http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/347046_erbe13.html

THOUGHTS? This should be interesting!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/347046_erbe13.html

THOUGHTS? This should be interesting!

trickle down econimics didn't work for reagan and they didn't work for GW either. No big surprise there to anyone who has paid attention.

voted for a failure of a businessman to run a multi-trillion dollar economy, i will NEVER understand....

its basic math......

The GOP is not the party of fiscal responsibility. You would think that a 40 year track record of empty promises on this issue would cause people to stop voting for them, but you'd be wrong. At least Dem voters know what they're getting.

I am still waiting for a die hard Bush supporter to pipe in on how it's all Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton's fault. Has the federal goverment actually CUT spending or have they just passed it onto the States to fund? Under Bush and the pub's the federal goverment is now bigger and more inefficent than ever. Under Bush and the pub's spending was at all time high. Bush's tax cut never benefited me or anyone else I know in the middle class, or maybe they just benefited their big business lobbiests.

It's amazing on how gullable people are, they keep going back to pub's and their tax cuts and let them bankrupt the United States and let big business take HUGE profits, in order to let that fine mist of trickle down economicss work it's voodoo. Unless pub's can actually cut spending they full of sh** about cutting taxes.

It's FDR's fault. We need another good Republican president like Hoover to turn the economy around.

It's FDR's fault. We need another good Republican president like Hoover to turn the economy around.

"Mister we could use a man like herbert hoover again."


/those were the days.

"Mister we could use a man like herbert hoover again."


/those were the days.
People seemed to be content. Fifty dollars paid the rent.
Freaks were in a circus tent. Those were the days.

Come on, ya'll got your $400 tax credit. Now move alone there is nothing to see here.


Now check out bush's solution to our lagging ecomony

http://blip.tv/file/520347

I always find it interesting that we blame the Pres for something he couldn't possibly control if he tried.

Even if you do accept the premise, there's 535 others that have a say in things.

And yes, for 6 years he had help. But let's not pretend that the last year has been meaningfully different.

We call them "government officials" because " 'oars with briefcases" still isn't considered polite in mixed company. Won't even make it past the censormatic. :)

If I believe what I hear on talk radio, the economy is super strong, and it's just a liberal plot about how the liberals are trying to make the country, you know, believe that we're on the verge of a recession and all.

That darn liberal media...

I always find it interesting that we blame the Pres for something he couldn't possibly control if he tried.


Exactly. Even though he isn't the brightest bulb, I don't think we can blame bush for allowing the economy to bubble. Which politician was (is) running on a platform of slowing things down?....regulating loans/credit to amounts people can actually afford?.. requiring a more regulated and transparent market?.....pushing the Fed to up the rate a few years back after they lowered the rates to goose the economy when the last bubble popped under our previous president (and helped create our current housing bubble)? Pushing those things don't get votes, even if they are needed.

That said, his budget deficits don't help anything....

Exactly. Even though he isn't the brightest bulb, I don't think we can blame bush for allowing the economy to bubble. Which politician was (is) running on a platform of slowing things down?....regulating loans/credit to amounts people can actually afford?.. requiring a more regulated and transparent market?.....pushing the Fed to up the rate a few years back after they lowered the rates to goose the economy when the last bubble popped under our previous president (and helped create our current housing bubble)? Pushing those things don't get votes, even if they are needed.

That said, his budget deficits don't help anything....

Like him or not, the president sets the tempo, and the pace of the economy lots of times, while he is in office, and also, things that the president does affects the economy greatly while they are in office.

Bush has only become fiscally conservative since the democrats took over Congress in 2006.

Aside from that, the Bush administration has been telling us how STRONG the economy is, when in fact, we're on the verge of recession according to, well, most everybody else not working for the Bush administration. We weren't there when he took office 7 years ago.

Like him or not, the president sets the tempo, and the pace of the economy lots of times, while he is in office, and also, things that the president does affects the economy greatly while they are in office.

Bush has only become fiscally conservative since the democrats took over Congress in 2006.

Aside from that, the Bush administration has been telling us how STRONG the economy is, when in fact, we're on the verge of recession according to, well, most everybody else not working for the Bush administration. We weren't there when he took office 7 years ago.

I still don't think most would consider bush fiscally conservative.

FWIW, we were on the verge of recession 7-8 years ago...tech bubble. We skated by that one, but many argue it just put us where we are today with housing being massively overvalued.

I don't like the guy, my main point was just that there weren't many, if any, major politicians saying we needed to slow down the growth in real estate. No one saying that housing values out pacing wage increases by 6 times or more might end up blowing up eventually. No one saying that maybe we should regulate the creative loans. A lot of people were making money and for the most part times were good.

So, I just don't think it's fair to bash Bush as the master of the trouble we are in. The blame spreads far and wide.....

Well we can still blame them for trying to control something they can't successfully control just as we would blame a blind man getting behind the wheel of an F1 car. No good can come of it.

Greenspan deserves the most credit for the current predicament, since he worked since 1987 causing it. He consistently chose to keep blowing bigger bubbles to make it the next guy's problem. 20 years of preventing malinvestments from being liquidated and assets taken out of the hands of failures, idiots and frauds has created a very large stockpile of crap that will have to be sold off and redeployed someday.

Greenspan deserves the most credit for the current predicament, since he worked since 1987 causing it. He consistently chose to keep blowing bigger bubbles to make it the next guy's problem. 20 years of preventing malinvestments from being liquidated and assets taken out of the hands of failures, idiots and frauds has created a very large stockpile of crap that will have to be sold off and redeployed someday.

Yeah, add to that organizations like countrywide that give loans for about any amount to pretty much anyone......with funky terms. Of course people buy it up....you don't want to be left out of this great housing market (can't loose!). Media backs it up but pumping everything up further....

Then don't expect anything to happen?

Scary that a lot of the same can be said about the stock markets.

Mission Accomplished

Anyone who thinks the president can't affect economic policy is dreaming. Bush's misguided war is draning billions from the economy. We saw the same after Vietnam. There is only so much money. When so much of it is stuffed in an incinerator and burned, it leaves less for us here. The effects will be dramatic. Couple that with the same kind of super heated fuel costs we saw then and recession was the result.

Ice.

Anyone who thinks the president can't affect economic policy is dreaming. Bush's misguided war is draning billions from the economy. We saw the same after Vietnam. There is only so much money. When so much of it is stuffed in an incinerator and burned, it leaves less for us here. The effects will be dramatic. Couple that with the same kind of super heated fuel costs we saw then and recession was the result.

Ice.

Bush's misguided war? Forgetting that there was some justification for it, he did not take us there alone. There were only something like three Legislators that did not vote to give him the power to go to war. I understand that there is a huge smokescreen obscuring that fact but it remains a fact. Now tell me how this C average student that wears boots because he can't tie his own shoes duped all them smart folks.

Anyone who thinks the president can't affect economic policy is dreaming. Bush's misguided war is draning billions from the economy. We saw the same after Vietnam. There is only so much money. When so much of it is stuffed in an incinerator and burned, it leaves less for us here. The effects will be dramatic. Couple that with the same kind of super heated fuel costs we saw then and recession was the result.

Ice.

Is it draining though? It sure is making a deficit, but that doesn't mean it draining the economy. In theory it should be adding billions to the economy (you know "war economy"). I don't know the numbers though, so maybe not. We'll have to pay it back later, sure....but it doesn't have to hurt us now, except for maybe putting pressure on the value of the dollar, another argument. Anyway, it's peanuts compared to what the housing market *potentially* can drain from the economy....trillions. Without even factoring in the effect on other markets or even considering what that can do to tax revenues (more deficit).

Bush's misguided war? Forgetting that there was some justification for it, he did not take us there alone. There were only something like three Legislators that did not vote to give him the power to go to war. I understand that there is a huge smokescreen obscuring that fact but it remains a fact. Now tell me how this C average student that wears boots because he can't tie his own shoes duped all them smart folks.

There was NO justification for the Iraq War but WMD that never existed and a supposed link to 911 that was never true. Most of the world said Bush was wrong. He did go there alone and he took America along on his foool's errand.

Why does congress and the American public back dumb presidents? Because presidents are supposed to have more information from the intelligence community than the rest of us. We TRUST them to not waste young American lives on fool's ventures. But the fact is he did dupe Americans with the help of Colin Powell. Unfortunately, time and again, presidents like Bush have proved themselves unworthy of the trust. They lie, people die.

The facts are Bush was C average student. He did not show up during Vietnam even in the dangerous turf of Georgia, which makes him a deserter. He is useless when it comes to working through difficult issues like what to do about rising oil prices after he destablized the ME beyond belief and how to find the mass murderer Osama bin Laden without turning himself and America into mass murderers themselves.

Bush apologists rank right up there with Cubs fans when it comes to their inability to see disaster unfolding before them. Unfortunately, when Bush apologists practice denial, innocent people die, America's stature in the eyes of the world falls to the sizer of a peanut and Americans offer up their best young people to be sacrificed for no reason at all and then try to lie to themselves that they are heroes in some way.

If people wonder why I get angry about this nonsense and constant attempt to paint Bush as anything other than he is, that's why. He is killing people, strangling the economy, creating generations more of terrorists, and doing nothing about the real problems at home and overseas. We had another boy killed from our area this week in Iraq. When it will stop?

If you think anyone thinks he is such a great commander in chief, tell us why you aren't suiting up and getting your butt over there in the line of fire. Why aren't you standing in the way of the bullets yourself instead of sitting there at your computer asking others to do it for you?

The lack of guts on the part of the legislators is exactly why we need to go back and follow the constitution, which requires a formal declaration of war to go to same. This requirement to actually VOTE to start a war instead of giving a misbegotten bunch of neocons the power to put us there requires a little more soul searching and serious thought methinks. It also forces the public to realize what we are actually committing to. Hopefully this would send us to war only when it really matters.

As to the original question on the economy, things W could control include proper regulation of financial institutions. It seems every time we let the boys get ingenious without oversight, it's a disaster we all get affected by. Presiding over a doubling of the national debt is not so good either. And remember that no vetos were used as the Republican congress spent like drunken sailors while cutting taxes as directed by W. Give me tax and spend with a balanced budget every time. That approach forces us to decide on what we really want instead of saddling my grandchild with our credit card approach.

This is a joke right? Community colleges offer great courses on economics that can be taken at night.

Think about your own budget and spending. You have only so much money coming in. When you decide to spend more, you have to tap savings or borrow. When you borrow, the money costs more because you have to pay interest. Now put that on a national scale. We weren't making ends meet with any regularity and then the buffoon Bush decides to dump billions into war. That means there is less for other things. When there is no money in the coffers, America borrows. When America borrows, citizens have to compete with the government for cash. Things get tight. Spending slows and so does the economy. Then factor in high fuel costs, higher utility bills, more money at the grocery because it costs more to transport food to the stores. Spending slows more. More people lose jobs. Spending slows more. The cycle spirals the economy downward. Simplistic explanation? Yes. But, it's the basics. It happened due to Vietnam. It is happening now.

There was NO justification for the Iraq War but WMD that never existed and a supposed link to 911 that was never true. Most of the world said Bush was wrong. He did go there alone and he took America along on his foool's errand.

Why does congress and the American public back dumb presidents? Because presidents are supposed to have more information from the intelligence community than the rest of us. We TRUST them to not waste young American lives on fool's ventures. But the fact is he did dupe Americans with the help of Colin Powell. Unfortunately, time and again, presidents like Bush have proved themselves unworthy of the trust. They lie, people die.

The facts are Bush was C average student. He did not show up during Vietnam even in the dangerous turf of Georgia, which makes him a deserter. He is useless when it comes to working through difficult issues like what to do about rising oil prices after he destablized the ME beyond belief and how to find the mass murderer Osama bin Laden without turning himself and America into mass murderers themselves.

Bush apologists rank right up there with Cubs fans when it comes to their inability to see disaster unfolding before them. Unfortunately, when Bush apologists practice denial, innocent people die, America's stature in the eyes of the world falls to the sizer of a peanut and Americans offer up their best young people to be sacrificed for no reason at all and then try to lie to themselves that they are heroes in some way.

If people wonder why I get angry about this nonsense and constant attempt to paint Bush as anything other than he is, that's why. He is killing people, strangling the economy, creating generations more of terrorists, and doing nothing about the real problems at home and overseas. We had another boy killed from our area this week in Iraq. When it will stop?

If you think anyone thinks he is such a great commander in chief, tell us why you aren't suiting up and getting your butt over there in the line of fire. Why aren't you standing in the way of the bullets yourself instead of sitting there at your computer asking others to do it for you?

If you don't like the direction this country has taken, why don't you pack up and get your butt out of it and to someplace more to your liking? There was a vote to go to war, declaration of war has not been required by either a Democratic or Republican led Congress since the end of WW2. That is a straw argument.

The WMD question only changed AFTER we got to Iraq. Prior to that every intelligence agency of every nation with a military of any consequence believed that he had them. I don't recall the direct connection to AQ argument and I believe you may well be exagerating to make your point. The argument I remember that I believed and still believe to be sound was that he might supply the radical Islamists with the means to carry out a WMD attack.

I still find it confusing that Bush's grades play any role in what we find ourselves involved in today. They are generally used to support the argument that he is not as smart as he should be. That makes the argument that he fooled all those Congressmen and women in the lead up to the war confusing.

In any conflict we have ever found ourselves in there have always been those who fought and those who stayed behind. Supporting the war effort and the people who are actually involved in fighting doesn't require that one pick up a gun and join in. That is simply a feel good argument you like to use and it is meaningless, not unlike the one I opened this post with, they are on a par. Did you believe in our intervention in Kosovo and what we are involved in today in Africa? In which country have you carried a weapon for the forces of good? None of your arguments are new here, all have been rebutted repeatedly and most by people much better at it than I am.

This is a joke right? Community colleges offer great courses on economics that can be taken at night.

Um, we had a growing economy for the last 7+ years pretty much thanks to spending based on credit, especially personal. It can work in moderation, assuming you expect the future to be brighter because the return can out weigh the interest. But we didn't have moderation....especially personal moderation.

Oil cost are going to sky rocket anyway (assuming sound global economy). Simple supply and demand. Sure bushes dumba$$ rants about Iran and Venezuela don't help. But when you have a world economy that is rapidly growing oil demand and supply not keeping up...go figure. Go ahead and blame him for food prices though, bio-fuels are ramping up grain prices like never seen before. Nothing like burning your food in your gas tank.

There was a whole lot more going on other than Vietnam to raise oil costs and screw up the economy in the 70s.

So what your saying is that Bushes war and deficit spending is the reason why the housing market is popping and all that spending on equity dried up? And your telling me to go to school on economics? I'm not saying it isn't a slice, just that it's not the majority slice....not even close.

/does not approve of the starting of iraq war.

If you don't like the direction this country has taken, why don't you pack up and get your butt out of it and to someplace more to your liking? There was a vote to go to war, declaration of war has not been required by either a Democratic or Republican led Congress since the end of WW2. That is a straw argument.

The WMD question only changed AFTER we got to Iraq. Prior to that every intelligence agency of every nation with a military of any consequence believed that he had them. I don't recall the direct connection to AQ argument and I believe you may well be exagerating to make your point. The argument I remember that I believed and still believe to be sound was that he might supply the radical Islamists with the means to carry out a WMD attack.

I still find it confusing that Bush's grades play any role in what we find ourselves involved in today. They are generally used to support the argument that he is not as smart as he should be. That makes the argument that he fooled all those Congressmen and women in the lead up to the war confusing.

In any conflict we have ever found ourselves in there have always been those who fought and those who stayed behind. Supporting the war effort and the people who are actually involved in fighting doesn't require that one pick up a gun and join in. That is simply a feel good argument you like to use and it is meaningless, not unlike the one I opened this post with, they are on a par. Did you believe in our intervention in Kosovo and what we are involved in today in Africa? In which country have you carried a weapon for the forces of good? None of your arguments are new here, all have been rebutted repeatedly and most by people much better at it than I am.

Man, Snake if your arguement is like it or get out, you may want to pack your bags now before we elect a new President. Since when is this a democratic idea?

Bush lied. Bush is incompetent. Bush was misguided by Cheney & Ramsfield. Bush and his cronies pushed the Iraq war onto the world and the US Congress. They started it, now they can't finish it. Bush needs to be impeached for all of his wrong doings. Take your pick if it is torture, GITMO, the economy, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanastan, Katrina, tax cuts for the rich....whatever.

But don't tell us, that we were all onboard with Bush, you were not us. Remember only half of the US actually elected him inot office in the first place. Don't give a history lesson with your spin to justify a bad President or make it an issue on fear of terror threats. Bush is as bad as it gets and his administration has effected not only the US economy but the economy and lives of foriegn countries.

If you don't like the direction this country has taken, why don't you pack up and get your butt out of it and to someplace more to your liking? .

This is an automatic loser in any argument.

It has all the argumentative strength of poking a brick wall with a stick.

He created huge tax cuts to the top 5-10% that was supposed to proiduce a boon for the economy - it didn't

He started an ill conceived. ill planned war that has drained our economy, put us into massive debt and because he has too much small minded pride refuses to cash in his chips so the debt keeps rising

so let's see - Bush's tax cut, Bush's war. Bush's problem

He created huge tax cuts to the top 5-10% that was supposed to proiduce a boon for the economy - it didn't

He started an ill conceived. ill planned war that has drained our economy, put us into massive debt and because he has too much small minded pride refuses to cash in his chips so the debt keeps rising

so let's see - Bush's tax cut, Bush's war. Bush's problem


what's Really SCARY, he's not done yet.

This is an automatic loser in any argument.

It has all the argumentative strength of poking a brick wall with a stick.

If you read all of what I said, it wasn't intended to win any argument, just mirror the "git a gun and git agoin" BS this guy has spouted since he started posting.

If you read all of what I said, it wasn't intended to win any argument, just mirror the "git a gun and git agoin" BS this guy has spouted since he started posting.

when someone from a party other than your own uses the same rhetoric the right has for decades? Your party, especially under W has used this 'with us or agin us' and brought this low level of debate to its pinnacle. Gee, the politics of division, and suddenly you are suprised (again) when someone deals you back a taste of the GOPs own medicine.

sorry Pal, this divisiveness is the baby of your party. The chickens have come home to roost. You (your party) made this world and then act shocked at the results. I cannot believe that one could be shocked over such. are folks that dim, or is the bully just shocked that some of the kids they have been picking on swing back>?

when someone from a party other than your own uses the same rhetoric the right has for decades? Your party, especially under W has used this 'with us or agin us' and brought this low level of debate to its pinnacle. Gee, the politics of division, and suddenly you are suprised (again) when someone deals you back a taste of the GOPs own medicine.

sorry Pal, this divisiveness is the baby of your party. The chickens have come home to roost. You (your party) made this world and then act shocked at the results. I cannot believe that one could be shocked over such. are folks that dim, or is the bully just shocked that some of the kids they have been picking on swing back>?

The with us or against us was intended as a warning to the governments in the ME, not toward the citizens of this country. The most divisive rhetoric has come from Democrats trying to gain leverage to get elected.

The with us or against us was intended as a warning to the governments in the ME, not toward the citizens of this country. The most divisive rhetoric has come from Democrats trying to gain leverage to get elected.

Max Cleland was a ME government

didn't realize that any US citizen who spoke out against Iraq and labelled a traitor was a ME government

or any US Legislator who wanted to look into domestic spying

or questioned the validity of the Patriot Act

or wanted any sort of oversight into the many covert actions

"you're aiding the terrorists"

please pass the Dutchie cause you have clearly had enough

Bush's misguided war? Forgetting that there was some justification for it, he did not take us there alone. There were only something like three Legislators that did not vote to give him the power to go to war. I understand that there is a huge smokescreen obscuring that fact but it remains a fact. Now tell me how this C average student that wears boots because he can't tie his own shoes duped all them smart folks.


Voting to give someone the power does not force that person to use it.

I'm amazed that we have to keep explaining that little point to you.

One person, and one person only set this war in action, and his name is George W. Bush. Tough titties, but them's the facts.

Is it draining though? It sure is making a deficit, but that doesn't mean it draining the economy. In theory it should be adding billions to the economy (you know "war economy"). I don't know the numbers though, so maybe not. We'll have to pay it back later, sure....but it doesn't have to hurt us now, except for maybe putting pressure on the value of the dollar, another argument. Anyway, it's peanuts compared to what the housing market *potentially* can drain from the economy....trillions. Without even factoring in the effect on other markets or even considering what that can do to tax revenues (more deficit).

when oil costs four times what it used to as a result of this war, you can bet that's a drain on the economy. Every thing else is affected by the cost of oil. Just the way it is in an oil-man's economy.

If you don't like the direction this country has taken, why don't you pack up and get your butt out of it and to someplace more to your liking? There was a vote to go to war, declaration of war has not been required by either a Democratic or Republican led Congress since the end of WW2. That is a straw argument.

The WMD question only changed AFTER we got to Iraq. Prior to that every intelligence agency of every nation with a military of any consequence believed that he had them. I don't recall the direct connection to AQ argument and I believe you may well be exagerating to make your point. The argument I remember that I believed and still believe to be sound was that he might supply the radical Islamists with the means to carry out a WMD attack.

I still find it confusing that Bush's grades play any role in what we find ourselves involved in today. They are generally used to support the argument that he is not as smart as he should be. That makes the argument that he fooled all those Congressmen and women in the lead up to the war confusing.

In any conflict we have ever found ourselves in there have always been those who fought and those who stayed behind. Supporting the war effort and the people who are actually involved in fighting doesn't require that one pick up a gun and join in. That is simply a feel good argument you like to use and it is meaningless, not unlike the one I opened this post with, they are on a par. Did you believe in our intervention in Kosovo and what we are involved in today in Africa? In which country have you carried a weapon for the forces of good? None of your arguments are new here, all have been rebutted repeatedly and most by people much better at it than I am.



This is precious of you, really. According to Bush's pawns, we are fighting for democratic ideals yet when someone questions the moron in the WH, it's we who should get out. Funny if it were not so tragic. But it shows what kind of people really back Bush. I've heard, "America Love It or Leave It," all my life spouted by un-American people who have no clue what my beloved country is all about or how to really put American principles into action. Sometimes you have to let people think, speak and act in ways you don't like.

Bush supporters really lack courage of their convictions, otherwise they would be joining that all volunteer Army of ours and go kick some Iraqi butt instead of hiding behind the ever growing number of bodies of our precious young people. Still no answer why these people who support Bush with their mouths aren't willing to do it in uniform. You all who think that way should be running to the enlistment officer in your town. See you soon. Don't let the door hit you in your butt.

And, dispite the slant they want to put on things now, the only other nations that supported the moron were Britain and any other nation we had by the economic or political short hairs. The UN did not support the unprovoked invasion. Likewise many Americans suspected there were no WMD and asked him to wait for more proof since there was no impending doom if we didn't. Please, don't re-write history. Some of us have pretty good memories.

And finally, the majority of Americans did not elect him either time, as I recall. Only 1:2of eligible voters even bother to register, and fewer than half of those voted for him in one election and and just slightly more than half (disputed ballots included) voted for him the other. That means about 1:4 voted for him. Hardly a majority. Sadly, most Americans just don't care.

Now, I don't care whether someone liikes what I say or not. I'm certainly not leaving.

The with us or against us was intended as a warning to the governments in the ME, not toward the citizens of this country. The most divisive rhetoric has come from Democrats trying to gain leverage to get elected.

Then why were they calling good people traitors, calling for media organizations to be tried for treason, etc. etc? Simply because they held views, or provided information that contrary to the view, goals, or actions of this administration.

And don't give me this "I don't recall any of that happening" crap like you did with the Iraq-Al Qaeda connections being charged. You have quite a selective memnory when it comes to that kind of stuff. Remember Atta meeting with Iraqi representatives in Prague?

The examples are countless, as are the examples of this administration or their mouthpieces branding people as treasonous and traitors.

when oil costs four times what it used to as a result of this war, you can bet that's a drain on the economy. Every thing else is affected by the cost of oil. Just the way it is in an oil-man's economy.

Oil does not cost four times as much because of this war, no way. There may be a premium paid for uncertainty in the markets because of the war. But, it's arguable that there would be if Saddam was still in power as he loved to use his oil card for power when needed. Also there is volatility because Bush loves to threaten Iran and Venezuela...

But overall, the majority of the rise in cost comes down to the fact that the world is consuming as much oil as we can produce out of the ground. Supply and demand. The US, India, China...etc...all have increased demand, but the production is nearly flat.

It's an energy crisis, that no doubt, Bush loves being a part of......

In any conflict we have ever found ourselves in there have always been those who fought and those who stayed behind. Supporting the war effort and the people who are actually involved in fighting doesn't require that one pick up a gun and join in. That is simply a feel good argument you like to use and it is meaningless, not unlike the one I opened this post with, they are on a par. Did you believe in our intervention in Kosovo and what we are involved in today in Africa? In which country have you carried a weapon for the forces of good? None of your arguments are new here, all have been rebutted repeatedly and most by people much better at it than I am.

This deserves a special answer.

Where have a fought? In the streets of America to stop war mongers from killing 58,000 of my generation needlessly. In the slums, to help increase their political power to take some of what should be theirs. I've organized workers, blacks, hispanics, white and black middle class and senior citizens. For the past 28 yearrs, I've been a journalist who has shed light on need and watched as the really good people of America responded with money, food, clothing and other needs.

The politicians never gave my generation a war worthy of disobeying my God''s prime directive - "Love your neighbor as thyself." Those are more than mere words, you know?

Instead, I watch as people justify killing for their god America's sake when all America really wants is for people of all nations to find their own way. America should provide humanitarian aid where it's needed and do what America does best - sell the world on the truth that democracy is best by living it and showing them what it means instead of picking fights with everyone they don't happen to like today. Wait a few years, today's enemies become friends and today's friends become enemies.

Edit: spelling

He created huge tax cuts to the top 5-10% that was supposed to proiduce a boon for the economy - it didn't

He started an ill conceived. ill planned war that has drained our economy, put us into massive debt and because he has too much small minded pride refuses to cash in his chips so the debt keeps rising

so let's see - Bush's tax cut, Bush's war. Bush's problem

Actually the tax cuts did boost the economy - a lot. They created a lot of free liquidity, and that money, searching for worthwhile investment, led to both the vast expansion of the secondary mortgage market (selling your loan in a package with others to investment banks) and greatly reduced the long-standing credit hurdles, making it possible for many more folks to get loans (that they often should have been smarter than to take, but that's another issue not related at all to government.)

Together, these multiplied the liquidity in both the economy and the capital markets, leading to a bubble in both the stock and housing markets. Monetary policy should have been adjusted somewhat to compensate for this, but it wasn't. Strictly that's an administration problem; however, by design the Fed is fairly well isolated from the political machinations. Greenspan has a share of the blame; mostly by retiring. If he were still in the Chair, he would have been better able than Bernanke to play the complex shell game that is incorrectly placed on that position.

Economists are universal in their acknowledgement that military spending is a boost to the economy. The deficit it creates is a drain, but only because it adds an interest cost. As such, that drain happens only years later.

While our deficits are at alarming levels numerically, they aren't all that bad (though worse than they should be) as a percentage of GDP, the only meaningful way to measure. And at present they are weakening the dollar, which will help make manufacturing within the US far more attractive. Of course, that will take some time to evolve, as it takes no small amount of time and investment to bring manufacturing plants on line. That amount of time should be just about enough to get a Democrat somewhere to catch the ball in the end zone and make believe he's also the one that tossed it.

The Treasury projects net sales of securities, or gross issuance minus maturing debt, will total $125 billion in fiscal 2007. That would be the least since 2001. Meanwhile, Treasury receipts from taxes will have grown by 6.7% on top of the 1.6% increase in 2006, despite inflationary growth much, much smaller than that. Proof that the tax cuts did indeed work to increase tax receipts, as they do every single time.

The current problem in the economy has little to do with deficits or taxes, but instead with liquidity. The capital markets are nervous from the mortgage collapse, and haven't yet found a way to value risk appropriately in order to begin plunging it back into the economy. The amount of cash sitting on the sidelines is truly amazing. We're set for another bubble, I'm afraid - unless we can find productive rather than speculative uses for all of that capital.

The single best thing that the government could do would be to eliminate or vastly cut the corporate income tax. It would still get taxed as dividends or as the income from increased business that resulted from it's reinvestment. Having it suddenly cost 35% less to do business in the US would provide huge upward pressure on salaries, while still making it attractive to locate (or-re-locate) many jobs here, that previous Democratic initiatives have made too expensive to hold in this country. Unfortunately, even though this would be the best possible thing for the working core of this country, it is constantly painted as 'corporate welfare' by the folks intent on creating and keeping a beholden underclass. As such, it will never happen.

The tax cuts were an unqualified success, but their effects have been overwhelmed in part by circumstance, and in larger part by gross incompetancy. There is no doubt that the tax cuts should have been followed by spending cuts as well - not because they would have been necessary, but because they would have propelled the economy even higher, making much of the current handwringing seem even more silly than it already does.

Make no mistake - there are very few things worthy of any regard within the current administration. Even if there were WMD's, there was no reason to go to war against Iraq - Saddam was sufficiently contained as was. What was needed in the time was some nuanced diplomatic work amongst our allies at the time to ensure that the sanctions (that were starting to slip) were maintained. But there ain't no nuance to be found in this administration. I am hard pressed to find much to support in this administration's record. The tax cuts would be a good thing - but they needed the support of a few other legs of that particular economic stool. Those were left wanting.

This deserves a special answer.

Where have a fought? In the streets of America to stop war mongers from killing 58,000 of my gneration needlessly. In the slums, to help increase their political power to take some of what should be theirs. I've organized workers, blacks, hispanics, white and black middle class and senoir citizens. For the past 28 yearrs, I've been a journalist who has shed light on need and watched as the really good people of America responded with money, food, clothing and other needs.

The politicians never gave my generation a war worthy of disobeying my God''s prime directive - "Love your neighbor as thyself." Those are more than mere words, you know?

Instead, I watch as people justify killing for their god America's sake when all America really wants is for people of all nations to find their own way. America should provide humanitarian aid where it's needed and do what America does best - sell the world on the truth that democracy is best by living it and showing them what it means instead of picking fights with everyone they don't happen to like today. Wait a few years, today's enemies become friends and today's friends become enemies.

Well I don't doubt your dedication to what you believe but I think you have a terribly biased view of the world and our place in it. I also believe you malign a lot of other good men and women with your flowery prose. I have known a lot of people in the service and I have never met a warmonger. People that don't share your vision of the world are just as dedicated to their version of it. While you may not see the value of intervention, the US has been doing that since the end of WW2 and not all the results were bad. If the end game in Iraq is a change in the the ME, we can thank the young people in uniform that believed in their government enough to make the sacrifice, we can thank you for your work in the social area of politics.

The with us or against us was intended as a warning to the governments in the ME, not toward the citizens of this country. The most divisive rhetoric has come from Democrats trying to gain leverage to get elected.

WE Must not forget SRUBS other famous SLOGANS: Evil Doers, Axis of Evil, Mission Accomplished, War on Terror, They stand up, We stand down, I'm the Decider, Plan for victory, AND it all started with MY PET GOAT.

Having it suddenly cost 35% less to do business in the US would provide huge upward pressure on salaries, while still making it attractive to locate (or-re-locate) many jobs here,

gee, that's exactly what universal healthcare would do.


but we can't have that, cause that's [B]socialism[/bad word]

but letting corporations avoid paying taxes, absolutely stellar!!!

"So what your saying is that Bushes war and deficit spending is the reason why the housing market is popping and all that spending on equity dried up? And your telling me to go to school on economics? I'm not saying it isn't a slice, just that it's not the majority slice....not even close."


Lots of factors, you are right. Nothing is simple one cause, one effect. But, generally speaking, the idea that war is good for an economy overall and over the long haul has to be reexamined in today's world. Even if it were right, we simply could not afford it. What is being suggested by some amounts to fraud. If I spent money I didn't have I'd go to jail. Today, we simply say, Let the grandkids pay for our costly errors. We should be spending the money on health, education, social security, creating jobs, attacking global warming. Instead we kill people in a war that made no sense from day one.

While our deficits are at alarming levels numerically, they aren't all that bad (though worse than they should be) as a percentage of GDP, the only meaningful way to measure. And at present they are weakening the dollar, which will help make manufacturing within the US far more attractive. Of course, that will take some time to evolve, as it takes no small amount of time and investment to bring manufacturing plants on line. That amount of time should be just about enough to get a Democrat somewhere to catch the ball in the end zone and make believe he's also the one that tossed it.


The flip side to the devaluing of the dollar would be that our imports would obviously go up. Over time we could, of course, start to make more things here....except for things like oil, which we import large amounts.

So it will drive up the energy cost here, offsetting many gains that would make manufacturing more attractive. Combine that with the fact that we love the suburban housing model and that many count on cheap imports to make ends meet, then it just looks ugly IMO.

"Well I don't doubt your dedication to what you believe but I think you have a terribly biased view of the world and our place in it. I also believe you malign a lot of other good men and women with your flowery prose. I have known a lot of people in the service and I have never met a warmonger. People that don't share your vision of the world are just as dedicated to their version of it. While you may not see the value of intervention, the US has been doing that since the end of WW2 and not all the results were bad. If the end game in Iraq is a change in the the ME, we can thank the young people in uniform that believed in their government enough to make the sacrifice, we can thank you for your work in the social area of politics."

What possible "change in the ME" could you expect? They will love us now? And what right do we have to impose any change anywhere at anytime just because we feel like it? We were attacked in WW II. Hitler and Japan were not going away. They had to be stopped. Since then, there hasn't been a war that defended America's liberties at all. And, though that isn't the only marker, it should be among them before we go around asking our best young men and women to lay down their lives, don't you think?

I haven't once maligned anyone who has worn a uniform but the moron commander in chief. Indeed, I and people like me are sounding off to save their lives being spent needlessly. They are not securing my freedom at all, not one bit, I am not buying that. Same in Vietnam. 58,000 of my generation were sacrificed. Want to go to Vietnam today? I'll book you a vacation. You can visit all your want. What did that change at all that warranted such a sacrifice? What change did we bring about in SE Asia that was worth all that blood.

After the Soviet Union fell apart under its own weight, America had the chance to be a benevolent big brother to the world. We could have focused on real issues, like world starvation, the global water shortage, global warming, disaster relief. Instead, we have created more refugees, killed innocent women, men, and children and created new generations of terrorists. Since 911, many Americans has allowed their fear to give a maniac free rein.

By the way, I've been on this board since Nov. 2005. Not as long as many but certainly a while. I've posted on many cycling topics, which is why I came here in the first place. I started speaking out around Christmas on the politics only forum because I was sick to death of reading some of the tripe Bush apologists were posting without many people answering. I decided it was time to meet their propaganda head on lest someone think I agreed with them. They like to give the impression they are in the majority. They haven't been that for many many months now. Their positions are dead. They just haven't fallen over yet.

I apologize to the many of thoughtful people who come here who may think I am too acidic at times. But, I've learned over the years, subtlety is lost on the people who support the idiots currently in power.











.

"Well I don't doubt your dedication to what you believe but I think you have a terribly biased view of the world and our place in it. I also believe you malign a lot of other good men and women with your flowery prose. I have known a lot of people in the service and I have never met a warmonger. People that don't share your vision of the world are just as dedicated to their version of it. While you may not see the value of intervention, the US has been doing that since the end of WW2 and not all the results were bad. If the end game in Iraq is a change in the the ME, we can thank the young people in uniform that believed in their government enough to make the sacrifice, we can thank you for your work in the social area of politics."

What possible "change in the ME" could you expect? They will love us now? And what right do we have to impose any change anywhere at anytime just because we feel like it? We were attacked in WW II. Hitler and Japan were not going away. They had to be stopped. Since then, there hasn't been a war that defended America's liberties at all. And, though that isn't the only marker, it should be among them before we go around asking our best young men and women to lay down their lives, don't you think?

I haven't once maligned anyone who has worn a uniform but the moron commander in chief. Indeed, I and people like me are sounding off to save their lives being spent needlessly. They are not securing my freedom at all, not one bit, I am not buying that. Same in Vietnam. 58,000 of my generation were sacrificed. Want to go to Vietnam today? I'll book you a vacation. You can visit all your want. What did that change at all that warranted such a sacrifice? What change did we bring about in SE Asia that was worth all that blood.

After the Soviet Union fell apart under its own weight, America had the chance to be a benevolent big brother to the world. We could have focused on real issues, like world starvation, the global water shortage, global warming, disaster relief. Instead, we have created more refugees, killed innocent women, men, and children and created new generations of terrorists. Since 911, many Americans has allowed their fear to give a maniac free rein.

By the way, I've been on this board since Nov. 2005. Not as long as many but certainly a while. I've posted on many cycling topics, which is why I came here in the first place. I started speaking out around Christmas on the politics only forum because I was sick to death of reading some of the tripe Bush apologists were posting without many people answering. I decided it was time to meet their propaganda head on lest someone think I agreed with them. They like to give the impression they are in the majority. They haven't been that for many many months now. Their positions are dead. They just haven't fallen over yet.

I apologize to the many of thoughtful people who come here who may think I am too acidic at times. But, I've learned over the years, subtlety is lost on the people who support the idiots currently in power.

Bravo and thank you for eloquently expressing what some of us are not able to put into words as well you have in this thread…

Peace :cool:

Bravo and thank you for eloquently expressing what some of us are not able to put into words as well you have in this thread…

Peace :cool:

I 2nd that.

I 2nd that.

Well he's certainly more eloquent than you are but not any angrier. :)

Well he's certainly more eloquent than you are but not any angrier. :)


I understand how you feel. I think you do the best job on the forum, defending the 20% of the neo-con knuckle draggers. You are the man!

Well he's certainly more eloquent than you are but not any angrier. :)

And you my poor disillusioned little snake do not know of which you speak, there's no need for anger for the likes of you or Mr. Can’t get it right if his country depended on it.

And if you’re trying get a rise out of me? You’re failing as miserably as your fearless leader has the last seven years as he will continue to do so the last few months of his miserable last term… :wink:

Peace :cool:

the fact that anyone in this point in time still defends a corrupt idiot like bush has a serious character flaw and complete inability to think for themselves. I mean good lord, the lies and deceit never end with dick and bush

And you my poor disillusioned little snake do not know of which you speak, there no need for anger for the likes of you or Mr. Can’t get it right if his country depended on it.

And if you’re trying get a rise out of me? You’re failing as miserably as your fearless leader has the last seven years as he will continue to do so the last few months of his miserable last term… :wink:

Peace :cool:

Rise out of you? You think you're eloquent? I was referring to that walleyeangler guy. His politics are questionable but he does fish. :)

Rise out of you? You think you're eloquent? I was referring to that walleyeangler guy. His politics are questionable but he does fish. :)

You little man are a rebel without a clue; nowhere in my post I have I referred to myself as eloquent. As is your ink, when you can’t come up with anything else to say, you become petty and redundant… :wink:

Peace :cool:

Oil does not cost four times as much because of this war, no way. There may be a premium paid for uncertainty in the markets because of the war. But, it's arguable that there would be if Saddam was still in power as he loved to use his oil card for power when needed. Also there is volatility because Bush loves to threaten Iran and Venezuela...

But overall, the majority of the rise in cost comes down to the fact that the world is consuming as much oil as we can produce out of the ground. Supply and demand. The US, India, China...etc...all have increased demand, but the production is nearly flat.

It's an energy crisis, that no doubt, Bush loves being a part of......

Speaking of oil, it certainly does not help when India will have a car that costs less than $3,000 within a couple of years.

A portion of the US gas prices can be attributed to federal and states taxes:

http://commonsensejunction.com/notes/gasoline-state.html

We may face another gas tax increase in the near future:

http://www.kansascity.com/679/story/445492.html

Look at the time line folks. Bush get taxes cut economy starts to take off and has done well for most of his two terms. We get a Democratic congress taking more spending and raising taxes for their pork and the economy starts to tank.

The flip side to the devaluing of the dollar would be that our imports would obviously go up. Over time we could, of course, start to make more things here....except for things like oil, which we import large amounts.

So it will drive up the energy cost here, offsetting many gains that would make manufacturing more attractive. Combine that with the fact that we love the suburban housing model and that many count on cheap imports to make ends meet, then it just looks ugly IMO.

Or we could look at it as a glass half full, and rid us of a few Hummers and convince folks not to build so many McMansions in the exurbs, instead choosing to rebuild in the inner rings. The cheap imports ring is somewhat false. Imports have always been expensive (despite the low apparent price), due to the boat trip if nothing else. If more things become domestic and our exports increase - natural effects of a softer dollar - the dollar-valued wealth created will offset the moderate apparent price increases.

Remember the economic brilliance of Henry Ford, paying his folks enough that they could afford his product? Same idea writ large.

You do have some point - but frankly, we need a certain amount of contraction in some parts of the economy.

Look at the time line folks. Bush get taxes cut economy starts to take off and has done well for most of his two terms. We get a Democratic congress taking more spending and raising taxes for their pork and the economy starts to tank.


yeah, right, that's the reason. :rolleyes:

.....frankly, we need a certain amount of contraction in some parts of the economy.

I agree.

As far as devaluing the dollar being a positive or negative, I would guess a lot would have to do with the timing. Too quickly and I think it could shock the system in ways that I mentioned above. Gradually, I could see it playing out much like you described and be very healthy for the economy.

We would need a lot of Henry Fords though.....less Angelo Mozilos.

Economic up/down turns build up over, time sometimes with clear causes, sometimes not. In this case it appears that a main cause is the sub-prime mortgage crisis with an ensuing credit crunch and huge losses by financial institutions. This type of problem usually occurs when the greedy children running these institutions are allowed to play without adult supervision. This often occurs under Republican administrations because they are well paid by their business friends to let the children play. The problem is when their schemes fail, they walk away rich with huge bonuses intact (Re: the head of Countrywide) while the mess is left for us schmuks (sorry, taxpayers) to clean up.

As the sage says- he who gets in the last word is always right :)

so Bush's Cut freed up money for predatory loans, JOY!. Now let's see, they'll bail out the loan -ers, and screw the loan -ee's. So the loan-er's will recoup most of their losses while everyone else gets screwed and in the meantime, in-between time they got to collect heaps of interest on loans that are now in default. So they get their investment back and all the interest paid, plus some of the defaulted real estate.

Boy that sure did help. If you are a hedge fund manager

the rest of us, not so good

see trickle down is supposed to mean they use that money to create businesses that create long term economic growth and jobs

did it happen? Nope

FWIW, it appears that both the loan-ees and loan-ers are gonna get a nice bath on this one.....

FWIW, it appears that both the loan-ees and loan-ers are gonna get a nice bath on this one.....

but they said somthing similar about the S&L collapse as well.

but on a similar note:

So we gave this class some extra $$$, and this is what they created with it?

doesn't that show they are incompetent and shouldn't be trusted with such windfalls?

I mean if you gave some foreign country in effect hundreds of billions of dollars to stimulate their economy and all they did with it was use it to cause a huge economic meltdown, would you fund that country anymore? (Iraq excluded)

So we gave this class some extra $$$, and this is what they created with it?

doesn't that show they are incompetent and shouldn't be trusted with such windfalls?


Could be argued that the upper class gave credit users the access to extra $$$$ (cheap and abundant credit), and look what they did with it.

Not that I believe that, somewhere in the middle probably. Greed is ugly from both sides though.

Could be argued that the upper class gave credit users the access to extra $$$$ (cheap and abundant credit), and look what they did with it.

Not that I believe that, somewhere in the middle probably. Greed is ugly from both sides though.

but the loan-ers should have known better they are the financial whizzes right? we're just the dumb rabble. I don't think many were greedy, many were desperate watching housing prices soar it was the only they feared they would ever be able to get in.
I watched it out here, some were , as you say stupid with their $$, others saw it as their only chance at ever becoming a homeowner.

all inconsequential: Bush's tax cut was done to produce more total tax revenue. You know, the govt. won't make the money on a single 'sale', we'll make more on 'bulk sales'

it did not come to fruition, it is therefore a failed plan

but the loan-ers should have known better they are the financial whizzes right? we're just the dumb rabble. I don't think many were greedy, many were desperate watching housing prices soar it was the only they feared they would ever be able to get in.
I watched it out here, some were , as you say stupid with their $$, others saw it as their only chance at ever becoming a homeowner.


So maybe not so much greed as a massive failure to understand risk. Desperation and fear are not a good platform to make large decisions from, that's for sure.

No real flags raised by any leaders when the going was good however...

So maybe not so much greed as a massive failure to understand risk. Desperation and fear are not a good platform to make large decisions from, that's for sure.

No real flags raised by any leaders when the going was good however...

Real Estate Agents and Loan Officers who were all too happy to sell the

"Better get in now or never, this loan is the only way, and houses will keep appreciating so you can re-fi in 5"

yeah people's desperation for the American Dream clouded their reason, but they got a lot of prodding from people who should know better

Real Estate Agents and Loan Officers who were all too happy to sell the

"Better get in now or never, this loan is the only way, and houses will keep appreciating so you can re-fi in 5"

yeah people's desperation for the American Dream clouded their reason, but they got a lot of prodding from people who should know better

True. But unless they lied to the buyers it wasn't illegal. Doesn't make it right, but who could have done something about it? Bush yeah, but also congress, state gov, the fed, investors..etc. Which is why I argue that it's a bit much to finger Bush out as the mastermind.

Somewhat related, interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20Ben-Bernanke-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&ei=5088&en=de87a683b38cbc15&ex=1358226000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

True. But unless they lied to the buyers it wasn't illegal. Doesn't make it right, but who could have done something about it? Bush yeah, but also congress, state gov, the fed, investors..etc. Which is why I argue that it's a bit much to finger Bush out as the mastermind.

Somewhat related, interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20Ben-Bernanke-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&ei=5088&en=de87a683b38cbc15&ex=1358226000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Bush sold a big tax cut to the top percent. Said it would create more tax revenue, jobs and reduce the deficit. He then got us in a protracted war, some said "Hey NO President in History has had a tax cut during war-time" Bush saud"Trust me I got it"

we didn't see more tax revenue, unemployment is up, and the jobs available aren't career positions, the deficit has gone ballistic.
That is the main onus of the debate. He said his tax cuts would do =X
they did not
it therefore, failed.

the Real Estate is just an example of what they did with the $$$. Kinda like, all the jobs they created were overseas. Again, great topics of debate but sidebars.

twice in my lifetime I've been witness to the failures of trickle down. I want to see a bubble up (TM) economy pushed by a President

Bush sold a big tax cut to the top percent. Said it would create more tax revenue, jobs and reduce the deficit. He then got us in a protracted war, some said "Hey NO President in History has had a tax cut during war-time" Bush saud"Trust me I got it"

we didn't see more tax revenue, unemployment is up, and the jobs available aren't career positions, the deficit has gone ballistic.
That is the main onus of the debate. He said his tax cuts would do =X
they did not
it therefore, failed.

the Real Estate is just an example of what they did with the $$$. Kinda like, all the jobs they created were overseas. Again, great topics of debate but sidebars.

twice in my lifetime I've been witness to the failures of trickle down. I want to see a bubble up (TM) economy pushed by a President

AND Many of those so called created jobs went to BIG Government. AND then we have DEFECIT doesn't matter, ALL started from the neo-cons hero Reagan, who didn't know where to sit in his 2nd term.

the silver spooner playing populist dress up
the O.G. Brush Clearer

American Worker productivity is throughthe roof while pay has stagnated or gone backwords.

how many of us work 50 plus hour weeks on salary with dimished bennies and rising health care costs?
people putting in extra hours for no compensation because they fear being laid off. Oh Reagonomics how I love thee.

Bush sold a big tax cut to the top percent. Said it would create more tax revenue, jobs and reduce the deficit. He then got us in a protracted war, some said "Hey NO President in History has had a tax cut during war-time" Bush saud"Trust me I got it"

we didn't see more tax revenue, unemployment is up, and the jobs available aren't career positions, the deficit has gone ballistic.
That is the main onus of the debate. He said his tax cuts would do =X
they did not
it therefore, failed.

the Real Estate is just an example of what they did with the $$$. Kinda like, all the jobs they created were overseas. Again, great topics of debate but sidebars.

twice in my lifetime I've been witness to the failures of trickle down. I want to see a bubble up (TM) economy pushed by a President

FWIW, I never said that Bush's tax cuts weren't a problem or that they were a success. They've added to the deficit for sure, which has brought down the dollar....during which time the trade deficit has also gone up, somewhat discrediting that a lower dollar could bring up exports or lessen imports (the oil thing will kill us here). Trickle down, war on middle class, etc is another thread, IMO, if we are talking straight economic growth or decline numbers (the original article).

Close as I can find, the bush tax cuts have added aprox. 300billion per year to the deficit. So, a good bit of this has been added to the economy, although raising the deficit and driving down the dollar (but not the only thing driving down the dollar, fed rate...trade deficit, bad mortgages, oil, war...etc)

Mortgage equity withdraws alone in 2005 were $750 billion dollars, a large amount of this injected directly into the economy via consumer spending. I would like to find a decent number related to value loss thus far. I think it's widely accepted that home values are declining as a whole and that rate is increasing, but I didn't find the numbers. So lets just assume that values are just flat (let me know if not). *Serious* dent in being able to pull equity, right? Not including any decent jobs lost in banking/loans/construction/etc. Credit markets locked up. Not including any losses in home value.

Also, the unemployment rate has generally been in decline up until very recently (if you believe the gov stats, another thread in itself).

Ben Bernanke doesn't want to hear the words bubble up. :D He does want a quick aide package designed for us poorer folk....have to see what Bush (and congress) does with it.