The Worst President Ever?

266 replies [Last post]
Shania Twain's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-23

The Worst President Ever?

The White House has tried to dismiss the quite extraordinary results of a new poll on Barack Obama’s approval ratings.

Maybe they shouldn’t be so quick.

The Gallup figures show Obama’s rating now stands at 47 per cent – the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term of office.

With Obama fighting to persuade America on healthcare, climate change and the war in Afghanistan you would think this would be cause for concern.

So what was the response of press secretary Robert Gibbs? “If I was heart patient and Gallup was my ECG, I’d get another doctor.

“I don’t pay a lot of attention to the meaninglessness of it.”

He then compared the poll result to “what a six-year-old with a crayon” could come up with.

Sure, polls go up and down but this Gallup survey of presidential approval ratings has taken place since 1938. It is significant.

And while George W Bush’s rating of 86 per cent came in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 even Watergate-tainted leaders like Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford polled more than 50 per cent.

Analysts say the poor ratings have a lot to do with the economy - high unemployment and people feeling the pinch.

There is also a sense that Obama has tried to do too much too soon. And US politics has descended to an all-time low in terms of partisan bickering.

But dipping below 50 per cent is a big deal and Obama should be worried.

Even if his press secretary is not.

Ron 14's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-10

Yeah, gallup polls are meaningless when they are against Pres Barry, but his supporters had no problem using these exact numbers against Bush. Clowns.
In other news, if anyone sees that ass clown Al Gore tell him to come shovel my driveway when its 5 degrees and he can tell me about global warming when he is finished.

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

This is all about meeting people's needs (need to be PC, need to be idealistic, need to be right, need to feel important, need for money). After all the money is spent, which is now,  the liberals' needs should be met for a long time.

Winston Smith's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-13

Am I supposed to vote Republican no matter what because I'm in the investment industry?
 
I think you told me yes before but I wanted to double check.
 
Thank you.
 
Your pAL
 
Winston Smith
 
Palin '12
Go Family Values

borei's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-24

I thought this was about Hoeckstra.

shantom1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-28

And what does this have to do with what is happening at firms?

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

I don't like Obama.  The fact  is that the poll is meaningless.  He has no need to be popular right now. 

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Bush/Cheney were proud to be at 50.1% in 2004...in politics, they call that winning!

LA Broker's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-12-03

Worst ever?  I would not even think it's fair to name a second worst ever behind this guy, he is running away with this award.  People are catching on to this mess he is creating, no chance for re election.  All the college kids and poor that showed up at the polls last year will not show up in 2012, his administration will have a hard to replicating the rock star image a second time, it will no longer be history to go vote. 

LA Broker's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-12-03

anonymous wrote:I don't like Obama.  The fact  is that the poll is meaningless.  He has no need to be popular right now. 
 
You want to bet?  That is all they care about.  Obama is a politician, he makes decisions based on what will get him in again, 3 years will be here fast. 

shantom1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-28

Shania Twain wrote: shantom1 wrote: And what does this have to do with what is happening at firms?

Thanks for sharing.

blow m*

As usual you show us how easy it is for anyone to get into this business irregardless of their mental capacity. My comment was directed at the obvious fact that this thread was posted in he wrong forum (and I think Obama will certainly sink this country into the abyss). Your comment was a derogatory remark asking me to engage in a homosexual activity with you, sorry, no thanks. One thing I find amazing is how so many people put on a facade in public when in reality they could never live up to that standard with their activities, and treatment of others, in private. Imagine a client read your comment, what would be their reaction?

I belong to many online forums, mostly car based, but nonetheless it is embarrassing the childish behavior that is so dominant in this forum. No wonder most of the country wants our industry buried....

Bud  Fox's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-20

mel?

shantom1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-28

Nope, I'm a 15 year veteran of the business, but I pray every day the public does not find this site b/c it would be a major black eye to our industry....

borei's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-24

shantom1 wrote: Shania Twain wrote: shantom1 wrote: And what does this have to do with what is happening at firms?

Thanks for sharing.

blow m*

As usual you show us how easy it is for anyone to get into this business irregardless of their mental capacity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

irregardless

Indeed.

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

Barack "One-Termer" Obama

Ron 14's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-10

B24 wrote:Barack "One-Termer" Obama
 
When he got elected I thought 2 terms was a guarantee and it would have been true if he did absolutely nothing and let the economic cycle turn back around like it always does. OOPS!

Squash1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-19

Politics is tough...
Bush said he wouldn't raise taxes(oops, but he needed to for the economy)
Clinton looked like a genious because he caught the internet boom.
Bush looked like an idiot because(well is underlyings were, FEMA, CIA, VPetc)
Obama will look like an idiot because he caught a terrible recession..
 
Judging politicians is pretty unfair.. especially in this time period with tv,internet and 24hour access..
 
Presidents popularity is always based on current events(which are normally shaped by decisions made by previous administrations, at least on the policy level) and sometimes sh*t just happens

Squash1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-19

PS..
 
I normally vote democrat, but this year voted for McCain because I didn't think Obama had enough experience...
 
I don't think McCain would be doing any better...events shape the presidency, presidents shape the next guy's events

Mr. Sunshine's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-08-05

Obama!!! with 8 years of knucklehead #1 and #2 mucking it all up, a new dynamic was welcomed by most.

Sarah Palin???? ouch!!!!!!!!!!!!! can you imagine?

gabe's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-07

I'm a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here's one example of many:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm

I guess there's a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.

Shania Twain's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-23

shantom1 wrote:
As usual you show us how easy it is for anyone to get into this business irregardless of their mental capacity.

irregardless is not a word
mental capacity this, Mensa boy

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Squash1 wrote:Politics is tough...
Bush said he wouldn't raise taxes(oops, but he needed to for the economy)
Clinton looked like a genius because he caught the internet boom.
Bush looked like an idiot because(well is underlings were, FEMA, CIA, VPetc)
Obama will look like an idiot because he caught a terrible recession..
 
Judging politicians is pretty unfair.. especially in this time period with tv,internet and 24hour access..
 
Presidents popularity is always based on current events(which are normally shaped by decisions made by previous administrations, at least on the policy level) and sometimes sh*t just happensx2 Shania Twain is an idiot!ps: that USA today article does not even include the 26% drop in the dow that occured during George W. Bush's term. Which (at 26%) makes him the worst president ever...if that's your question.

LA Broker's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-12-03

gabe wrote:I'm a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here's one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there's a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.
 
Really?  If you were such a great analyst yourself you would have probably realized there is a lag between laws and policies being put in place and the affect on the economy.  Clinton signed the lax lending standards for sub prime in 1998 but Bush gets the blame 10 years later from all the welfare taking lazy first time voters in 2008!

shantom1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-28

Shania Twain wrote: shantom1 wrote:
As usual you show us how easy it is for anyone to get into this business irregardless of their mental capacity.

irregardless is not a word
mental capacity this, Mensa boy

Next time you rehash some one else's info you should first research it yourself (you might find this will also be an effective strategy to use in your line of work):

Webster's online dictionary:
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.

Keep digging your hole toolbox, your move...

gethardgetraw's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-22

Lol just remembered that Sarah Palin was running for vice president. Could you imagine her meeting with the heads of Goldman, AIG, GM, etc. That would be precious.

Shania Twain's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-23

borei wrote: [

irregardless

Indeed.

Your wrong dumb as*

you man enough to admit it?
i doubt it.

Irregardless is a term meaning regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century.
It is generally listed in dictionaries as "incorrect" or "nonstandard".

the word is regardless

Grammar Girl here.

Today's topic is irregardless.

Hi, Grammar Girl. I'm an English teacher in Boston, Massachusetts, and I am freaking out. One of my students tells me that irregardless is now a word, and apparently it's been added to some dictionaries. Can you clear this up for me. This is serious panic time.

Irregardless versus Regardless

First, let's talk about irregardless. Some people mistakenly use irregardless when they mean “regardless.” Regardless means “regard less,” “without regard,” or despite something. For example, Squiggly will eat chocolate regardless of the consequences.

The prefix ir- (i-r) is a negative prefix, so if you add the prefix ir to a word that's already negative like regardless, you're making a double-negative word that literally means “without without regard.”

Language experts speculate that irregardless comes from a combination of the words regardless and irrespective and that another reason people might say "irregardless" is that they are following the pattern of words like irregular and irreplaceable. But regardless already has the -less suffix on the end, so it's not like those other words.

Standard versus Nonstandard English

Now, on to dictionaries. Although it's true that the American Heritage Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, and the Oxford English Dictionary all list the word irregardless, they also note that it's considered nonstandard. Listing a word as nonstandard is a way that dictionaries concede that a word is in common use, but isn't really a proper word. Standard language is defined as the language spoken by educated native speakers (1), but comprehensive dictionaries also include nonstandard words, dialect, colloquialisms, and jargon--words like ain't, conversate, and irregardless. It seems pretty common for people to look up a word in a dictionary, and if it's there, they think it's fine to use that word every circumstance. It's the "Look, it's a word!" phenomenon. But you have to look a little further to see what kind of word it is, and if it's nonstandard in some way, then use it with caution. You'll sound uneducated if you go around saying things like I ain't gonna conversate with him irregardless of the consequences.

Sometimes words make the transition from nonstandard to standard English. My dictionaries assure me that snuck is a word that falls into this category (although I know that will upset some of you). But since many educated people still rail against irregardless, and the word isn't commonly seen in edited writing, I don't believe irregardless is going to make the transition to standard language any time soon.

Prescriptive versus Descriptive Dictionaries

And one final thought about dictionaries—irregardless was listed in every dictionary I checked, but sometimes words will show up in one dictionary and not another. And it's important to realize that there are different kinds of dictionaries. For example, there are prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries. A prescriptive dictionary focuses on the way the language should be according to traditional rules, and a descriptive dictionary focuses on the language that is actually in use by the population. So a descriptive dictionary is likely to include words that a prescriptive dictionary would leave out. Many older dictionaries are prescriptive, but most modern dictionaries are descriptive. Some people think the American Heritage Dictionary is the most prescriptive modern dictionary (2). It still includes nonstandard words like irregardless, but it seems to make stronger statements against them than other dictionaries.

Book Winners

I have three more book winners this week. Steve F., Mary N., and Greg V. win a copy of my audiobook: Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips to Clean Up Your Writing. They were entered into the giveaway by signing up for the free e-mail newsletter at QuickAndDirtyTips.com. If you sign up for the newsletter you'll be entered into the giveaway, and you'll also get a free grammar tip and links to all the new show topics. We send it out every couple of weeks.

This week the Mighty Mommy has a show I enjoyed about how to take a break when you're sick. I've had a bad cold, so it hit home. I'm not a mommy, but I still need help figuring out how to take a break when I'm sick.You can find that show, a transcript of this show, my contact information, and a bunch of other great stuff at QuickAndDirtyTips.com.

That's all. Thanks for listening.

Irregardless

People think it means:
Regardless.

Actually means:
Not a damned thing.

This is not a word. Now, we have no problem with making up words (if a particular scent can only be described as "fartalicious," we reserve the right to call it so). The problem with this one is "regardless" already means something isn't worth regard (that's why the "less" is there) so adding the "ir" to it means... it's worth regarding again? Who knows.

Should you care?
If there's ever a time to speak up, this is probably it.

Mainly because this is one of those words used almost exclusively by people trying to sound smarter than they are.   HAHAHA

Remind them that when using fake words to at least try to use ones that have some kind of meaning, if they want to avoid unnecessary c***ulance when speaking.

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

gabe wrote:I'm a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here's one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there's a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.
 
It's not a direct correlation, though.  Quite often, the economy is a lagging indicator of a previous administration.  And sometimes, it is simply bad timing.  For example, look at the last 30+ years.  Carter(77-80), Reagan(81-84), Reagan(85-88), Bush(89-92), Clinton(93-96), Clinton(97-00), Bush(01-04), Bush(05-08), Obama (2009).
Carter was a disaster, Reagan inherited a big mess, Clinton was lucky that he presided over a relatively calm period of prosperity and a technological revolution, Bush II inherited a tech meltdown and walked into a jihad on our turf, and Obama was unfortunate to have inherited an economic meltdown.  Now, I blame neither the current mess nor the tech wreck on the presidents that inherited them.  One was a GOP, one was a Dem.  To me, it is all about how you handle it.  As much as I hate Obama, you can't blame the mess on him.  It would have been there whether it was him or McCain.  However, I also disagree on how he is handling it.  But only time will tell.  I just don't think you can tax and spend your way out of a recession.  You need to light the flame of prosperity and ingenuity, not encourage social and economic welfare.  Right now, we are just building some new roads and bridges.  And the other 2/3 of the money is being wasted on stupid social programs and other government waste. 

gabe's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-07

LA Broker wrote: gabe wrote:I'm a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here's one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there's a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.
 
Really?  If you were such a great analyst yourself you would have probably realized there is a lag between laws and policies being put in place and the affect on the economy.  Clinton signed the lax lending standards for sub prime in 1998 but Bush gets the blame 10 years later from all the welfare taking lazy first time voters in 2008!

Wow, that's really bad! I mean, what 'lax lending standards' are you talking about, that Clinton supposedly signed?

I get it that you are a salesman but still, this is not that hard.

gabe's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-07

B24 wrote: gabe wrote:I'm a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here's one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there's a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.
 
It's not a direct correlation, though.  Quite often, the economy is a lagging indicator of a previous administration.  And sometimes, it is simply bad timing.  For example, look at the last 30+ years.  Carter(77-80), Reagan(81-84), Reagan(85-88), Bush(89-92), Clinton(93-96), Clinton(97-00), Bush(01-04), Bush(05-08), Obama (2009).
Carter was a disaster, Reagan inherited a big mess, Clinton was lucky that he presided over a relatively calm period of prosperity and a technological revolution, Bush II inherited a tech meltdown and walked into a jihad on our turf, and Obama was unfortunate to have inherited an economic meltdown.  Now, I blame neither the current mess nor the tech wreck on the presidents that inherited them.  One was a GOP, one was a Dem.  To me, it is all about how you handle it.  As much as I hate Obama, you can't blame the mess on him.  It would have been there whether it was him or McCain.  However, I also disagree on how he is handling it.  But only time will tell.  I just don't think you can tax and spend your way out of a recession.  You need to light the flame of prosperity and ingenuity, not encourage social and economic welfare.  Right now, we are just building some new roads and bridges.  And the other 2/3 of the money is being wasted on stupid social programs and other government waste. 

I'm not claiming that Dem policies produced better results. We can let academics debate that. What I am saying is that the idea that Republicans are better for the economy is not supported by the empirical evidence.

And Carter was hardly a disaster. He basically started the deregulation of the economy (no, not Reagan check the books) and it was under him (again, not Reagan) that serious anti-inflationary efforts began.

Primo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-18

gabe wrote: LA Broker wrote: gabe wrote:I'm a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here's one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there's a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.
 
Really?  If you were such a great analyst yourself you would have probably realized there is a lag between laws and policies being put in place and the affect on the economy.  Clinton signed the lax lending standards for sub prime in 1998 but Bush gets the blame 10 years later from all the welfare taking lazy first time voters in 2008! Wow, that's really bad! I mean, what 'lax lending standards' are you talking about, that Clinton supposedly signed? I get it that you are a salesman but still, this is not that hard.

 
 
CRA

gabe's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-07

Primo wrote: gabe wrote: LA Broker wrote: gabe wrote:I'm a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here's one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there's a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.
 
Really?  If you were such a great analyst yourself you would have probably realized there is a lag between laws and policies being put in place and the affect on the economy.  Clinton signed the lax lending standards for sub prime in 1998 but Bush gets the blame 10 years later from all the welfare taking lazy first time voters in 2008! Wow, that's really bad! I mean, what 'lax lending standards' are you talking about, that Clinton supposedly signed? I get it that you are a salesman but still, this is not that hard.

 
 
CRA

Please tell me you are joking. Once again, I get it you are a retail salesman but this topic has been analyzed to death in the financial press. Don't you ever read anything beyond the sports pages?

To be clear, no, the CRA has basically NOTHING to do with the current crisis. A quick Google search will explain why.

Here's just one:

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

and another

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html

And what's Clinton got to do with anything? The CRA was passed into law in 1977!!

Shania Twain's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-23

gabe wrote:

Please tell me you are joking. Once again, I get it you are a retail salesman but this topic has been analyzed to death in the financial press. Don't you ever read anything beyond the sports pages?

Let me guess.   

college prof?
IT geek?
DMV?

Classic dem wimp. The losers that got their butts kicked in school.
You hate free markets, because you cant compete.

the subprime melt down was a function of 2 main things;

1. Liberal ideals

"get as many people in homes as possible"

fannie   fdr
fredie   lbj

jimmys "enterprise zones"   
"mandatory" lending to low income people

bubba's witch doctor loans
etc etc

2. the failure of regulation (government)

government sucks at everything
no different here
911 happened because the FBI and CIA failed

katrina FEMA

on and on

tax code
epa
ira
hud
social security
medicaid
medicare
fema
amtrack
cash for clunckers
etc etc

government sucks

free markets create wealth

retail salesmen?    ok if u like

I made 650 grand last year.    a horrible year.

Primo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-18

gabe wrote: Primo wrote: gabe wrote: LA Broker wrote: gabe wrote:I'm a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here's one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there's a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.
 
Really?  If you were such a great analyst yourself you would have probably realized there is a lag between laws and policies being put in place and the affect on the economy.  Clinton signed the lax lending standards for sub prime in 1998 but Bush gets the blame 10 years later from all the welfare taking lazy first time voters in 2008! Wow, that's really bad! I mean, what 'lax lending standards' are you talking about, that Clinton supposedly signed? I get it that you are a salesman but still, this is not that hard.

 
 
CRA Please tell me you are joking. Once again, I get it you are a retail salesman but this topic has been analyzed to death in the financial press. Don't you ever read anything beyond the sports pages? To be clear, no, the CRA has basically NOTHING to do with the current crisis. A quick Google search will explain why. Here's just one: http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html and another http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html And what's Clinton got to do with anything? The CRA was passed into law in 1977!!

 
 
"Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated,"
 
Quote taken from your first link.  I assume this refers to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, passed only after a compromise was reached to significantly strenghten the CRA.  This bill repealed much of Glass-Stegal.  It also has Clintons signature on it.
The CRA was passed in 77, but has been modified many times.  Look into it.  Also may want to do some independant thinking instead of regurgitating a link before you verify the facts stated in said link.  Who's fault is this current mess?  Clinton?  Bush?  Dems?  GOP?  Yes.  There were many factors involved.

gabe's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-07

You made 650k? That's great! (by The way, is that what you 'produced' or the money you made?)

unfortunately that doesn't mean you know anything about economics. It just means you can sell. I get it that it's better than selling at the mall, so you got that.

gabe's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-07

Primo,

glass steagall had nothing to do with subprime. I get it you guys are in sales but it's a bit shocking how little you seem to know about economics and the financial world.

I provided a couple of links but there are many, many more. Anyone who at this stage thinks the CRA had anything to do with the crisis just doesn't know what they are talking about.

Primo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-18

You keep saying you guys in sales.  What exactly do you do?  Since you disagree with me, please share the cause of our current economic climate in your own words without regurgitating links.

iconsult100's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-06

It's a shame that the intelligent conversations are often interupted by the ramblings of a few individuals who are true embarrassments to the industry.

NYCTrader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-20

Shania Twain wrote: gabe wrote:

Please tell me you are joking. Once again, I get it you are a retail salesman but this topic has been analyzed to death in the financial press. Don't you ever read anything beyond the sports pages?

Let me guess.   

college prof?
IT geek?
DMV?

Classic dem wimp. The losers that got their butts kicked in school.
You hate free markets, because you cant compete.

the subprime melt down was a function of 2 main things;

1. Liberal ideals

"get as many people in homes as possible"

fannie   fdr
fredie   lbj

jimmys "enterprise zones"   
"mandatory" lending to low income people

bubba's witch doctor loans
etc etc

2. the failure of regulation (government)

government sucks at everything
no different here
911 happened because the FBI and CIA failed

katrina FEMA

on and on

tax code
epa
ira
hud
social security
medicaid
medicare
fema
amtrack
cash for clunckers
etc etc

government sucks

free markets create wealth

retail salesmen?    ok if u like

I made 650 grand last year.    a horrible year.

Here's something I've never understood about right wingers: the implication that any private sector company will always be better run than any public sector agency/state/city/municipality.  It's this supposed "given" you guys always pull out.  Government sucks.  Business is great.  I don't buy it.  Sure, government can be a bureaucracy, and there are certainly many well run private sector companies out there.  But, as any rational person who has worked for a wirehouse or anywhere in corporate America can attest, there are more than enough private sector train wrecks out there.  All you have to do is look at any recession to see just how many private sector companies fail miserably at what they do.  2008 showed us how many banks and mortgage companies are garbage.  2000 showed us how many tech companies were garbage. The S&L crisis... I could go on... the list is endless.  The fact of the matter is that both governments and private companies are run by human beings.  Human beings are not infallible.  Some municipal, city and state governments are run quite well.  It's disingenuous and lazy to assume that government is always bad and private sector is always good.  It's simply not the case.  As with anything, there is nuance.  But most idealogues don't get that.  It doesn't jibe with their lazy and narrow-minded thought process.

Shania Twain's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-23

fact:humans are greedy

without incentive to better themselves, you get the DMV

next question?

Government should do the minimum functions to allow society to function

(please see T. Jefferson, 1776)

call the IRS, tell me how that call goes?

amtrack=chap 11

post office=chap 11

medicare=black hole of waste

EPA=see medicare above

medicaid=see medicare above

etc etc

subprime? govt failed (chris cox, barney frank, cris dodd etc etc)

s and l crisis?   govt failed

SOCIAL SECURITY STARTED OUT WITH A LITTLE IDEA THAT WAS TO BE VOLANTARY AND ABOUT 1% OF INCOME.   ITS WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE THE WAY PEOPLE PAY FOR RETIREMENT

THIS IS WHAT GOVT DOES. IT GROWS.   LIKE CUDZU
AND NEVER STOPS
NEVER GETS SMALLER
GIVE AWAY CRAP CREATED BY POLITICIANS BUYING VOTES-PERIOD

free markets NEVER fail.   (see: A. Smith)
they ALWAYS do what they are suppose to do (humans ARE greedy)

supply side, trickle down, voodoo economics....whatever you choose to call it WORKS

cut taxes, cut regulation and red tape and let people (see above: greedy) work their magic i the free markets

the answer is a MAN WITH A JOB, not you give-away welfare crap

as Ronnie said in 1969     

"HELP THE FACTORY OWNER, YOU HELP THE FACTORY WORKER"

pelosi/reid 750 billion pork feast

give me a break, hey Gabe, have you read this MF thing?

govt "creating jobs".   govt does'nt create anything

Russian govt created jobs, how did that turn out?

govt can MOVE tax dollars around.   take taxes from you and me and pay some guy in an orange suit to stand around "fixing" a road.

check out western europes markets since march, even THESE socialist pussies are capitialistic then we are since Obama nation took over.   

well gabe my friend, we wont have to worry about Obama nation much longer because he is DOA.   done.   see ya   drive safe and thanks for playing.

from 71% to 47%   

independents=gone     
moderates=gone
anti-bush repubs=gone

Jimmy Carter part 2

just like 1980
we will get another Ronnie and supply side will be BACK

Shania Twain's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-23

gabe wrote: You made 650k? That's great! (by The way, is that what you 'produced' or the money you made?)

unfortunately that doesn't mean you know anything about economics. It just means you can sell. I get it that it's better than selling at the mall, so you got that.

Well Gabe,
as horrible as the period starting with Jimmy Cayne's conference call telling the troops that a few billion had disappeared from a couple of their hedge funds......this is BY FAR the period where my team and my self have added HUGE amounts of value to our clients. (just like 1987,1990,1998,2002).
This is where we guide people to NOT fall into the trap and the ultimate paradox (you "feel" the worst about stocks at the best buying periods) of investing that makes the MAJORITY of people fail at beating the risk free rate of return over time.
I have been a portfolio manager for about 20 years and have audited number for 14 years.   We have "produced" an incredible amount of value to our clients.
Ill save giving you the details because you will just call me a liar.   thats ok.

The average no-load genius (like you)is OUT of this market. (check Trim Tabs). Like ALWAYS the crowd has been very wrong.   Selling low and buying high.

its NEVER changes

So you and that pussy, holier the thou John Boggle can KMA.
Check the FACTS.

EVERY SINGLE POPULAR NO-LOAD (INDEX TOO)HAS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER RETURNS FOR THE ACTUAL INVESTOR (HIS/HER BUYS AND SELLS) THE THE TRUE RETURN OF THE FUND.

many HAVE NEGATIVE LONG TERM NUMBERS    

I sleep like a baby and Gabe, old buddy

.....i don't have to work anymore.

I have followed my own advice on saving and investing over the years.

Shania Twain's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-23

NYCTrader wrote:
Shania Twain wrote: gabe wrote:

  But, as any rational person who has worked for a wirehouse or anywhere in corporate America can attest, there are more than enough private sector train wrecks out there.  All you have to do is look at any recession to see just how many private sector companies fail miserably at what they do.  2008 showed us how many banks and mortgage companies are garbage.  2000 showed us how many tech companies were garbage. The S&L crisis... I could go on... the list is endless.  The fact of the matter is that both governments and private companies are run by human beings.  Human beings are not infallible.  Some municipal, city and state governments are run quite well. .

NYC:   "how many private companies failed miserably.."

You hit the nail RIGHT on the head here and you don't relize it.   this is EXACTLY why free markets work.   because competition weeds out the DEC, CC, CPQ etc etc and the strong survive and thus you get the best results humans can obtain.

Is it perfect.... no.   but it is the best we humans can do.

karl marx sounds AWESOME on paper

and the save the whales types like gabe love it.    IT JUST DOES NOT WORK-PERIOD

HUMANS ARE GREEDY. FLAWED.    ITS REALITY.

GORDON GECKOS speech about "greed is good" is quoted a lot as portraying what wall street is all about

but you know what....and i guess it is sort of sad as a human being but that speech is correct.   It is the system that creates the most for the most number of people.

And it is sad that we are not more advanced to better help each other and share. Its is reality.

Just like MF war is reality. We are still blowing each other brains out.

At the end of the day, we are just human. flawed, original sin.

If you want the best results, human greed must be in the equation. (again, see A. smith and the invisible hand)

   

UBStech's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-09

Shania is correct in almost everything he says on this topic.  Its scary to me that so many of you in the Financial industry are trying to protect Obama, when he could destroy you with some of what he stands for. Sharing the wealth, over spending, and raising tax's will get us nowhere. Free markets have always worked by letting the successful prosper, and unsuccessful fail.Democrats, and Republicans acting like democrats, is what got us into this mess. We will get a conservative president like Reagan if Obama keeps it up, as Shania has stated. Shania you are wrong with the assumption of IT being pussy libs. Atleast in our case.Out of 10 here in Nashville, 9 of us are conservative.  Most of us voted for for McCain, but hoped Obama would win. McCain would have been the last nail in the coffin for the GOP. With Obama and his extreme views, he is creating a huge backlash in our favor. He will be lame duck status by the end of next year. Some of the people he has surrounded himself with is threatening to our soverienty and freedom. We need someone to stand up and be a clear leader. There is still not a clear winner in the GOP.

gabe's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-07

Primo wrote: You keep saying you guys in sales.  What exactly do you do?  Since you disagree with me, please share the cause of our current economic climate in your own words without regurgitating links.

The KEY problem (in my opinion) that started this mess is that practically everyone involved (bankers, lenders, buyers, investors) acted as if the prices of houses could never go down on a national scale. Once that happened the whole house came crashing down. It had nothing to do with CRA or Democrats or Republicans although it probably was exacerbated by a trust on markets that bordered on religious belief.

gabe's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-07

Shania,

Great for you that you did so well. If you think about it it's a testament to this country that someone who knows so little about how the economy works can do so well in the financial industry! I guess it's proof that your job simply doesn't require an understanding of things like subprime. Then again, why should it? As long as you can sell you will do fine.

And you voting Democrat or Republican is, of course, your choice. But what I find surprising is the sheer amount of basic mistakes people like you make about the financial crisis revolving around us. I'm not an FA (came across this board some time ago, when I was looking to hire one) so all I can say is great for you that you can do so well knowing so little!

NYCTrader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-20

Free markets have always worked by letting the successful prosper, and unsuccessful fail.
 Apparently GW Bush and his free market capitalists did not agree with this statement.  Otherwise, they would have let these companies fail without government intervening and facilitating a bailout for the industry and a stimulus package for the economy.  Was this the right decision?  I don't know.  But it's pretty telling that the man who for two terms was a staunch backer of free markets and deregulation saw that our economy was so effed that he and his advisors completely abandoned these policies and did a 180.  It's easy to say this sh*t in theory, but in practice no government official (as GW Bush demonstrated) would have the balls to step back and watch as mega cap companies fail.  No way.  Letting Lehman fail was a total disaster.  Imagine if all those other banks were allowed to fail.  Freddie and Fannie?  My God, do you remember how bad it had gotten.  The system was broken.  It's still broken.  But allowing all these companies to fail was not a viable solution.  Does it suck that we the taxpayer are responsible for bailing out these companies?  Yes.  Is it right?  No.  But what was the alternative?  The alternative was doing nothing and watching a complete effing meltdown of the world's economy.  Allowing the market to regulate itself would have brought that on.  The irony is the only way to save the free market system was with government intervention.  Should it have come to this?  Absolutely not.   But it did.Here's what I would like an answer to: what should have been done?  It's easy to sit here and criticize government policy, but Obama has inherited a complete clusterf***.  How should have he gone about fixing the problem? 

Primo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-18

gabe wrote: Primo wrote: You keep saying you guys in sales.  What exactly do you do?  Since you disagree with me, please share the cause of our current economic climate in your own words without regurgitating links. The KEY problem (in my opinion) that started this mess is that practically everyone involved (bankers, lenders, buyers, investors) acted as if the prices of houses could never go down on a national scale. Once that happened the whole house came crashing down. It had nothing to do with CRA or Democrats or Republicans although it probably was exacerbated by a trust on markets that bordered on religious belief.

 
 
I'm glad that you said "IMO" because many different people can look at the same situation and come to a different conclusion.  At the end of the day, there will never be a unanomous agreement on the cause.  Here is my opinion:
 
The economy fell into a garden variety inventory-employment recession.  Part of the economic cycles, happens every few years.  On top of this, we fell into a credit recession, far more damaging and rare.
 
I hope I don't have to go into the garden variety recession, but I will touch on the credit recession.  Rates were kept very low for a long time, causing an oversupply of cheap easy credit.  Adding fuel to the fire was the CRA which extended loans to people who could not afford them (subprime) by government fiat.  Gramm-Leach-Billey further added fuel by allowing complicated derivatives to be formed, letting banks make bad loans and then packaging them to sell to others (playing both sides), and eliminating regulations that MAY have stopped or at least slowed this mess this before it got out of hand.
 
Add in a mispricing of risk and some greed and presto, economic meltdown.
 
I am still curious as to what you do.

Ron 14's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-10

Feel the change ! Feel the change !
I love how you Obama supporters just bashed GW relentlessly when things happened early in his presidency that sidetracked a lot of what he was trying to accomplish (Remember Sept 11?) and now your guy is taking a crap in his own pants and you still blame Bush. STFU.

gabe's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-07

Primo wrote: gabe wrote: Primo wrote: You keep saying you guys in sales.  What exactly do you do?  Since you disagree with me, please share the cause of our current economic climate in your own words without regurgitating links. The KEY problem (in my opinion) that started this mess is that practically everyone involved (bankers, lenders, buyers, investors) acted as if the prices of houses could never go down on a national scale. Once that happened the whole house came crashing down. It had nothing to do with CRA or Democrats or Republicans although it probably was exacerbated by a trust on markets that bordered on religious belief.

 
 
I'm glad that you said "IMO" because many different people can look at the same situation and come to a different conclusion.  At the end of the day, there will never be a unanomous agreement on the cause.  Here is my opinion:
 
The economy fell into a garden variety inventory-employment recession.  Part of the economic cycles, happens every few years.  On top of this, we fell into a credit recession, far more damaging and rare.
 
I hope I don't have to go into the garden variety recession, but I will touch on the credit recession.  Rates were kept very low for a long time, causing an oversupply of cheap easy credit.  Adding fuel to the fire was the CRA which extended loans to people who could not afford them (subprime) by government fiat.  Gramm-Leach-Billey further added fuel by allowing complicated derivatives to be formed, letting banks make bad loans and then packaging them to sell to others (playing both sides), and eliminating regulations that MAY have stopped or at least slowed this mess this before it got out of hand.
 
Add in a mispricing of risk and some greed and presto, economic meltdown.
 
I am still curious as to what you do.

I agree low rates fueled this.

I disagree on CRA, there's simply no evidence that it had anything to do with this. The purpose of CRA was to make sure that banks didn't simply ignore whole neighborhoods. It said nothing about zero percent down loans. Also, the problem with housing is not in 'poor' neighborhoods.

I agree that non-regulation of derivatives made the problem worse. If that's what you refer to as getting rid of Glass Steagall, the I agree. To me getting rid of GS meant eliminating the barriers between investment and commercial banks.

I work in finance, but in the analytical side.

Primo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-18

NYCTrader wrote: Shania Twain wrote: gabe wrote: Please tell me you are joking. Once again, I get it you are a retail salesman but this topic has been analyzed to death in the financial press. Don't you ever read anything beyond the sports pages? Let me guess.    college prof? IT geek? DMV? Classic dem wimp. The losers that got their butts kicked in school. You hate free markets, because you cant compete. the subprime melt down was a function of 2 main things; 1. Liberal ideals "get as many people in homes as possible" fannie   fdr fredie   lbj jimmys "enterprise zones"    "mandatory" lending to low income people bubba's witch doctor loans etc etc 2. the failure of regulation (government) government sucks at everything no different here 911 happened because the FBI and CIA failed katrina FEMA on and on tax code epa ira hud social security medicaid medicare fema amtrack cash for clunckers etc etc government sucks free markets create wealth retail salesmen?    ok if u like I made 650 grand last year.    a horrible year. Here's something I've never understood about right wingers: the implication that any private sector company will always be better run than any public sector agency/state/city/municipality.  It's this supposed "given" you guys always pull out.  Government sucks.  Business is great.  I don't buy it.  Sure, government can be a bureaucracy, and there are certainly many well run private sector companies out there.  But, as any rational person who has worked for a wirehouse or anywhere in corporate America can attest, there are more than enough private sector train wrecks out there.  All you have to do is look at any recession to see just how many private sector companies fail miserably at what they do.  2008 showed us how many banks and mortgage companies are garbage.  2000 showed us how many tech companies were garbage. The S&L crisis... I could go on... the list is endless.  The fact of the matter is that both governments and private companies are run by human beings.  Human beings are not infallible.  Some municipal, city and state governments are run quite well.  It's disingenuous and lazy to assume that government is always bad and private sector is always good.  It's simply not the case.  As with anything, there is nuance.  But most idealogues don't get that.  It doesn't jibe with their lazy and narrow-minded thought process.

 
 
Here is my question to you.  Name one large government program that works.  Just one.  If a private business fails, it dies.  If a government program fails, they just keep throwing money at it.  Government programs don't have to be run effeciently as there are no ramifications for failure.
 
You feel that this time, when companies were determined to be "too big to fail" and required government intervention contradicts my opinion.  I disagree.  It simply shows that the caitalsim is not infalible.  I am still willing to side with the method that took the youngest industrialized nation in the world to number 1 (and not by a little bit) over the government that has a long and glorious history of waste, mismanagment, and failure.
 
Someone asked what should Obama have done differently?  I don't believe anybody on this board has the answer.  There are many opinions, but they are rooted in political affiliations as opposed to knowing a better way.  Obama's actions may have been right, they may have been wrong, only time will tell.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

CRA had EVERYTHING to do with sub-prime crisis. It reduced standards for lending, making sure everybody was "entitled" to a home. This is a fact. Demand of homes went up, resulting in skyrocketing prices and Home improvement shows.

However, I believe Clinton was a good president. I also believe that GW was a good president.

As for salesmen. If you are not a salesman, how do you get clients? Do they magically appear? Have you done absolutely NOTHING to get clients?

Or do you work at a Fidelity call center?

gabe's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-07

Moraen wrote: CRA had EVERYTHING to do with sub-prime crisis. It reduced standards for lending, making sure everybody was "entitled" to a home. This is a fact. Demand of homes went up, resulting in skyrocketing prices and Home improvement shows.

However, I believe Clinton was a good president. I also believe that GW was a good president.

As for salesmen. If you are not a salesman, how do you get clients? Do they magically appear? Have you done absolutely NOTHING to get clients?

Or do you work at a Fidelity call center?

No, CRA has NOTHING to do with the subprime crisis. All the CRA does is say to a bank that if you take deposits in neighborhood A you also need to lend in neighborhood A. it doesn't say that you have to make zero percent down loans or that you can skip verification of income.

Also, about 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies, which are not even subject to CRA requirements.

How can you now know any if this? How can you make such basic mistakes, over and over?

As for retail clients, I don't have any. I'm not an FA.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×