who will the GOP trot out in 2016?

[xsited1]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Yeah, that's how you folks win elections.

That's what people said in 2008 just before the financial meltdown and that's what people are saying now with an even bigger financial meltdown on the way. No need to worry, though. I'm covered. The US, however, isn't.

This is what happens when you read Newsmax for investment advice.

What is Newsmax? Did they predict the 2008 financial meltdown?

BTW, just a personal question. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. Did you see the coming financial collapse of 2008 and prepare for it? I know a certain investment adviser on this board who said he wasn't ready for it. I believe that's true for most people.

 

[catzmeow]

That's what people said in 2008 just before the financial meltdown and that's what people are saying now with an even bigger financial meltdown on the way. No need to worry, though. I'm covered. The US, however, isn't.

This is what happens when you read Newsmax for investment advice.

What is Newsmax? Did they predict the 2008 financial meltdown?

BTW, just a personal question. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. Did you see the coming financial collapse of 2008 and prepare for it? I know a certain investment adviser on this board who said he wasn't ready for it. I believe that's true for most people.

I made money in 2008, if that's what you're asking. I bought my house well before the bubble and I picked good stocks. I don't have much debt, we own both our cars and a rental house, and my house is about 80% paid off. So, I'm not too worried about the future.

 

[xsited1]

This is what happens when you read Newsmax for investment advice.

What is Newsmax? Did they predict the 2008 financial meltdown?

BTW, just a personal question. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. Did you see the coming financial collapse of 2008 and prepare for it? I know a certain investment adviser on this board who said he wasn't ready for it. I believe that's true for most people.

I made money in 2008, if that's what you're asking. I bought my house well before the bubble and I picked good stocks. I don't have much debt, we own both our cars and a rental house, and my house is about 80% paid off. So, I'm not too worried about the future.

Good for you, but surely you realize you are in the minority. Most people lost a good chunk of their investments in 2008. You are certainly preparing yourself for the impending financial meltdown, but most aren't. What people need to understand is that the economic fundamentals point to an impending financial meltdown. Since the government is doing nothing to solve the problem, the meltdown is a statistical certainty.

 

[WillowTree]

What is Newsmax? Did they predict the 2008 financial meltdown?

BTW, just a personal question. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. Did you see the coming financial collapse of 2008 and prepare for it? I know a certain investment adviser on this board who said he wasn't ready for it. I believe that's true for most people.

I made money in 2008, if that's what you're asking. I bought my house well before the bubble and I picked good stocks. I don't have much debt, we own both our cars and a rental house, and my house is about 80% paid off. So, I'm not too worried about the future.

Good for you, but surely you realize you are in the minority. Most people lost a good chunk of their investments in 2008. You are certainly preparing yourself for the impending financial meltdown, but most aren't. What people need to understand is that the economic fundamentals point to an impending financial meltdown. Since the government is doing nothing to solve the problem, the meltdown is a statistical certainty.

well, not only that but democrats will march like lemmings to the polls to vote for him and his tax increases on the wealthy and capital gains, thereby sticking a fork into their own retirement investments, it amuses the hell out of me.

 

[catzmeow]

Good for you, but surely you realize you are in the minority. Most people lost a good chunk of their investments in 2008. You are certainly preparing yourself for the impending financial meltdown, but most aren't. What people need to understand is that the economic fundamentals point to an impending financial meltdown. Since the government is doing nothing to solve the problem, the meltdown is a statistical certainty.

What exactly do you think the government could be doing to solve the problem?

 

[Dot Com]

I made money in 2008, if that's what you're asking. I bought my house well before the bubble and I picked good stocks. I don't have much debt, we own both our cars and a rental house, and my house is about 80% paid off. So, I'm not too worried about the future.

Good for you, but surely you realize you are in the minority. Most people lost a good chunk of their investments in 2008. You are certainly preparing yourself for the impending financial meltdown, but most aren't. What people need to understand is that the economic fundamentals point to an impending financial meltdown. Since the government is doing nothing to solve the problem, the meltdown is a statistical certainty.

well, not only that but democrats will march like lemmings to the polls to vote for him and his tax increases on the wealthy and capital gains, thereby sticking a fork into their own retirement investments, it amuses the hell out of me.

...says the 48%'er

 

[catzmeow]

well, not only that but democrats will march like lemmings to the polls to vote for him and his tax increases on the wealthy and capital gains, thereby sticking a fork into their own retirement investments, it amuses the hell out of me.

Most of us aren't in the $250k a year "middle class," willow. so capital gains and the tax increases on the wealthy won't impact me in the least. And, I didn't see you crying foul when Bush spent us even further into the red with a useless war. In fact, I saw you rah rahing the whole idea.

 

[xsited1]

Good for you, but surely you realize you are in the minority. Most people lost a good chunk of their investments in 2008. You are certainly preparing yourself for the impending financial meltdown, but most aren't. What people need to understand is that the economic fundamentals point to an impending financial meltdown. Since the government is doing nothing to solve the problem, the meltdown is a statistical certainty.

What exactly do you think the government could be doing to solve the problem?

I realize we're getting OT, but the quick answer is to stop spending more than we take in. As far as regulation is concerned, what is needed is market-based regulation where the rule of the market in which consumers, not government, are able to pick the winners and losers.

 

[Dot Com]

Good for you, but surely you realize you are in the minority. Most people lost a good chunk of their investments in 2008. You are certainly preparing yourself for the impending financial meltdown, but most aren't. What people need to understand is that the economic fundamentals point to an impending financial meltdown. Since the government is doing nothing to solve the problem, the meltdown is a statistical certainty.

What exactly do you think the government could be doing to solve the problem?

I realize we're getting OT, but the quick answer is to stop spending more than we take in. As far as regulation is concerned, what is needed is market-based regulation where the rule of the market in which consumers, not government, are able to pick the winners and losers.

I don't think the politicians in the current two-party system would like that. See Halliburton/KBR, no-bid contracts under the last Admin

 

[Bfgrn]

Good for you, but surely you realize you are in the minority. Most people lost a good chunk of their investments in 2008. You are certainly preparing yourself for the impending financial meltdown, but most aren't. What people need to understand is that the economic fundamentals point to an impending financial meltdown. Since the government is doing nothing to solve the problem, the meltdown is a statistical certainty.

What exactly do you think the government could be doing to solve the problem?

I realize we're getting OT, but the quick answer is to stop spending more than we take in. As far as regulation is concerned, what is needed is market-based regulation where the rule of the market in which consumers, not government, are able to pick the winners and losers.

We have historical evidence of what you believe the government should do. It was called Herbert Hoover liquidation and austerity. It PLUNGED American INTO the Great Depression.

And if you really believe in market-based regulation, then you should be a big supporter of strictly enforcing the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, cap & trade and the 28 major environmental laws. They all restore free market capitalism by forcing polluters to internalize their costs, not just their profits.

 

[catzmeow]

Good for you, but surely you realize you are in the minority. Most people lost a good chunk of their investments in 2008. You are certainly preparing yourself for the impending financial meltdown, but most aren't. What people need to understand is that the economic fundamentals point to an impending financial meltdown. Since the government is doing nothing to solve the problem, the meltdown is a statistical certainty.

What exactly do you think the government could be doing to solve the problem?

I realize we're getting OT, but the quick answer is to stop spending more than we take in. As far as regulation is concerned, what is needed is market-based regulation where the rule of the market in which consumers, not government, are able to pick the winners and losers.

If I had any hope that Romney would stop the bleeding, trust me, I'd be voting for him.

 

[xsited1]

What exactly do you think the government could be doing to solve the problem?

I realize we're getting OT, but the quick answer is to stop spending more than we take in. As far as regulation is concerned, what is needed is market-based regulation where the rule of the market in which consumers, not government, are able to pick the winners and losers.

I don't think the politicians in the current two-party system would like that. See Halliburton/KBR, no-bid contracts under the last Admin

Rep worthy.

 

[xsited1]

What exactly do you think the government could be doing to solve the problem?

I realize we're getting OT, but the quick answer is to stop spending more than we take in. As far as regulation is concerned, what is needed is market-based regulation where the rule of the market in which consumers, not government, are able to pick the winners and losers.

If I had any hope that Romney would stop the bleeding, trust me, I'd be voting for him.

Romney certainly won't stop the bleeding and neither will Obama, of course.

 

[xsited1]

What exactly do you think the government could be doing to solve the problem?

I realize we're getting OT, but the quick answer is to stop spending more than we take in. As far as regulation is concerned, what is needed is market-based regulation where the rule of the market in which consumers, not government, are able to pick the winners and losers.

We have historical evidence of what you believe the government should do. It was called Herbert Hoover liquidation and austerity. It PLUNGED American INTO the Great Depression.

And if you really believe in market-based regulation, then you should be a big supporter of strictly enforcing the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, cap & trade and the 28 major environmental laws. They all restore free market capitalism by forcing polluters to internalize their costs, not just their profits.

Incorrect. What plunged America into the great depression was a failed monetary policy.

Of course I'm a big supporter of most environmental laws. Why wouldn't I be?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Perhaps an obese, hispanic, female, homosexual drug addict, communist , public civil servant, and ghetto community organizer that promises the "rich" and evil corporations will provide the public all its wants and needs for free................

To get the multi-cultural ghetto, welfare and ignorant vote..................

 

[catzmeow]

I realize we're getting OT, but the quick answer is to stop spending more than we take in. As far as regulation is concerned, what is needed is market-based regulation where the rule of the market in which consumers, not government, are able to pick the winners and losers.

If I had any hope that Romney would stop the bleeding, trust me, I'd be voting for him.

Romney certainly won't stop the bleeding and neither will Obama, of course.

My husband and I are both weighing the cost of Romney engaging us in another 12 year war in the middle east (or extending the current ones) versus Obama's love of entitlements.

Romney is clearly the bigger risk.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If I had any hope that Romney would stop the bleeding, trust me, I'd be voting for him.

Romney certainly won't stop the bleeding and neither will Obama, of course.

My husband and I are both weighing the cost of Romney engaging us in another 12 year war in the middle east (or extending the current ones) versus Obama's love of entitlements.

Romney is clearly the bigger risk.

I'm sure China and Russia will be pleased with your decision; so will Iran.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My husband and I are both weighing the cost of Romney engaging us in another 12 year war in the middle east (or extending the current ones) versus Obama's love of entitlements.

Romney is clearly the bigger risk.

With all due respect Catzshit - which is to say "none at all," you have an IQ of about 12. You "weighing" any problem is about as meaningful as my dog contemplating the weak force interacting with a Higgs field.

IF we end up at war with Iran, it won't make a damned bit of difference whether Romney, or your little tin god is in office. We have a mutual defense treaty with Israel, if Iran attacks, we go to war. Romney or your Messiah® - it makes no difference.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh and if Santorum was supported by 100 million people why did he not win more votes? Also there is over 300 million people in the United States so saying he represents 1/3rd of them doesn't cut it.We need someone who can put their religious dogma's aside and do whats best for every citizen not just some of them.

I merely pointed out that people said that the fact he was a devout Catholic made him too crazy, but the guy who belongs to the cult that thinks they all wear magic underwear, that was all too sane for the GOP this time.

LIke I said, the GOP will probably nominate Jeb Bush.

 

[Bfgrn]

I realize we're getting OT, but the quick answer is to stop spending more than we take in. As far as regulation is concerned, what is needed is market-based regulation where the rule of the market in which consumers, not government, are able to pick the winners and losers.

We have historical evidence of what you believe the government should do. It was called Herbert Hoover liquidation and austerity. It PLUNGED American INTO the Great Depression.

And if you really believe in market-based regulation, then you should be a big supporter of strictly enforcing the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, cap & trade and the 28 major environmental laws. They all restore free market capitalism by forcing polluters to internalize their costs, not just their profits.

Incorrect. What plunged America into the great depression was a failed monetary policy.

Of course I'm a big supporter of most environmental laws. Why wouldn't I be?

What plunged America into the great depression was a failed monetary policy. AND, what NEVER works is what Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon did to bring on the Great Depression...liquidate, and austerity. They listened to the 'Austrian' school. Unless you also believe Medieval blood letting save lives?

Economic Policy Under Hoover

Throughout this decline—which carried real GNP per worker down to a level 40 percent below that which it had attained in 1929, and which saw the unemployment rise to take in more than a quarter of the labor force—the government did not try to prop up aggregate demand. The only expansionary fiscal policy action undertaken was the Veterans’ Bonus, passed over President Hoover’s veto. That aside, the full employment budget surplus did not fall over 1929–33.

The Federal Reserve did not use open market operations to keep the nominal money supply from falling. Instead, its only significant systematic use of open market operations was in the other direction: to raise interest rates and discourage gold outflows after the United Kingdom abandoned the gold standard in the fall of 1931.

This inaction did not come about because they did not understand the tools of monetary policy. This inaction did not come about because the Federal Reserve was constrained by the necessity of defending the gold standard. The Federal Reserve knew what it was doing: it was letting the private sector handle the Depression in its own fashion. It saw the private sector’s task as the “liquidation” of the American economy. It feared that expansionary monetary policy would impede the necessary private-sector process of readjustment.

Contemplating in retrospect the wreck of his country’s economy and his own presidency, Herbert Hoover wrote bitterly in his memoirs about those who had advised inaction during the downslide:

The ‘leave-it-alone liquidationists’ headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon…felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: ‘Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate’.…He held that even panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: ‘It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people’.


The Federal Reserve took almost no steps to halt the slide into the Great Depression over 1929–33. Instead, the Federal Reserve acted as if appropriate policy was not to try to avoid the oncoming Great Depression, but to allow it to run its course and “liquidate” the unprofitable portions of the private economy.

In adopting such “liquidationist” policies, the Federal Reserve was merely following the recommendations provided by an economic theory of depressions that was in fact common before the Keynesian Revolution and was held by economists like Friedrich Hayek, Lionel Robbins, and Joseph Schumpeter.