in Congress happily voted through the policies that led to this, as their tenure is much longer than the presidents.

                    "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                     

                      Yes, it's true. Both parties must be blamed, as both parties were basically doing the work of government. This will always be the case. 

                       

                      I did not vote for Obama with the same enthusiasm as 2008.

                       

                      My hope is that both parties will get to work on our problems. I don't expect perfection from our politicians on either side. I guess my expectation is that they will try to make things work. And I also think that their willingness to make things work depends on our willingness to make things work, to hear each other, to talk to each other, to disagree, and perhaps especially to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

                       

                      We talk about the virtues of leadership, but I think also we should consider more carefully the virtues of followership. We've just elected a leader. Re-elected him. What responsibilities does that impose on us? The same could be said for the Republican house. I admit, I have a hard time following the House. 

                       

                      Anyhow, cheers!


                      MoBramExam

                        Cannot forget Robert Rubin's and Larry Summer's contributions.

                         

                        Did people not see it coming (even from the get-go)?  From a battlefield perspective, the ones that didn't see it coming believed they were the smartest people to have ever graced the industry and had re-invented the wheel.  The ones who did see it coming were the ones with a lick of common sense.

                         



                          Confirmed.

                           Whew, thanks.

                           

                          Now, do these Brooks Cascadia's make my ass look big?


                          I'm back!

                            Now, do these Brooks Cascadia's make my ass look big?

                             

                            I don't know about that, but I can confirm that Saucony A2s do.

                              see this link.  

                               

                              MTA:  text to link above is here

                               

                              Watch the first 3 to 5 minutes, and if you want to listen longer, keep listening.

                              Now, this guy tried to fix some of our challenges.

                               

                               

                              Cheers,

                              Brian

                              2014 Goals:

                              #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                              #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

                               

                                Watch the first 3 to 5 minutes, and if you want to listen longer, keep listening.

                                Now, this guy tried to fix some of our challenges.

                                 

                                 

                                "We need an intellectual awaking"

                                 

                                Clear, reasonable, factual......No wonder all the Kool-aid drinkers on both sides find it so offensive.

                                Colonial 200 Relay Sep 20-21 -

                                Smithfield Hog Jog 5K 12 Oct -