Last decade was the worst ever in the stock market

From The WSJ:

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.

511 comments Add your comment

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!

December 21st, 2009
7:40 am

And now you dummycrats want to choke to death a third of the economy, you ain’t seen nothing yet-

As written, the Senate health care bill will force every American to purchase a government-approved insurance policy or pay a tax. It will expand Medicaid by 15 million people. It will create a new government-run long-term care insurance entitlement, called the Class Act, that even Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad called “a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.” And it will create new government-run insurance exchanges on which individuals would use government subsidies to buy government-designed insurance policies. -AmSpec

I guess we could have the government start issuing stocks.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!

December 21st, 2009
7:44 am

The “dot-com bubble” (or sometimes the “I.T. bubble”[1]) was a speculative bubble covering roughly 1998–2000 (with a climax on March 10, 2000 with the NASDAQ peaking at 5132.52) during which stock markets in industrialized nations saw their equity value rise rapidly from growth in the more recent Internet sector and related fields.

The venture capitalists saw record-setting rises in stock valuations of dot-com companies, and therefore moved faster and with less caution than usual, choosing to mitigate the risk by starting many contenders and letting the market decide which would succeed. The low interest rates in 1998–99 helped increase the start-up capital amounts.

bookman is using the high point of the last bubble to set his timeline, and blame it all on Bushie.

Such creative inspirations jay.

Fly-On-The-Wall

December 21st, 2009
7:47 am

IR/YW = Scrooge

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
7:50 am

FOTW – Scrooge was eventually redeemed … I have yet to see any glimmer of hope for whiner

Mrs. Godzilla

December 21st, 2009
7:51 am

Yes, The Bush Administration did have reality issues.

Southern Comfort

December 21st, 2009
7:51 am

The title says it all…

And to think, now our economic status appears to be determined more by the movement of the market as opposed to anything else.

Peadawg

December 21st, 2009
7:51 am

“force every American to purchase a government-approved insurance policy or pay a tax”

And to that, I give the 1 finger salute to Obama and the rest of the democrats who voted for this.

Gale

December 21st, 2009
7:52 am

Today is the shortest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere. It can only get better from here. Happy Winter Solstice!

Taxpayer

December 21st, 2009
7:52 am

This is what happens, amongst other even worse things, when you put your trust in Republicans. They can screw up a wet dream, repeatedly.

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
7:53 am

“I give the 1 finger salute to Obama and the rest of the democrats who voted for this.”

yep … we’re #1!!!

(that IS what you meant, peadawg, right???)

Peadawg

December 21st, 2009
7:58 am

USinUK, here’s a part of the song “The Way I Am” by Eminem (censored of course for the blog):

“not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It’s the one you put up when you don’t give a f*
When you won’t just put up with the bs they pull
Cause they full of s* too”

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!

December 21st, 2009
7:58 am

If you chart the stock markets growth pre dot com bubble to post Community Reinvestment Act bubble, those two little peaks on the chart, notice how you can draw a line from the uphill progress of the Reagan miracle and it lands exactly where we are today-

http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900.html

But then, reality takes all the fun of blaming Bushie out it, awhhh, poor things.

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
8:00 am

Peadawg … aaaahhhhh … so much like Sinatra, Eminem …

Jenifer

December 21st, 2009
8:01 am

The investor class got what they wanted: republicans controlling everything. Did they learn their lesson? I doubt it.

Peadawg

December 21st, 2009
8:06 am

USinUK, that was from my teenage years…I believe everyone I knew in high school went through a rap phase.

But seriously…this health care bill that would tax me if I don’t have insurance is bs.

Vinny

December 21st, 2009
8:06 am

Hey bookman – for the last several years, my SS statement has stated that I will only receive 75 cents for every dollar that I have been forced to put into SS. Besides that, the government has illegally taken that money and spent it for other things than for what it was intended.

Your case holds absolutely no water, as usual.

Outhouse Go-Kart

December 21st, 2009
8:08 am

Hmmm…well considering this market was so gosh darn awful my investing skills mustve been much better than I had assumed.

Congrats to me!

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

December 21st, 2009
8:08 am

Well, I see Bookman just couldn’t help hisself. He had to take a swipe at us godly Conservatives that wanted to put Social Security money in the stock market. I hope he feels proud of hisself.

But don’t you worry, we’ll find another way to come after this Social Security boondoggle. These old geezers need to be took off of the dole and put to work. There’s plenty of stuff they could do besides setting around waiting for the next guvmint check to come.

Anyhow, I bet if you made a chart it would show beer stocks going up and up. And that’s why I’m going to be one fat cat when I retire. There’s three things you can count on. Death, taxes, and drunks. My 401k is getting bigger every month. And alot of the people on this blog are helping out every weekend.

Good thing I already got health insurance at work. I’d hate to be one of them people that get socked with a big tax for not having it.

Have a good day everybody.

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
8:09 am

Peadawg –

“USinUK, that was from my teenage years…I believe everyone I knew in high school went through a rap phase.”

me, I’m more of a De La Soul girl, myself …

“this health care bill that would tax me if I don’t have insurance is bs”

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BK0KA20091221

please – if you can’t buy health care, it’s not because they didn’t do enough to help you.

Peadawg

December 21st, 2009
8:10 am

“Yes, The Bush Administration did have reality issues.”

Don’t even get me started on Obama, Pelosi, et al and their perception of reality.

Outhouse Go-Kart

December 21st, 2009
8:10 am

The OboboCare bill is wonderful. First it will force the lazy and the young stupid obobo voters to pay up some cash or be penalized…AHH HAHAHAAA!!! And second it will assit in sweeping the dummycrats from office…AHH HAHAHAHAAA!

Enjoy dummycrats as you are now living on borrowed time.

Robert

December 21st, 2009
8:12 am

I think it’s clear that you can read things however you want to read them, depending on your political affiliation. If you’re a Bush fan, Clinton rode a wave of positives and left Bush with a bad hand. If you’re a Clinton fan, Bush came into the White House and destroyed everything. However, when looking at the Clinton and Bush presidencies and the performance of the stock market under each, in my opinion one thing is clear and that’s Bush got the short end of the stick. He became president 300 days into a bear market that began on March 24, 2000. Then, only nine months into his presidency, the country was hit by 9-11. I think that we would have faced a stumbling market NO MATTER who was president, just like we would have had the 90s internet bubble regardless of who was president.

It’s also worth noting that the Repblicans dominated the House and the Senate during the Clinton Administration and then the Democrats took it back during Bush Administration.

Peadawg

December 21st, 2009
8:13 am

“please – if you can’t buy health care, it’s not because they didn’t do enough to help you.”

Pass laws for the insurance companies themselves; don’t force me to pay for someone else’s health care. And don’t bring up car insurance as an argument…I don’t pay for your car insurance, do I? Don’t force me to pay for your health insurance. (I didn’t mean you directly, USinUK…I just meant in general)

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
8:15 am

“It’s also worth noting that the Repblicans dominated the House and the Senate during the Clinton Administration and then the Democrats took it back during Bush Administration”

to clarify –

The Republicans held the the majority during the last 6 years of the Clinton administration

The Dems held the majority during the last 2 of the Bush administration.

Finn McCool

December 21st, 2009
8:15 am

The democrats took it back in the 6th year of an 8 yer term. Soooo, they controlled Congress for 6 of clinton’s 8 years and 6 of Bush’s 8 years.

like I said before, it’s gonna take time and hard work to fix what they’ve don to this country. I’m just glad we now have folks in Congress willing to lift a finger…unlike those who want to lounge about and say “No.”

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
8:16 am

“Pass laws for the insurance companies themselves”

they did that, too

Taxpayer

December 21st, 2009
8:16 am

The stock market was up when Bush took office and it was lower when he left. Of course, that was just one of many things that the Republicans screwed up. The adults are back in charge and fixing things now though.

@@

December 21st, 2009
8:16 am

Somehow I’m thinking today’s market ain’t gonna adhere to the proper etiquette on “double dipping”. The problem lies in the government’s recipe. Anyhoo….

I LOVE AMERICA, and her people!!!!

“It comes down to an economic decision, and I’d be more inclined to save the money and take a risk of getting sick,” says Antonelli, 46, a marketing consultant in Raleigh, N.C., who dropped her policy last year when business slumped.

The promise of health benefits could persuade some of the uninsured to buy coverage, including Dulsi Beaslin.

Beaslin, 39, owns a nail salon in Holladay, Utah, and has gone without insurance for four years. She says she’d likely buy coverage under the mandate, particularly if it’s subsidized.

“These new benefits will take the sting out of the mandate and help me to purchase coverage,” says Beaslin, who hasn’t been able to pay for insurance on her $30,000 annual income.

Others say they’ll defy the mandate.

“I will not purchase the health insurance, and I will not pay the penalty,” says Charles Moore, who does database programming in Houston and leads jeep tours in the Rocky Mountains. Moore, 54, hasn’t had insurance since he left the Air Force in 1984.

“Everyone succumbs to some major illness at some point,” he says, “and if I can’t pay for it, then I don’t want to stick my hand in someone else’s pocket.”

“If you get too many young and healthy people who slip through, all the insurance market reforms start to unravel and the whole health bill unravels,” says John Holahan of the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Research Center.

Yet Congress risks a political backlash if penalties are too steep, particularly among those who earn too much to qualify for subsidies, Holahan says.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-20-mandate-insurance_N.htm

We’re a rebellious lot…

Finn McCool

December 21st, 2009
8:17 am

In total, the Republicans have contributed to 15 straight years of offering nothing more than “no”.

And I don’t see the streak ending anytime soon.

Peadawg

December 21st, 2009
8:19 am

“they did that, too”

I know. Keep it that way. That’s fine and dandy.

But don’t force me to pay for someone else’s insurance.

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
8:19 am

““Everyone succumbs to some major illness at some point,” he says, “and if I can’t pay for it, then I don’t want to stick my hand in someone else’s pocket.””

now, that’s funny … I’m sure he’d feel the same if a doctor told him he had an operable tumor – just an operation and a little radiation treatment and he’ll be better … I’m SURE the guy would say the exact same thing “nope – sorry – if it means sticking my hand in someone else’s pocket, then no thanks – I’m sure the tumor and I will be very happy together”

baaaaaaaahahahahaha … you may call them rebellious, I call them disingenuous

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
8:20 am

“But don’t force me to pay for someone else’s insurance.”

you’re already paying for other people’s healthcare

Robert

December 21st, 2009
8:21 am

USinUK,

Yes, during the Clinton presidency, the Republicans controlled the House and Senate for 75% of his term. When the economy started tanking under the Bush Presidency, it occurred during the period when the Democrats controlled the House and Senate. What’s your point?

Normal

December 21st, 2009
8:21 am

Robert

December 21st, 2009
8:12 am

Robert, so your point is…It’s Bushs’ fault, right? :D

Doggone/GA

December 21st, 2009
8:22 am

“But don’t force me to pay for someone else’s insurance”

You already do. That’s the essence of insurance. It’s a pool of money everyone pays into…but not everyone gets the exact same benefit back out. If you have ANY insurance at all you are “paying” for someone else’s insurance.

Peadawg

December 21st, 2009
8:22 am

I see people are still blaming republicans and Bush for everything. I have a question for Finn and others…How has the deficit done under a Democratic controlled Congress and Obama? Has it shrunk or increased?

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
8:22 am

Robert –

“When the economy started tanking under the Bush Presidency, it occurred during the period when the Democrats controlled the House and Senate. What’s your point”

… based on the housing bubble that started when rates were low (and kept too low for too long by Alan Greenspan) – which WELL predated the Dems’ majority

Peadawg

December 21st, 2009
8:24 am

Doggone, USinUK, true. But, what about the millions of people that aren’t putting any money into the pool that I’ll be paying for? That doesn’t seem fair, now does it? They aren’t putting any in the pool.

TnGelding

December 21st, 2009
8:24 am

Reagan should have privatized Social Security. Clinton had the last good chance. It’s too late now. I have zero sympathy for anyone retired or nearing retirement age that got caught in the latest meltdown, but they’re recovering nicely. They got greedy.

Doggone/GA

December 21st, 2009
8:25 am

“But, what about the millions of people that aren’t putting any money into the pool that I’ll be paying for?”

and which millions are those? As far as I know there’s nothing in this bill that gives ANYONE insurance totally free of charge. Please quote the provision that includes that.

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
8:27 am

Peadawg –

“But, what about the millions of people that aren’t putting any money into the pool that I’ll be paying for? ”

if you’ve got a job, you’re paying into the pool.

TnGelding

December 21st, 2009
8:27 am

Clinton’s suggestion to invest a small portion of the Social Security tax in the stock markets was a good one, but Republicans were the party of no then, too.

Curious Observer

December 21st, 2009
8:28 am

But don’t force me to pay for someone else’s insurance.

That’s the nature of insurance, genius. We all pay so that if a few need to be reimbursed for a loss, the money’s there.

And I have no use for these free-loaders who can afford insurance but walk around uninsured and then rely on public funds and the insurance premiums of others when they need medical treatment. If they won’t buy insurance, even with subsidies available, they can’t be fined enough to suit me. They’re just walking, grumbling future medical claims who would prefer to invest in new PCs and other gimmicks while the rest of us are paying for their future treatment.

Taxpayer

December 21st, 2009
8:28 am

If the Republicans had only offered us “No” during their years in power, we would not have been so screwed up at the end of Bush’s rule. The Republicans left us with such a huge credit card bill and pile of other problems that it will take the adults, the Democrats, years to straighten things out. Meanwhile, it is only natural for the Republicans to sit back and enjoy a lot of whine with their processed imitation cheese.

Outhouse Go-Kart

December 21st, 2009
8:28 am

“The party of no.”
“Its all Bush fault”

Blah blah blah. Im happy to announce the Dummycrats have successfully turned over control of Congress to the “Party of No”.

Thanks Dummys!!

PS…Obobo’s lame duck session will begin quite early…LMAO!!

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!

December 21st, 2009
8:30 am

The rushed, secretive way that a bill this destructive and unpopular is being forced on the country shows that “reform” has devolved into the raw exercise of political power for the single purpose of permanently expanding the American entitlement state.-WallStreetJournal

The parasites are building a gigantic corpse that they can feast on.

What’s in it for you? They tell you that you HAVE to buy private insurance, wow, be proud dullards.

TnGelding

December 21st, 2009
8:32 am

Taxpayer

December 21st, 2009
8:28 am

I’m still dumbfounded that they rolled over for Bush.

Robert

December 21st, 2009
8:33 am

USinUK,

For liberals who complain that it was Republican deregulation, it was President Clinton who kept Greenspan at the Fed. And, Clinton who signed legislation to repeal Glass-Steagall. And, to prohibit states from regulating Credit Default Swaps as insurance (essentially repealing the prohibition of so-called “bucket shops” enacted after the 1907 Panic.).

Finally, it was Clinton who stood idly buy as Brooksley Born (chairperson of the CFTC) was squashed by Greenspan, Rubin and Summers because she wanted to bring *transparency* to the derivative market. He did this even after the 1998 LTCM crisis, largely a result of opaque derivatives.

TnGelding

December 21st, 2009
8:34 am

Outhouse Go-Kart

December 21st, 2009
8:28 am

You’ve got a weird sense of humor. I’m crying for those devastated by the job losses.

Robert

December 21st, 2009
8:36 am

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and “redlining” because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to “meet the credit needs” of “low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods.” Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this “subprime” lending by authorizing ever more “flexible” criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. “Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor,” the Fed’s guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as “valid income sources” to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn’t take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. “What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?” I asked in this space in 1995. “Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today’s self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?”

Frank doesn’t. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that “these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis.” When the White House warned of “systemic risk for our financial system” unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the “systemic risk” is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: “The private sector got us into this mess.”

Source = Boston.com

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
8:37 am

Robert –

first of all, since you evidently don’t know me that well, you obviously don’t realize that I think that Alan Greenspan is the root of all evil.

secondly, as far as G/S is concerned, blame the Brits. had the brits (and Gordon Brown as C of the E) not made the first move to remove the banking/investments division, the US wouldn’t have been painted into a corner to do the same.

lastly, when it comes to Brooksley Born, did I mention that Alan Greenspan is evil?? the problem is that there were a handful of people who even had the slightest idea what derivatives WERE, much less what their possible impact would be – and they kept everyone else bamboozled about them.

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
8:39 am

Robert –

the number one lender of subprime loans wasn’t banks.

nowhere in the CRA does it say that banks are to jettison prudential guidelines (like asking to see someone’s income via pay stubs and previous tax returns)

THOSE were the problems – not the CRA.

but nice try, anyway.

Taxpayer

December 21st, 2009
8:39 am

The Republicans pushed all their spending off on others by approving credit card debt, from the People’s Bank of China and others, that required no payments, even as interest steadily accrued, until after Bush left office. It’s like a perverse form of Rooms to Go at a whole new level for these I’ll gladly let someone else pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today Republicans.

david wayne osedach

December 21st, 2009
8:40 am

The last decade was the worst for the US period. We have lost our global supremacy and the American dream to China.

Sam

December 21st, 2009
8:40 am

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Our Congress needs a wake up call.

Outhouse Go-Kart

December 21st, 2009
8:40 am

Both of my parents lost their jobs and continue to be unemployed, however, it really matters not. For years, years and years they have been putting away a little at a time for those rained filled days that finally arrived. Which is much unlike the majority of dumbaces who live paycheck to paycheck, who obtain ARM and interest only loans and who are basically lazy, stupid, take no responsiblity for their own dumb actions.

Some of those who are unemployed are just fine. Its usually the bed-wetting, whining dummycrats who are always caught stupidly unprepared.

BMDPD

December 21st, 2009
8:40 am

USinUK, what is the root cause of the housing bubble?

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
8:41 am

and, to continue – nowhere in the CRA does it say that the ratings agencies should package crap with AAA, leading people to invest in what they thought were “safe” securities, when, in fact, they were the riskiest of all

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
8:42 am

BMPWAEIOU and sometimes Y –

the root causes were 1) low Fed rates and 2) Alan Greenspan encouraging banks to come up with “innovative” mortgage products

Bob

December 21st, 2009
8:43 am

Jay, I like how you frame the Social Security argument. Bush knew, as most do, that the Madoff style ponzi scheme is a sham. He never said he wanted to put that money into the stockmarket, he said he wanted to stop the trainwreck and democrats ran off to scare the old people. The fact is, money invested in the stock market the last ten years in a private account is worth much more today than the same money put into SS. If you look at the SS statement, the commisioner, Michael J Astrue, states that in thirty years, SS will only be paying 78 cents on the dollar. Bush wanted people to have a real account with real money but the dems only believe in choice when it comes to getting rid of those pesky pregnancies, no choice when it comes to a large chunk of retirement money. The dems best case scenario for SS is no return and no ownership of assets, what a plan.

AmVet

December 21st, 2009
8:43 am

Yes, The Decade From Hell is nearly over.

Admit it conned, your boys screwed the pooched. Royally (get it?).

King George and his band of merry men stole from the middle class and gave to the rich.

They watched gleefully as their monied masters looted (or is it lewd-ed?) the greatest economy on earth.

But alas and alack. HAD it ONLY been the economy the dry drunk and his gang ruined.

There will be volumes and volumes written about the destruction – across the board and around the planet – that the worst president in American history wreaked in eight years…

“A good riddance of bad rubbish!” ~Charles Dickens

Robert

December 21st, 2009
8:43 am

USinUK,

I disagree with you on thinking the CRA was not a problem. It is what started the problem. Do a root-cause analysis and it all points back to the CRA. Of course it wasn’t the only problem, but surely you can’t dismiss this fact.

BMDPD

December 21st, 2009
8:44 am

USinUK, and you call Robert misinformed.

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
8:45 am

Robert

December 21st, 2009
8:46 am

Taxpayer,

Your constant blaming everything on Bush is getting old. You bring up things that happened under the Bush years that are currently happening now, but 4 times as much! You mention borrwoing from the Chinese during the Bush years, but forgot to acknowledge Obama and the Democrats in control are doing the same thing right now! How can you think it was bad then, but not now?

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
8:46 am

BMP – okay, I’ll bite, what do YOU think started it all?

BMDPD

December 21st, 2009
8:47 am

Actually, both sides need to see the light here. The CRA did help start the housing bubble, but the banks did run with it. However, purchasing a home will be the largest decision that most of us will ever make. Thus, a wise person would do research prior to purchasing and not believe everything that the “banker” told them to do. Both parties are to blame, but as many Dems are backed by bankers as Pubs.

Finn McCool

December 21st, 2009
8:47 am

The revised healthcare overhaul in the Senate would cut the federal deficit by $132 billion over 10 years, non-partisan budget analysts said on Saturday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BI1OG20091219

BMDPD

December 21st, 2009
8:48 am

USinUK, in short it is everyone’s fault. From the CRA to bankers to consumers. It is everyone’s fault.

Finn McCool

December 21st, 2009
8:50 am

Robert and BMDPD, you two need to learn what the CRA actually is instead of just taking the republican talking-point definition at face value.

Robert

December 21st, 2009
8:50 am

BMDPD,

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?

Taxpayer

December 21st, 2009
8:54 am

So, the problem statement has been made and the gap analysis completed and the fat rabbit is… drumroll please… now for the horn section… and behind curtain number one… CRA!!!!!?????!!!!! Wow. I’d just love to see the details of that analysis.

Bob

December 21st, 2009
8:54 am

Taxpayer, you say the adult way to cover Bush’s credit card debt is to get more credit cards? We had a 787 Billion in stimulus that, according to Obo is working how it’s supposed to, so they then ran the credit card for a jobs bill for another 4 or 500 billion. How is matching Bush’s 8 years of debt in half the time handling things like adults, it seems like more of the same.

Robert

December 21st, 2009
8:55 am

Finn McCool. I know what the CRA is. You need to stop taking the Democratic talking-point definition if every comment you post here and open your eyes to reality. Oh, the link you mentioned above about how the CBO analysis says this will save $132 billion over 10 years can also be disputed by real facts.

Yesterday, The Congressional Budget Office said that “the Senate health care bill would not reduce long-term federal deficits as much as previously estimated, acknowledging that it made an “error” in its original analysis.”

BMDPD

December 21st, 2009
8:56 am

Finn, if I wikipedia the CRA, then it tells me all that I need to know. This is what it tells me… “If I am a minority and I am turned down for a loan, then I can sue the bank for discrimination.” It also tells me that “If I am a bank and I don’t lend to minorities (even though their credit reflects a whole series of bad decisions), then I will be sued.” Yep, it is a great act.

FrankLeeDarling

December 21st, 2009
8:56 am

tomorrow the day will be one second longer than it was today

Robert

December 21st, 2009
8:57 am

Taxpayer,

Answer the question sked of you about the Democrats borrowing from China please.

Bob

December 21st, 2009
8:57 am

Finn McClueless, how much does it cost in years 5 through 14, the ten year period that the benefits will be paid out.

Taxpayer

December 21st, 2009
8:57 am

Your constant blaming everything on Bush is getting old.

Step one must be completed before you can make progress. You must accept the facts and you must do it openly.

Southern Comfort

December 21st, 2009
8:58 am

I don’t see it as necessary to fine anyone who doesn’t want to purchase insurance. At the same time, if someone wants to but can’t afford it on their minimum wage pay, I see no reason why they can’t get a little help to be able to afford it.

I also think the insurance companies should be given a chance to fix any perceived problems they have on their own first before government decides to get heavy handed with them. That way, there’s no excuse if they can’t solve their own problems without government intervention.

As for the people who choose not to buy insurance even though they can afford to, I’d give them this website to use when they get sick and need help with the bills. They can just press the button for instant help.

http://www.losinghorns.com/

Finn McCool

December 21st, 2009
8:58 am

BMDPD, umm, that’s not a definition. That’s an excuse for some outcomes of certain lending situations.

Robert

December 21st, 2009
8:59 am

FinnMcCool,

I will be the first to admit when I don’t agree with something the party I usually affiliate with has done something stupid. Can you say the same? Is there anything Harry Reid has done recently that you don’t feel comfortable with? What about Pelosi? Obama? I would love to see that some people on here are more open minded than how they come across.

Taxpayer

December 21st, 2009
9:00 am

Robert, accept the facts about the Republicans, under Bush, borrowing to fund tax breaks and prescription drug benefits and wars, etc., and putting off payments until 2010, please.

Robert

December 21st, 2009
9:01 am

Taxpayer is what I would call the ultimate hypocrit. He complains about how Bush borrowed from China but sees nothing wrong with Obama doing it.

jt

December 21st, 2009
9:01 am

Considering the individual mandate,

It is gonna big a good Christmas for the insurance companies. And the bankster. And the carbon traders. And Union officials.

Whether you call it “a government takeover of the private sector” or a “private sector takeover of government,” it’s the same thing: a merger of government power and corporate interests which benefits both of the merged entities (the party in power and the corporations) at everyone else’s expense.

Keep falling for the democrat/republican auguement. The corpto-cracts and corrupto-crats are laughing all the way to the bank.

Robert

December 21st, 2009
9:01 am

Taxpayer, are you a hypocrit?

BMDPD

December 21st, 2009
9:01 am

Finn, but it goes so deeper than that….If I am the bank, it is cheaper to go ahead and make the crappy loan. If banks don’t make the loan then……

1. I may be sued
2. I will get negative publicity
3. I will lose other minority customers

Thus, banks are in between a rock and a hard place.

Peadawg

December 21st, 2009
9:02 am

“Step one must be completed before you can make progress. You must accept the facts and you must do it openly.”

FACT: The deficit has CONTINUED to grow under Obama. Care to dispute my claim? It’s on Obama now.

Waiting for the responses….”it’s ok for Obama to do it, but not for Bush” in 1…2…3

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
9:03 am

BMD –

“USinUK, in short it is everyone’s fault. From the CRA to bankers to consumers. It is everyone’s fault.”

no. just Alan Greenspan. anyone who comes out and recommends adjustable rate mortgages when the Fed rate is at (what was then) an historic low is evil. plain and simple. “frothiness”, indeed.

Robert

December 21st, 2009
9:04 am

Taxpayer,

I am not disputing the fact that Bush spent big during his years. I have never disputed it. What I don’t see, however, is the same outrage at the spending going on now.

Doggone/GA

December 21st, 2009
9:04 am

“It also tells me that “If I am a bank and I don’t lend to minorities (even though their credit reflects a whole series of bad decisions), then I will be sued.” Yep, it is a great act.”

Except that’s not what the CRA does. The CRA is to stop banks (not ALL mortgage institutions) from “red lining” an AREA. They cannot refuse an OTHERWISE fiscally sound person from getting a mortgage because of where they LIVE, not because of who they are.

And the provisions of the CRA do not apply to mortgage lenders who are not banks, and it is THOSE lending institutions that were the primary leaders in the “sub-prime” lending market.

Robert

December 21st, 2009
9:05 am

USinUK,

You blame the entire housing crisis on one man? How simple-minded you are.

Joey

December 21st, 2009
9:05 am

Jay:
I have been paying into Social Security for 46 years.
Please tell me, where is that money invested?

Where is that money that I am supposed to be able to draw starting next year?

BMDPD

December 21st, 2009
9:05 am

Robert, I agree. I am willing to admit that EVERYONE shares the blame on where we are now, but they have to blame Bush for everything. It fuels their fire and keeps them going. Yep, Bush made some mistakes I will admit that, but not one of these people will admit that Pelosi and Reid are idiots. Nor will they admit that Obama is going to make mistakes.

@@

December 21st, 2009
9:05 am

I’ve always viewed the CRA as government’s temptation of its people. They put it out there with the bankers in mind. When the people succumbed, the bankers took advantage.

My husband and I certainly didn’t lend ‘em a hand, nor did we get snared in their trap.

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
9:06 am

BMD –

please do yourself a favor and learn the facts about subprime loans.

first of all, at their peak, they constituted less than 20% of all mortgages on the market.

secondly, again, BANKS weren’t the primary lenders of subprime loans.

Robert

December 21st, 2009
9:06 am

Doggone/GA

You think Washington Mutual wasn’t a bank? Please reconsider before typing your garbage.

USinUK

December 21st, 2009
9:07 am

Robers –

ohfercryingoutloud – please acquaint yourself with the concept of “facetiousness”

Finn McCool

December 21st, 2009
9:07 am

BMPDP and Robert, let me enlighten you.

Banks lend money by taking in deposits. So, if a bank takes in $100,000 it, in theory, has $100,000 to lend out to borrowers in the form of loans. If a bank takes in 100% of its deposits in, say, Albany, GA, you would expect that the bank would provide loans to people in Albany, GA – maybe not 100% but at least some. What if the bankers in Albany said, forget Albany, all these deposits are going to Atlanta!

That’s how banks make money, by lending. So, those banks are making money on local depositor’s funds but won’t provide loans to those people whose money they are making money on!

That is what the CRA is about.It’s not solely about poor people or minorities, it just forces a bank to lend some of it’s deposits INSIDE the community where it takes in deposits.

BMDPD

December 21st, 2009
9:07 am

Doggone, sure that it what it intended to do, but that is not what it did.