"We are in a Recession"

[jeffex]

the reality of those people loosing their homes is they didn't belong buying them in the first place. The previous increase in home ownership was facilitated by a sub-prime mortgage farce . Banks and financial institutions were pressured into lowering their lending standards by political pressure from minorities to include them in the dream of home ownership. The collapse of the artificial housing bubble is no suprise . Credit scores were created for a reason. People who didn't pay their bills before don't just magically start just because they are approved for a home loan. Where's the suprise in the number of forclosures. It may be just equal to the # s of people who shouldn't have been in a mortgage in the first place. There are many HONEST mortgage brokers who will assist 1st time or low credit score homebuyers by educating them on how to improve. They are patient business people hoping for future customers by teaching them how to improve their scores and making good financial decisions. The problem is people want to hear NO CLOSING COSTS FREEE MONEY whoo hooo!!! Just like lawyers should NOT be allowed to advertise on TV ,as was the case for many years, there should be oversite as to the bait and switch for mortgage commercials that deceive the average idiot .. I mean American

 

[M14 Shooter]

What do you mean OOPS? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that we are in deep DODO. I agree. and It's going to get much worse before it ever gets better.

So... when does the "get much worse" part happen?

 

[rayboyusmc]

These people probably weren't working hard enough to keep their jobs, the lazy bastards. It's still the fall out from the Clinton years.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Employers slashed jobs by 63,000 in February, the most in five years, the starkest sign yet the country is heading dangerously toward recession or is in one already.
The Labor Department's report, released Friday, also showed that the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.8 percent as hundreds of thousands of people -- perhaps discouraged by their prospects -- left the civilian labor force. The jobless rate was 4.9 percent in January.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080307/economy.html

 

[M14 Shooter]

These people probably weren't working hard enough to keep their jobs, the lazy bastards. It's still the fall out from the Clinton years.

63,000?
OMFG!! Thats 10% of the population of North Dakota!!

 

[rayboyusmc]

WASHINGTON - President Bush's top economic adviser said Friday the nation's economic growth could dip into negative territory for the current quarter, an assessment that tracks with many outside experts but is the most pessimistic to come so far from the White House.

Mastering the art of understatement.

"We don't really know whether it will be negative or not," Edward Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told reporters at the White House. "We have definitely downgraded our forecast for this quarter."

fasdfasf

 

[M14 Shooter]

One -must- wonder where all this (partisan) joy and glee about a quarter of negative economic growth was in 3rd/2000...

 

[rayboyusmc]

One -must- wonder where all this (partisan) joy and glee about a quarter of negative economic growth was in 3rd/2000...

I really love the frigging games you play. If we dare to point out anything negative about what the Bush is doing, we are doing it with joy and glee that the country is in trouble. Bullshit. I have no more reason for the economy to tank than you do. I also work for a living and am affected by it. But as long as there is still free speech and Bush screws up, I will mention it whether you want to hear it or not.

Just because you might do this if the shoe was on the other foot don't try to make it like the other side is as negative as you are.

We are against America if we point out that the Iraq war was all fucked up, etc. etc. etc.

The only ones who believe this bullshit is your own side.

This is so typical of some people who refuse to admit that their side might ever make a mistake that when they do and some point it out, do they try and fix it?, no they make personal attacks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I really love the frigging games you play.

So... you mean to say that when there was negative growth in 3rd/2000, you and the people now gleefully pointing out the negative growth numbers were doing the same then?

And...you also mean to say that when there was positive growth all thru 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007, you and the people now gleefully pointing out the negative growth numbers were gleefully pointing out those positive growth numbers?

Or, are you honest enough that all of this is just a partisan attack on GWB?

If we dare to point out anything negative about what the Bush is doing,

What -Bush- is doing?
Bush is causing the (supposed) negative growth in the economy?
Really? How?
Were you also pointing out all the positive growth that Bush was doing?

But as long as there is still free speech and Bush screws up...

How did a Bush screw up caused the (supposed) negative growth this quarter?

This is so typical of some people who refuse to admit that their side might ever make a mistake...

What Bush mistake caused the (supposed) negative growth this quarter?

 

[Zoomie1980]

I disagree. I happen to consider it is much more serious that you would have us beleive. I think it is just the tip of a huge financial iceberg.

That's fine, that you believe that, but how about backing it up with real economic data and analysis.

Actually closer 90% of mortgages are being paid on time, not 80%. The subprime market is only a SMALL FRACTION of the total market. Most home buyers are quite solid credit risks, even today. Just under 95% of working age Americans who want a job still have one. Somewhere between 80 and 90% of mortgages are still being paid on time. 80% of credit card bills are being paid on time. And anyone who lives in California or the Northeast knows that housing prices the past 15 years have become ridiculous and long overdue a fall. That's just NORMAL functioning of the economy....

 

[Zoomie1980]

I really love the frigging games you play. If we dare to point out anything negative about what the Bush is doing, we are doing it with joy and glee that the country is in trouble. Bullshit. I have no more reason for the economy to tank than you do. I also work for a living and am affected by it. But as long as there is still free speech and Bush screws up, I will mention it whether you want to hear it or not.

Just because you might do this if the shoe was on the other foot don't try to make it like the other side is as negative as you are.

We are against America if we point out that the Iraq war was all fucked up, etc. etc. etc.

The only ones who believe this bullshit is your own side.

This is so typical of some people who refuse to admit that their side might ever make a mistake that when they do and some point it out, do they try and fix it?, no they make personal attacks.

So what did the President do to force all those people to buy homes they couldn't afford, cause the lenders to give money to poor credit risks, cause real-estate speculators to bid up the prices of homes to ridiculous levels, and cause China and India to start using so much oil? I'm still waiting for you (and Barak Obama who claims this as well) to give us SPECIFIC things that Bush has done to "cause" this? Especially since he yet to get a single bill of his passed in this Congress.

 

[Paulie]

And...you also mean to say that when there was positive growth all thru 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007, you and the people now gleefully pointing out the negative growth numbers were gleefully pointing out those positive growth numbers?

I would like to point out that the growth during those years was particularly artificial, and much of it can be attributed to the eventual credit crisis this country is NOW in. What horrible things are about to ensue in our economy in these next couple years are going to be the by-product of all that "growth" during the early part of this decade.

No, it's not completely Bush's fault, it's the Federal Reserve and congress as well, but Bush appointed Bernanke, who's probably the worst Fed chairman this country has ever had, and the irresponsible congress was basically in lockstep with everything Bush proposed fiscally. There was nary a disagreement with Bush in that congress in 6 years. His administration used fear and manipulation to get congress behind just about everything involving spending.

 

[jeffex]

i WOULD argue that Greenspan was at fault and Bernacke just took over his mess. However, The current FED is lowering rates to keep the BANKS afloat not necessarily the consumer. Greenspan was a financial god for most of his tenure but in the end he was a spokesman for this forclosure mess. He has the nerve to try and put the blame on Bush. its as bad as Jimmy Carter bashing Bush hoping HE will take over his role as the worst president in modern times.

 

[Paulie]

i WOULD argue that Greenspan was at fault and Bernacke just took over his mess. However, The current FED is lowering rates to keep the BANKS afloat not necessarily the consumer. Greenspan was a financial god for most of his tenure but in the end he was a spokesman for this forclosure mess. He has the nerve to try and put the blame on Bush. its as bad as Jimmy Carter bashing Bush hoping HE will take over his role as the worst president in modern times.

They're lowering rates because it's the only thing they know how to do. Lower rates means more money created, which is their only option to staving off depression. Inflate/Deflate are the only options in a fiat-based economy.

It's not just the foreclosure mess, either. It's the irresponsibility with credit PERIOD. Low rates in the early part of the decade enticed consumers to finance EVERYTHING. There's just too much debt now. Too much debt, too much inflation, and the breaking point is coming. It's just a matter of when.

The Fed can only hold it back for so long. Welcome to stagflation.

 

[rayboyusmc]

The flow of blood may be ebbing, but the flood of money into the Iraq war is steadily rising, new analyses show. In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book.


Beyond 2008, working with "best-case" and "realistic-moderate" scenarios, they project the Iraq and Afghan wars, including long-term U.S. military occupations of those countries, will cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion — or more — by 2017.

Also, it is the right that gets "gleeful" when a Democratic administration is failing and the people are hurting, not the left.

What a bunch of crap. If we dare point out any deficiencies we are gleeful and unpatriotic. That crap worked with Hitler, it don't work here. Instead of attacking the left, come up with your solutions or prove the data wrong.

It's really a fucking waste of time to call names without offering solutions.

 

[Diuretic]

They're lowering rates because it's the only thing they know how to do. Lower rates means more money created, which is their only option to staving off depression. Inflate/Deflate are the only options in a fiat-based economy.

It's not just the foreclosure mess, either. It's the irresponsibility with credit PERIOD. Low rates in the early part of the decade enticed consumers to finance EVERYTHING. There's just too much debt now. Too much debt, too much inflation, and the breaking point is coming. It's just a matter of when.

The Fed can only hold it back for so long. Welcome to stagflation.

I remember stagflation here in the early 1970s when it hit us, it was about the time of the first big oil crunch, which if my memory serves me correctly (hit and miss these days) was caused by the OPEC cartel. Anyway I do remember its effects on our small economy and they were damn ugly. I hope it isn't coming back.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Also, it is the right that gets "gleeful" when a Democratic administration is failing and the people are hurting, not the left.

What a bunch of crap. If we dare point out any deficiencies we are gleeful and unpatriotic. That crap worked with Hitler, it don't work here. Instead of attacking the left, come up with your solutions or prove the data wrong.

It's really a fucking waste of time to call names without offering solutions.

I see you didnt address the questions I put to you.

 

[jodylee]

the money masters are playing their old game of giving credit then tightening up all of a sudden. credit cruch my foot, its planned and calculated.
if you don't want these things to happen in the future, the govenment needs to gain control over the (independent) federal reserve and stop the money monopoly. but then anyone who tries to do that, gets shot e.g JFK

 

[gonegolfin]

They're lowering rates because it's the only thing they know how to do. Lower rates means more money created, which is their only option to staving off depression. Inflate/Deflate are the only options in a fiat-based economy.

No, lower rates does not necessarily mean more money created. Lower rates usually stimulates lending (provided the banks are willing to lend) which then results in money creation. Money must be borrowed into existence unless we are talking about Fed monetization of debt. Yes, the Fed is offering cheap money to the banks and the banks are taking it. But looking at the monetary supply figures, I do not think much of that money is being lent. And I do not blame the banks. There is a lot of risk out there in lending to the consumer for what is a paltry return. This is one reason why longer term rates eventually must move higher (we are in a bond bubble). Another is that foreigners will demand more return for their US debt investments, especially with the falling Dollar. I think that in many cases the banks are executing a carry trade on the Dollar. I think there is more money to be made by borrowing cheap dollars from the Fed and investing in currency futures (of stronger foreign currencies) and other investments. This would be a much better investment than lending to the US consumer. As such, the Fed finds itself in a bind. They cannot force the banks to lend.

The Fed is also (and has been for several months) doing more than lowering interest rates. They have been making billions of $$ of cash and treasury securities available via the TAF and TSLF respectively.


Brian

 

[gonegolfin]

I remember stagflation here in the early 1970s when it hit us, it was about the time of the first big oil crunch, which if my memory serves me correctly (hit and miss these days) was caused by the OPEC cartel. Anyway I do remember its effects on our small economy and they were damn ugly. I hope it isn't coming back.

The oil crunch in the early 70's was not caused by OPEC. It was caused the debasement of our currency.

Brian

 

[Paulie]

The oil crunch in the early 70's was not caused by OPEC. It was caused the debasement of our currency.

Brian

Much like today.

It's almost never really OPEC's fault, per se. They just make an easy scapegoat to sell to the rest of the sheep who have no clue otherwise. It's pretty easy to scapegoat them these days too, especially in this post 9/11 world. I mean, most people equate them with "dirty muslims", so almost instantly, 1/3 of the population WITHOUT QUESTION accepts the notion that it's OPEC's fault.

It seems as though OPEC has been pegging the price of oil to gold, and can you really blame them? Why would you want to sell your #1 export in US Dollar terms? Gold and silver have basically the same purchasing power today as they did decades ago, while your $1 Fed Reserve Note today buys you about 3 cents worth of the goods it bought you in 1913.