09/15/08 - McCain - "The fundamentals of our economy are strong"

[Tat2Jr]

How could John McCain say THIS on THIS day? How out of touch do you have to be? I can't believe this fucker is going to be our next president all because he added a MILF to his ticket. BTW - Speaking of Palin, the last Pentecostal that you'd remember in government would be John Ashcroft.

"the fundamentals of our economy are strong"
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...f_economy.html

[xmas13]

What? The man is just saying what he was told. Where does it say on his resume that he was a banker or economist?

[cykoe6]

He said that because it is true. Bank failures are a natural result of a real estate market bubble collapse. They are not indicative of structural problem with the economy in this instance. Many stocks are up today as a result of oil falling under $100. Obviously it is a tough day for the financial sector and Wall Street but that does not mean a disaster on Main Street.

[xmas13]

On the defense of politicians, even economists/bankers don't know what they are talking about, especially the so-called specialists invited on television.

But that's not the role of politicians anyway. What we need is incorruptible politicians not greedy bankers or retarded economists.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

He said that because it is true. Bank failures are a natural result of a real estate market bubble collapse. They are not indicative of structural problem with the economy in this instance. Many stocks are up today as a result of oil falling under $100. Obviously it is a tough day for the financial sector and Wall Street but that does not mean a disaster on Main Street.

If the fundamentals are so strong, why does the government need to keep coming in and bailing out companies? I mean if those fundamentals are strong, Fannie and Freddie should have been able to die like every other company.

There is a structural problem with the economy. Some of these companies get so large that they can take down the entire economy with it.

[xmas13]

JFK and RFK were the last attempts to bring some ethics back into the highest levels of government. It's been going downhill again right after their assassination.

[gornyhuy]

Well, he is a (Christian) fundamentalist. i guess he knows what he's talking about when it comes to (Christian) fundamentals.

[cykoe6]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

If the fundamentals are so strong, why does the government need to keep coming in and bailing out companies? I mean if those fundamentals are strong, Fannie and Freddie should have been able to die like every other company.

There is a structural problem with the economy. Some of these companies get so large that they can take down the entire economy with it.

There are structural problems in the banking sector relating to overexposure to real estate loans. Fannie and Freddie were the main players in that market and their failure would have created more instability in the financial sector. It is going to be a rough ride for banks with real estate loan exposure just like it always is in a real estate bubble collapse. That does not mean that the overall economy is bad. Transportation companies in particular are starting to recover as the price of oil comes down. The transportation sector is more important to the overall health of the economy than than the failure of a few highly leverage investment banks.

Most of these banks that are failing had turned themselves into hedge funds holding large amounts of risky real estate related derivatives. Their failure is the natural result of a shake out in that market. They made big bets and lost. It is not indicative of a larger systemic problem in the overall economy. The systemic problem exists within the financial sector itself.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

There are structural problems in the banking sector relating to overexposure to real estate loans. Fannie and Freddie were the main players in that market and their failure would have created more instability in the financial sector. It is going to be a rough ride for banks with real estate loan exposure just like it always is in a real estate bubble collapse. That does not mean that the overall economy is bad. Transportation companies in particular are starting to recover as the price of oil comes down. The transportation sector is more important to the overall health of the economy than than the failure of a few highly leverage investment banks.

Most of these banks that are failing had turned themselves into hedge funds holding large amounts of risky real estate related derivatives. Their failure is the natural result of a shake out in that market. They made big bets and lost. It is not indicative of a larger systemic problem in the overall economy. The systemic problem exists within the financial sector itself.

So the fundamentals of our economy are strong as long as we have a trillion dollars in taxpayer money to fix it when problems arise.

I think what you are talking about is a fundamental issue in the economy. The ability for these banks and financial institutions to take such risks with money they essentially don't have. To play games with the accounting figures to show inflated profits that don't exist to boost a stock price. The ridiculous amounts of greed that puts every single American at risk because of their lack of fundamental principles.

If you don't think a few companies that can put the entire economy and every taxpayer at huge financial risk is a fundamental problem in our economy, I don't know what I can say.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

He said that because it is true. Bank failures are a natural result of a real estate market bubble collapse. They are not indicative of structural problem with the economy in this instance. Many stocks are up today as a result of oil falling under $100. Obviously it is a tough day for the financial sector and Wall Street but that does not mean a disaster on Main Street.

You really are a brown nose ....

[seeandsee]

gfy mccain

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

He said that because it is true. Bank failures are a natural result of a real estate market bubble collapse. They are not indicative of structural problem with the economy in this instance. Many stocks are up today as a result of oil falling under $100. Obviously it is a tough day for the financial sector and Wall Street but that does not mean a disaster on Main Street.

So your only barometer on the economy is the price of oil?

Consumer debt is at a record high and climbing; more people have lost their homes than ever; wages are falling and prices are rising; 40 million don't have any health insurance; major banks are failing; energy and food costs are at a record high; the dollar is at its weakest point in 50 years; and our deficit is at a record high.

The economy is in the worst condition since The Great Depression and its only going to get worse, much worse if we have someone like McCain that ignores reality. I personally predict a major depression within 2-3 years if McCain is elected.

[Mr. Blue]

Well technically...he's correct, but is he the man to fix the problems? No. That doesn't mean the economy is working, it just means that if the right person came along they could set it on the right path again after 8 years of mismanagement.

The U.S. has the fundamentals to turn the economy around...it's not like we're a poor country with limited resources and the only export is mango juice. However, even a country with the fundamentals can have a really bad economy under the wrong leadership.

Here's the kicker, McCain can't fix it, he's going to give more of the same and I don't think Obama is qualified...so...everyone learn Chinese.

[cykoe6]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I think what you are talking about is a fundamental issue in the economy. The ability for these banks and financial institutions to take such risks with money they essentially don't have. To play games with the accounting figures to show inflated profits that don't exist to boost a stock price.

The mismanagement of Fannie and Freddie is a true scandal and should result in criminal prosecutions. Those companies had a quasi-governmental guarantee yet they took huge amounts of risk as if they were a private hedge fund. They purchased a huge amount of risky mortgage loans from Countrywide Financial (coincidently at the same time Countrywide was giving sweetheart loans to the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Chris Dodd and the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Conrad Burns).

Fannie and Freddie should never have been in the business of underwriting risky sub-prime loans but because of Countryside's friends in the Senate they were able to get away with it. That is a true scandal. Dodd and Burns should resign at a minimum.

Lehman Brothers on the other hand was a private bank and had every right to take whatever risks the board and the executives believed were correct. That is also why Lehman should be allowed to fail.

[Smooth J.]

He makes some good fries though.

[brassmonkey]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=gUBDM16ylvU
buddies maybe cousins

[cykoe6]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

So your only barometer on the economy is the price of oil?

Ummmm how about this?

Aug. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy expanded faster than previously estimated in the second quarter, helped by a surge in exports that will probably wane as Europe and Japan head toward recessions.

Gross domestic product increased at a 3.3 percent annual pace, compared with the initial estimate of 1.9 percent, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Trade contributed the most to U.S. growth in almost three decades.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aMuMosauQxa4

While their are problems the economy is still growing and is not in a recession much less a depression, despite the hysterical (and unsupported) claims you hear on GFY. There are problems but it is hardly on the verge of collapse.

[Drake]

Somebody please remind him of the national debt.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.png

[L-Pink]

cykoe6 ...... nice posts.

[Drake]

Is McCain's economic plan any different than the "trickle down theory" described below?

History has shown that the ?trickle down theory? does not work. Republican President Hoover tried the ?trickle down? theory (his words) to solve economic problems during the last few years of his only term, when the greatest economic depression this country has ever faced began. It is often called the Republican Depression because it was their financial philosophy that led to the collapse of the economy. Tax cuts for the rich did not work and things got worse.

President Roosevelt got into office, raised taxes on the rich, created jobs for the poor and turned things around. Mr. Reagan employed Hoover?s failed trickle down theory again in the ?80s and again it did not work. The rich got richer, but the poor got poorer and the economy declined. Mr. Bush Sr., who always had a problem with the ?vision thing?, continued the failed policy of his immediate predecessor.

Mr. Clinton took a more progressive approach and, as Roosevelt had done, turned the Hoover model upside down. Instead of making the rich richer in the hope that they would spend that money and thus create demand and therefore jobs, he created a tax environment that encouraged the creation of jobs directly. It was an economic environment where everyone could get rich, not just a few, and it worked. Lots of jobs and lots of new millionaires were created while Clinton was in office. More new millionaires were created during the Clinton administration than at any other time in our history.

President Bush II slipped into office and once again applied the Neo-Con manta of the old trickle down tax model and immediately created a need to raise the debt level to pay for an unjustified tax cut in 2001. Predictably (and before 9/11) the nation lost jobs and there were fewer new millionaires. Not learning from his past mistakes, Bush pushed through yet more tax cuts in 2003, 2005 and 2006 -- all while expanding the military, the largest single component of the budget. He and his lap dog Republican Congress never learned from their mistakes. As a result, the national debt has increased an average of $1.5 billion per day since the beginning of 2002.

While it is a great jabbing sound bite, the facts show that the ?tax and spend? rhetoric Republicans often spew about Democrats is not as bad as it sounds. Taxing before spending actually reflects good government. The facts also show that it most often takes a Democratic President to control and reduce spending. The truth is that the Republicans are the party of ?borrow and spend?. They hate taxes, but love to spend; their solution is to put off paying till later for our security today. They prefer to see our children pay for their debt. Neo-Conservative thinking has run up over an 8.5 trillion dollar debt that will not be paid off for a generation or more, and is still increasing at an astounding rate with no end to deficit spending in sight.

- http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Is his tax plan any different from the Bush Tax cuts (or rather tax shift) described below?

If spending increases, as it has under the current administration, then sooner or later taxes must increase (or inflation, a type of tax, will go up)...

Today, conservatives seem to believe that the public does want big government and that the only way to curb government growth it is to fool the public with lower taxes today so that the costs of government will be so high tomorrow that no one will accept the offer....

Will deficits in fact force future administrations to cut spending? It?s possible but I am fearful. The combination of changing demographics and current tax cuts is seeding our economy for a fiscal ?perfect storm.? When the storm hits there will be a crisis, and as economist and historian Robert Higgs has ably demonstrated in Crisis and Leviathan, small government rarely does well in a crisis...

Today it is evident that we have two political parties: the Tax and Spenders and the No-Tax and Spenders. Neither party is fiscally conservative. Is there no room at the inn for an honest conservative? A conservative who makes the case for smaller government on its merits and not just as the fallback option when fiscal bankruptcy threatens?

- http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1143

[marketsmart]

CPI comes out tonight and in the morning for germany, england, and the US... that will give an indicator of where the US and global economy are headed...

[Drake]

Technically yes the the fundamentals of the economy are sound, but only if you exclude the increased spending and increasing national debt.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

Lehman Brothers on the other hand was a private bank and had every right to take whatever risks the board and the executives believed were correct. That is also why Lehman should be allowed to fail.

So then why not Bear Stearns? Don't they fit the same criteria?

The same can be said for AIG. I will guarantee you that the government will not allow them to fail. Because if they did, we're all in big trouble.

Lets also not forget that the fed has opened up their lending to investment firms and other institutions that should never have access to it. They've had to cut interest rates massively thereby hurting the average American to save some big money players.

Like I said, if you feel that a few companies should have this much power over all the people and can destroy our economy in a whim, so be it. I don't consider that fundamentally strong.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

So then why not Bear Stearns? Don't they fit the same criteria?

The same can be said for AIG. I will guarantee you that the government will not allow them to fail. Because if they did, we're all in big trouble.

Lets also not forget that the fed has opened up their lending to investment firms and other institutions that should never have access to it. They've had to cut interest rates massively thereby hurting the average American to save some big money players.

Like I said, if you feel that a few companies should have this much power over all the people and can destroy our economy in a whim, so be it. I don't consider that fundamentally strong.

You laid it out there for him several times.

Some people are just not going to hear it no matter how clear it is.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Mike33

Technically yes the the fundamentals of the economy are sound, but only if you exclude the increased spending and increasing national debt.

And since spending and national debt are fundamental to the economy, the fundamentals of the economy are not genuinely strong.

[Biggy]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

He said that because it is true. Bank failures are a natural result of a real estate market bubble collapse. They are not indicative of structural problem with the economy in this instance. Many stocks are up today as a result of oil falling under $100. Obviously it is a tough day for the financial sector and Wall Street but that does not mean a disaster on Main Street.

http://finance.google.com/finance

lower left it gives you sector by sector. since ive been using finance google since it launched, i have never seen it like this.