Last decade was the worst ever in the stock market
The U.S. stock market is wrapping up what is likely to be its worst decade ever.
In nearly 200 years of recorded stock-market history, no calendar decade has seen such a dismal performance as the 2000s.
Investors would have been better off investing in pretty much anything else, from bonds to gold or even just stuffing money under a mattress. Since the end of 1999, stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange have lost an average of 0.5% a year thanks to the twin bear markets this decade….
This past decade looks even worse when the impact of inflation is considered.
Since the end of 1999, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has lost an average of 3.3% a year on an inflation-adjusted basis, compared with a 1.8% average annual gain during the 1930s when deflation afflicted the economy, according to data compiled by Charles Jones, finance professor at North Carolina State University.
After the 2004 election, you might recall, President Bush decided to spend his “mandate” pushing a scheme to privatize Social Security and encourage investment of retirement funds in the stock market. Many retirees — and many of those approaching retirement — lost a lot of their private nest egg in the market collapse that began last fall, but the damage would have been greatly compounded had they invested a good portion of their Social Security funds in the market as well.
In addition, the political system would have been under great pressure to try to make good on some of that financial loss — i.e., a senior citizens’ bailout on top of the banking bailout and Detroit bailout and stimulus package. The Bush proposal was a symptom of that era’s attitude toward risk, with all attention focused on the possible upside and very little on the reality that big losses are inherent in the system too.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
511 comments Add your comment
kayaker 71
December 21st, 2009
9:08 am
This has been a decade of giveaway compensation. We began by compensating the families of the WTC victims with outlandish sums of money when our troops and their families get pennies for the same outcome. We thought it wise to award compensation to those who made bad decisions in the housing market. We are even mandating federal judges to lower the interest rate on loans that the borrower cannot repay. We are compensating those who enter our country illegally by paying for their medical care, their daily subsistance, the schooling of their children and soon, their housing. The number of illegals in federal prison now demands that we spend between 3 and 4B/year on their care and feeding. And when anyone complains about this nonsense, they are accused of being insensative or racists.
There is nothing wrong with those who make bad decision taking their lumps. Those who were in the Trade Center were in the wrong place at the right time. Those who made bad loans didn’t read the fine print and those who enter our country illegally do so with the idea that there is always a free society who will take care of them and provide for their needs, even though they are felons.
Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one’s actions? Are we such a nation that we must compensate someone for everything when the outcome is not to their liking?
Southern Comfort
December 21st, 2009
9:08 am
As for the CRA being the cause of the downturn…. hehehehehe
I don’t know much about economics, but the little I do know tells me that it took more than that one thing to cause these problems. That is, unless the CRA created the derivatives that caused the problems.
Regardless to who the finger points to, greed was the underlying cause. If you’re required to provide more financing to minorites that doesn’t mean you have to completely ignore standards. And from what I’m seeing, it isn’t just minorities who are defaulting on mortgages. But as always, blame it on the ghetto mamas and such. They make such easy targets.
getalife
December 21st, 2009
9:08 am
You could buy GE for 5 bucks a share and Citigroup for 3.
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2009
9:09 am
“You think Washington Mutual wasn’t a bank?”
I never said banks weren’t involved.
Jenifer
December 21st, 2009
9:10 am
The era of unrestrained and irresponsible capitalism is over.
Put a fork in it, it’s done.
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:10 am
USinUK,
Whatever. I’ve seen many of your posts and when backed into a corner you now want to say you were being facetious.
RW-(the original)
December 21st, 2009
9:10 am
Except the “scheme” was for a tiny portion of younger workers SS funds so the fear mongering written above is nonsense. Not to mention that those very funds might well have lessened the impact.
BMDPD
December 21st, 2009
9:10 am
USinUK, whatever. Tell me this, what is the actual percentage of Americans actually in forclosure? Then tell me how the percentage of the percentage that were sub-prime. You are too blind and skewed to understand.
USinUK
December 21st, 2009
9:11 am
Jenifer – 9:10 – never underestimate the shortness of investor memory
Mrs. Godzilla
December 21st, 2009
9:11 am
Why Obama Must Spend More
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091007_why_obama_must_spend_more/
albert
December 21st, 2009
9:12 am
The lost decade.
Jenifer
December 21st, 2009
9:13 am
“Jenifer – 9:10 – never underestimate the shortness of investor memory”
Wishin’ and hopin’.
BMDPD
December 21st, 2009
9:13 am
kayyacker71, Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one’s actions? Are we such a nation that we must compensate someone for everything when the outcome is not to their liking?
Wow! That is a great idea. Most people posting here won’t like it too much.
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:14 am
Now the argument is that the banks were not the primary lenders. Way to divert the issue. AS I recall recently, Bank of America, Wells FArgo, WAMU, SunTrust, Citigroup, Chase, Wachovia, and many other big name banks needed to be bailed out because they were caught up in all of this.
jconservative
December 21st, 2009
9:14 am
Actually I made a lot of money on stocks in the last decade. You just had to pick your spots. I converted all stocks to cash in Nov 2000 -(after Bush elected – did not trust his economic team) – and put back in stocks in early 2005 on advice of financial adviser. Converted back cash in early 2008 in preparation for retirement. Now, I know I just plain got lucky, I am not a genius, as most of you know.
Do not go blaming Reagan for not putting Social Security as a privatized
investment. He had to deal with Tip O’Neill and the deal he worked out did “save” Social Security. Now that makes him liberal which a lot of you do not like. But that was not the only liberal action Reagan took.
Reagan was a conservative candidate but a liberal president. And every president since Reagan has been a liberal president. Must be something in the White House water.
BMDPD
December 21st, 2009
9:14 am
Southern, I did not nor will I say that the CRA is solely the cause, but it was a contributing factor.
Finn McCool
December 21st, 2009
9:14 am
joey, you want to gamble with your SSN money? If you do there will be a % chance you have a “bunch” of money when you retire and there will be a % chance that you will have “ziltch.
Or you can get a defined amount that you KNOW will be there which allows you to plan, long term, how to supplement that amount.
When you retire and the market has deleted all your SSN money because you happen to be entering retirement at the bottom of a cycle, what are you going to do? You go on welfare, that’s what.
SSN is called a security net for a reason. You don’t gamble with your security net.
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:16 am
Finn McCool,
About that SS money. You really think I will see any of it for myself? I am 38 and it is highly unlikely that I will see any of the money I have put into it.
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2009
9:17 am
“they were caught up in all of this”
You need to separate the “insurance” side of those institution and the banking side. They got CAUGHT in it, because they invested in the derivatives…but they were not solely the CAUSE of it. The investment melt-down was due to derivatives based on mortgages, including sub-prime mortgages, but the primary lender of those sub-prime mortgages were not banks, but other mortgage lenders.
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:17 am
Finn McCool,
Can I ask you a personal question? How old are you?
USinUK
December 21st, 2009
9:18 am
Robert –
“Whatever. I’ve seen many of your posts and when backed into a corner you now want to say you were being facetious”
hahahaha … you obviously have me confused with someone else …
BMD –
“USinUK, whatever” ahhhh … the same mad rhetorical skills as Robert.
“Tell me this, what is the actual percentage of Americans actually in forclosure?”
currently, 4.47% of mortgages are in foreclosure out of total loans
BMDPD
December 21st, 2009
9:19 am
I think it boils down to..
1. Politicians are greedy
2. Banks are greedy
3. People are greedy
Outhouse Go-Kart
December 21st, 2009
9:19 am
kayaker 71
December 21st, 2009
9:08 am
Nowadays everyone is a victim and accordingly the are entitled to some form of compensation. Thats the way of the dummycrats.
Southern Comfort
December 21st, 2009
9:19 am
BMDPD
I agree it was a contributing factor. However, there are others here who seem to think it’s the one and only factor.
I think there were many factors that alone would have been harmless or caused minor upheaval. Combined together, they caused financial damage that’s going to take lots of time to correct.
I’ve heard someone mention it before, but I’m curious about one question. Where did all the money go that was lost? Does it just evaporate into thin air, or is there a small group that made a killing while the rest of the world lost?
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:19 am
USinUK, maybe I do have you confused with someone else. There are many on here that sound just like you.
USinUK
December 21st, 2009
9:19 am
Doggone – 9:17 – well summarized!
BMDPD
December 21st, 2009
9:20 am
How many of the 4.47 are due to sub-prime loans?
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:20 am
Still waiting on a response from Taxpayer…
Finn McCool
December 21st, 2009
9:20 am
Robert, that’s a possibility and that’s why we put some money away every month. My father in law thought 1) he would never live long enough to collect on SSN and 2) that that money wouldn’t be there.
The people who are collecting on it now put their money into it too so it’s not like we are the first generation with the possibilty that we might end up getting the shaft.
USinUK
December 21st, 2009
9:20 am
Robert – “maybe I do have you confused with someone else” I suggest that’s the case.
“There are many on here that sound just like you.” right back at ya.
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2009
9:21 am
“I agree it was a contributing factor.”
And a minor factor at best.
BMDPD
December 21st, 2009
9:21 am
Doggone, the banks had to do that to cover their losses.
Finn McCool
December 21st, 2009
9:21 am
43
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2009
9:22 am
Thanks USinUK!
Taxpayer
December 21st, 2009
9:23 am
Robert sounds upset. Saying demeaning things about other bloggers and such as though he knew some of us personally.
Jackie
December 21st, 2009
9:23 am
Here is the Community Reinvestment Act.
“The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business in.[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank’s compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.[8]
The law, however, emphasizes that an institution’s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[3][4] An institution’s CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.[6][9]“
Monday Links
December 21st, 2009
9:24 am
[...] If you can read this, you survived the stock market’s worst decade in history. Yes, even worse than that one decade that one time there was an actual depression and your [...]
Taxpayer
December 21st, 2009
9:24 am
I’m still waiting for multiple responses from you, Robert.
For starters, why do you ignore my request for proof of your analysis regarding CRA. Show me your problem statement and analysis that led you to surmise that the CRA was the root cause of said problem. I know a little about that Root Cause Analysis stuff that was developed by folks down at Florida Power and Light so I’ll be glad to hear about your analysis.
getalife
December 21st, 2009
9:24 am
Yeah, good thing w’s privatize plan failed.
Peadawg
December 21st, 2009
9:25 am
Mrs. Godzilla…typical Democratic thinking. Spend now, tax later.
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2009
9:25 am
“Doggone, the banks had to do that to cover their losses”
Had to do what?
USinUK
December 21st, 2009
9:25 am
BMD –
okay, since you would like to see a total breakdown:
Total loans in foreclosure = 4.47%
prime = 3.2%
subprime = 15.35%
Fixed rate mortgages:
prime = 1.95%
subprime = 8.41%
FHA = 3.17%
ARM mortgages:
prime = 10.09%
subprime = 24.70%
(all data as of end of Q309, from the MBA)
USinUK
December 21st, 2009
9:26 am
Peadawg –
“Spend now, tax later”
hahahaha … okay, I’ll play!! Typical Republican thinking: “reduce your revenues now, spend like mad, wait until someone else comes into power to pay for it later”
El Jefe
December 21st, 2009
9:27 am
Over the last 10 years, we have seen many things that shake the norm and scramble the rest.
We had the tech bubble that went south in 2000
We were attacked in 2001
We went to answer the attack in Afghanistan
We followed the trail into Iraq
We succeeded in Iraq
We had a so-called fiscal crises with the large trading houses.
We poured money into them
We elected a new President
He started pouring money into vapidly planned schemes
We hit rock bottom in the Market this year
Bottom line, if you educate yourself, take responsibility and apply some common sense, the market is not a scary place.
I left REIT’s before the crash, I invested in raw materials, I studied companies and their balance sheets.
I made money over the last 10 years, even with a job move. I am not rich, I am low level management, I make a good salary, nothing like a Senator’s. I manage my money and live beneath my means. This has let me survive these minor bumps in the road.
Use your brain, we have not yet declared a moratorium on thinking – even though some think we should (let the government think for us).
Remember, Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach, those that can’t teach, go to DC.
Finn McCool
December 21st, 2009
9:28 am
yeah, jackie, not a whole lot about “forcing” banks to lend or “dire consequences” if they didn’t write bad loans to people on welfare as the wingnuts would have us believe.
Joey
December 21st, 2009
9:28 am
Finn McCool:
“SSN is called a security net for a reason.”
O.K. Finn, I know exactly where my 401.k. and my IRA contribution money is.
You tell me: Where is the money that I have been contributing to SSN for 46 years?
Paul
December 21st, 2009
9:28 am
“The Democrats left us with such a huge credit card bill and pile of other problems that it will take the adults, the Republicans, years to straighten things out.”
The Republican campaign themes for 2010 and 2012.
AmVet 8:43
Good morning! That’s waay to many puns this early. But thanks for ending with Dickens. Christmassy and all that.
Hey there, USin UK!
Merry Christmas and…. don’t take any Chunnel rides!!!
Hello newbie Robert 8:50
“Notice how people who think they have all the answers do not answer the questions asked of them, but instead answer with a question back to you? Why do you think this happens?”
Didja ever hear the fable of the scorpion and the frog?
Your 9:10 – maybe you aren’t a newbie, after all….
getalife
Sorry ‘bout your Saints. Was at a Christmas party – lots of guys glued to the tube. Weren’t happy when I asked how many bet according to the oddsmakers’ advice.
USinUK 9:11
[[Jenifer – 9:10 – never underestimate the shortness of investor memory]]
Or of voter memory. See the top of this post –
Hello, Mrs Godzilla!
[[Why Obama Must Spend More]]
Didja ever hear the story of the scorpion and the frog?
Seriously, the Pres’s challenge will be to hold back the debt nuts in the House –
El Jefe
December 21st, 2009
9:28 am
Over the last 10 years, we have seen many things that shake the norm and scramble the rest.
We had the tech bubble that went south in 2000
We were attacked in 2001
We went to answer the attack in Afghanistan
We followed the trail into Iraq
We succeeded in Iraq
We had a so-called fiscal crises with the large trading houses.
We poured money into them
We elected a new President
He started pouring money into vapidly planned schemes
We hit rock bottom in the Market this year
Bottom line, if you educate yourself, take responsibility and apply some common sense, the market is not a scary place.
I left REIT’s before the crash, I invested in raw materials, I studied companies and their balance sheets.
I made money over the last 10 years, even with a job move. I am not rich, I am low level management, I make a good salary, nothing like a Senator’s. I manage my money and live beneath my means. This has let me survive these minor bumps in the road. I am an unapologetic capitalist.
Use your brain, we have not yet declared a moratorium on thinking – even though some think we should (let the government think for us).
Remember, Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach, those that can’t teach, go to DC.
BMDPD
December 21st, 2009
9:29 am
Jackie, people corrupted the CRA. Thus, it is a cause of the problem.
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:30 am
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2009
9:17 am
“they were caught up in all of this”
You need to separate the “insurance” side of those institution and the banking side. They got CAUGHT in it, because they invested in the derivatives…but they were not solely the CAUSE of it. The investment melt-down was due to derivatives based on mortgages, including sub-prime mortgages, but the primary lender of those sub-prime mortgages were not banks, but other mortgage lenders.”
A very great deal of what has happened stems from CLINTON’s deregulations of Wall St. Blaming Bush for these things shows how little you know.
Donovan
December 21st, 2009
9:30 am
Let me get this straight…In the last ten years I have made more money in the stock market than any other period in my life. Based on the lower capital gains tax implemented by GW and a responsible Republican Congress, I was able to reinvest my money to gain further financial security for my family. However, now that this country has been hijacked by these left wing kooks, we are experiencing a crashed economy brought on by Democrat malfeasance in the housing industry, out of control spending, crippling generational debt, government control of the auto industry, insurance industry, financial industry, and soon to be health industry. Speak for yourself Bookman. The last decade was good to me. The present and future under your crowd’s governance can only looked upon with disdain and recklessness. When you consider this country being directed by tax cheats, left wing czars, and a community organizer president the immediate future is a joke. What you liberals have achieved is nothing more than a train wreck.
Peadawg
December 21st, 2009
9:30 am
“spend like mad”
Just like Obama is CONTINUING to do, huh? You’re not mad he lied to you during his campaign about lowering the deficit? All I can say is “I told you so.”
Finn McCool
December 21st, 2009
9:30 am
Mrs Godzilla,
Spend to get us out of this hole. Those who are worried need to understand that it’s called amortization and it’s a fact of life.
As long as he isn’t doing something idiotic like giving tax breaks to his rich buddies while fighting 2 wars. I mean, what idiot would do that?
USinUK
December 21st, 2009
9:30 am
“I invested in raw materials” mmmmmm … commodity yumminess!!!
Hey Paul!!!
oh, man … never have I been so glad that the mister didn’t get a wild hair to go to France for a little shopping!!! those poor people stranded at the Gare du Nord!
how’re things in TX??
samuel
December 21st, 2009
9:31 am
Can you imagine the chaos among seniors if Bush II had succeeded in partially privatizing Social Security? In addition to exploding the budget deficit ( $ 1.4 trillion FY 2009) and the national debt ( $12 trillion in 2009), there would have been this burden on the taxpayers too. Bush II was an unmitigated disaster as President and it will take Obama a while to clean up his mess. Passing health care reform is a good start. And 1 year into his Presidency to boot.
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:32 am
Taxpayer, answer my question first, then I will answer your question. Go!
Jackie
December 21st, 2009
9:33 am
@Finn McCool
I have yet to understand how the so-called conservatives can extrapolate all those perceived problems associated with mortgages, CRA and sub-prime lending.
The question I have always wondered is how does one think a 4.7% foreclosure rate would bring down the financial system?
getalife
December 21st, 2009
9:33 am
Paul,
Drew had a bad game.
Dallas wanted it more to stay in the playoff hunt.
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2009
9:33 am
“Blaming Bush for these things shows how little you know.”
But I haven’t blamed Bush for anything. You need to make a greater effort to keep your different conversations separated.
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:33 am
Finn McCool, it sounds to me that Social Security is a big ponzi scheme…the first to pay in are gyuaranteed to get something back. People late to the game pay and will get nothing.
Taxpayer
December 21st, 2009
9:33 am
The Republican campaign themes for 2010 and 2012.
Along with video clips of their “Just say No” solution to all that ails them, poor pitiful them. What a theme.
Jackie
December 21st, 2009
9:34 am
@BMDPD
What???????????
Mrs. Godzilla
December 21st, 2009
9:36 am
Peadawg
you say:
Mrs. Godzilla…typical Democratic thinking. Spend now, tax later.
To which I respond:
It works
http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html#more
HDB
December 21st, 2009
9:36 am
For those who keep repeating the lie that the CRA was the cause of the housing bubble…let’s do something RADICAL: let’s wipe out EVERYONE’S credit history….and give everyone the same credit rating! Let’s put the credit market on equal footing for everyone…..then see what ahppens!!!
Taxpayer
December 21st, 2009
9:36 am
No, Robert. You answer my questions first. Now GO.
Big D
December 21st, 2009
9:37 am
Robert, you are dead on the money, but let me tell you what my mother told me….don’t argue with an idiot it just makes you sound like one. We will have to live with this boondoggle until we can get the intelligence to elect people based on a record of TRUE accomplishment instead of their oratory skills or looks. It will take a real tragedy to wake most of these liberals from their stupor….Joe Kennedy,Nevel Chamerlain, they are blinded by their own azz kissing.
I Report/You Decide
December 21st, 2009
9:37 am
Liberals are so funny. When the market is up, they say so what, only the rich own stocks. When it’s down, they say it’s the cause of all our problems. LOL
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:38 am
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2009
9:33 am
“Blaming Bush for these things shows how little you know.”
But I haven’t blamed Bush for anything. You need to make a greater effort to keep your different conversations separated.
Would you admit that Clinton screwed up also? What about Barney Frank?
USinUK
December 21st, 2009
9:39 am
“Nevel Chamerlain”
wow.
that pretty much says it all.
samuel
December 21st, 2009
9:39 am
Peadawg and other conservatives on this blog: The federal government has run budget deficits for most of this country’s history. The health care reform bill is actually projected to help reduce the deficit ( according to the Congressional Budget Office). So called ” conservatives” ( Reagan, both Bushes) have exploded the budget deficit and the national debt. Tell your Tea Party friends that deficit spending did not begin with Obama. And besides, health care reform is more a moral issue than a financial issues. Most conservatives can’t do the math anyway, so what are you complaining about?
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:40 am
Taxpayer refusues to answer my question about why it’s ok for Democrats in control now to borrow from China, yet he thinks it wrong for Bush and the Republicans to have done the same thing.
Peadawg
December 21st, 2009
9:40 am
Mrs. Godzilla @ 9:36. It make work in the end when my grandkids are paying off the debt…but spending is spending no matter how to look at it. Adding to the deficit is adding to the deficit no matter how you look at it. Lying to get elected it lying to get elected no matter how you look at.
Big D
December 21st, 2009
9:42 am
Tax Payer…If you have ever raised a child you would KNOW that “NO” is a very necessary word when dealing with the less learned and child like. You really need to look again at what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is really supposed to do…and it is not what we are now doing.
JackLeg
December 21st, 2009
9:42 am
“I will NOT sign any legislation that has earmarks” let’s see if Obozo signs this monstrosity of a bill. So Mrs G who has reality problems? “I will not raise taxes on the middle class” so far everything that the dimacrats has proposed does just that, again, Mrs. G who has reality issues?
Peadawg
December 21st, 2009
9:42 am
“Taxpayer refusues to answer my question about why it’s ok for Democrats in control now to borrow from China, yet he thinks it wrong for Bush and the Republicans to have done the same thing.”
And you’re surprised, why?
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:43 am
Big D,
That’s Taxpayer’s #1 comeback. We should let him have it, since that’s all he’s got.
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:44 am
Peadwag, not really surprised. Maybe one of the others on here would like to respond on Taxpayer’s behalf?
Grumpy
December 21st, 2009
9:45 am
I am sure Jay has no retirement money invested in the stock market, since he thinks it’s a bad way to save. Otherwise he’s a hypocrite.
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2009
9:45 am
“Would you admit that Clinton screwed up also? What about Barney Frank?”
I would argue that greedy investors screwed up. Just because they COULD make such derivatives doesn’t mean they HAD to. There are banks that did not invest in them, because they considered them too risky, and those banks are doing just fine and have not had to be “bailed” out.
And before you ask, yes I was against the signing of the bill that gutted the protections put in place after the Great Depression. I don’t care who put them in place…it was a mistake, and I thought so at the time.
Taxpayer
December 21st, 2009
9:45 am
Taxpayer refusues to answer my question about why it’s ok for Democrats in control now to borrow from China, yet he thinks it wrong for Bush and the Republicans to have done the same thing.
Robert refuses to answer my questions about his root cause analysis of a problem and his result that CRA is to blame or why he refuses to acknowledge that Bush is to blame or why he makes demeaning statements about other bloggers.
Big D
December 21st, 2009
9:45 am
USinUK, thats the best you can do….spelling mistake. What an idiot.
BMDPD
December 21st, 2009
9:46 am
The true answer would have been to go ahead and take it on the chin now so our children and grandchildren don’t have to, but we live in a live for today and buy now pay later society. Liberals, if the Republican ideal of lowering taxes does not work to stimulate the economy, then why won’t the Dems raise taxes during a recession?
Scout
December 21st, 2009
9:46 am
“Off Topic” ………..
Well, this could get very interesting !
Headline: (Dec. 20) — “Members of the U.S. military who become pregnant while serving in Iraq now face the possibility of a court-martial or jail time, Stars and Stripes newspaper reports.
Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III, who oversees the area set a policy in place last month that makes pregnancy a punishable offense.”
Before you ladies get your panties in a wad (which might have helped) the article goes on to say court-martial includes the “impregnator” also ………….
)
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:47 am
Doggone/GA,
Some of the very same arguments made by Democrats about lack of regulation could point the fingers at Clinton and Frank. Let’s be real here.
USinUK
December 21st, 2009
9:47 am
Big D –
“USinUK, thats the best you can do….spelling mistake. What an idiot.”
spelling was the least of it.
G. Sine
December 21st, 2009
9:47 am
Usual liberal distortion of the facts – relying on the gnat-like memory of the public to keep from being “called” on their lies.
Bush’s proposal was to allow ONLY A PORTION of an individual’s SSA – at the individual’s option – to be invested in stock market AND that the individual’s SSA contributions would be his own to pass to his heirs – not more money for the government to toss down it’s ever-expanding black hole of spending.
And, from personal experience, the market performance has not been all that bad for those who chose reasonable investments. My own account pays – in DIVIDENDS ONLY – MORE than TWICE what my Social inSecurity payments are – despite the past year’s miserable market performance – the dividends (most of them) continue right on coming in.
Of course, this comment is so far down the line that not even Jay “cook the” Book(s)man will even bother to read it.
So, that is why, even though I have no respect for Republicans, I reserve most of my contempt and disdain for “Dummocraps” who don’t even bother to hide their contempt for the ignorance and gullibility of the public they claim to “care for”.
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:48 am
Taxpayer makes hypocritical statements, but refuses to explain his logic.
Jenifer
December 21st, 2009
9:49 am
Pregnancy a punishable offense? I thought that was abortion.
USinUK
December 21st, 2009
9:49 am
Scout –
9:46
well, thank god rape isn’t a problem in the service …
oh. waitaminnit.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4506979/
Mrs. Godzilla
December 21st, 2009
9:49 am
Peadawg
Perhaps you can use that thought as a campaign slogan in 2012.
Democratic Spending Works.Republican Spending Doesn’t.
Let’s spend like Republicans.
LA
December 21st, 2009
9:49 am
Jackie, I don’t remember if you ever addressed this or not. When Iran gets nukes, they will get them, what do we do when they launch one at Israel or someone else?
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2009
9:50 am
“Some of the very same arguments made by Democrats about lack of regulation could point the fingers at Clinton and Frank”
I DON’T CARE. It still comes down to greedy investors and poor investments choices. Yet again, banks that did NOT invest in those derivatives are doing fine. Sound investment choices led to sound results…poor investment choices led to the crashing of our economny.
Taxpayer
December 21st, 2009
9:50 am
You kids are really entertaining this morning. “Taxpayer refuses to answer my question. He’s so mean to me.” hehehe
Robert
December 21st, 2009
9:50 am
G. Sine,
Thanks for the posting. I was just about to say most of what you said, but you beat me to it. Good points that will probably not be understood or even read by some unfortunately.
LA
December 21st, 2009
9:51 am
Samuel Adams in 1776:
“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”
Jackie
December 21st, 2009
9:51 am
@Robert
If one takes into account how the Social Security tax collection is structured, it is possible to solve the current crisis with Social Security quickly.
First, one has to realize that Social Security is not “broke” and will never be “broke” as long as we have an economy. Everyone working pays into Social Security.
Secondly, the top taxable amount for Social Security taxes are $90,000. Any earnings more than the current allowed amount is not taxed for Social Security.
Third, the problem is solved and the CBO indicates this would carry the USA well into the 2060’s would be to double the taxable Social Security amount from the current $90,000 to $180,000.
As you know Social Security taxes are roughly 14%, with 7% from the individual and 7% from the employer.
Seems like a reasonable way to solve the current problem.
Taxpayer
December 21st, 2009
9:51 am
Robert does not know the definition of hypocrite.
USinUK
December 21st, 2009
9:51 am
Jenifer –
” I thought that was abortion”
http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/12/15/military_abortion_ban/index.html
LA
December 21st, 2009
9:52 am
Change Nobody Believes In
A bill so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve.
And tidings of comfort and joy from Harry Reid too. The Senate Majority Leader has decided that the last few days before Christmas are the opportune moment for a narrow majority of Democrats to stuff ObamaCare through the Senate to meet an arbitrary White House deadline. Barring some extraordinary reversal, it now seems as if they have the 60 votes they need to jump off this cliff, with one-seventh of the economy in tow.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Big D
December 21st, 2009
9:52 am
USinUK, still didn’t address it did you. I just got back from Ireland and the UK ..you came by it honestly.