How Boom of 2006 Ended - Article

[nwsteve]

You could be right about that, but what would Gore's response to 9/11 have been?

Convene a committee and study why tall buildings collapse and write new federal mandates to be used for all buildings over 10 stores.  

 

[wabmester]

I understand that - you have lots and lots of company - I'm not going to fight it.  I accept it.  Now what do I (we) do to protect my (our) assets from the results of your (and the majority of the voting public) desires to have these guys run the country?

Learn the words to "O Canada!"

What are you worried about?   Cronyism?   Executive privilege.   Debt?   The alternative is taxes.   War?   The alternative is the erosion of our "rights" to vital natural resources.   Lies?  Nature of the Power Beast.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I understand that - you have lots and lots of company - I'm not going to fight it.  I accept it.  Now what do I (we) do to protect my (our) assets from the results of your (and the majority of the voting public) desires to have these guys run the country?

In a nutshell. They do not represent my "desire" for people to be running the country. I only am firm in my support due to the alternatives
I am offered (libs/dems/left wingers/witless do-gooders). I don't feel safer with "these guys" running the country. To the contrary, I figure
I need to be on my toes protecting what I have no matter who is in
power. With me, it's always the lesser of 2 evils, never anyone I can
fully support. Clear now?

JG

 

[Cut-Throat]

You could be right about that, but what would Gore's response to 9/11 have been?

Very few disputed Afganistan. - Europe even supported that war. - It was actually connected with an attack on the U.S. -

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Convene a committee and study why tall buildings collapse and write new federal mandates to be used for all buildings over 10 stores.  

How about a new federal program where citizens receive cash
rewards for turning in anyone who looks suspicious, guilty of a crime or not.  We could harness the Internet to expedite the process.
Good name for the program would be TIPPER.............

Turn In Plebeian People Expecting Reward

The  government loves acronyms  

JG

 

[sgeeeee]

Despite the glib responses, no one really knows how Al Gore would have responded to 9/11.  He might have chosen to fight a war on terrorism (Afganistan) then involve us in a second war in Iraq by lying.  He might have chosen to spend money he didn't have on these wars while granting huge tax breaks to the wealthy.  He may have dismantled FEMA and put a horse expert in charge of it.  Maybe Al would have dismantled alternative energy policy and given the oil companies free reign.

If he did those things, I would be against them and would openly criticize him.  But I don't really see how speculation about Gore's response changes what GWB has done.   

 

[wildcat]

Best way to start a thread that lasts for days and days...talk politics

 

[Cut-Throat]

What is amazing to me, is that a lot of the folks that claim to hate discussing politics like the following old Ol_Rancher post, is actually the one that first brought up politics in response #14 in this thread.

Ol_Rancher Claiming his disgust for political discussions last year.

I too object to this thread. Until now this is one of only a few forums where issues have been discussed with a minimum of politics.

Please delete this thread before name calling begins ...

We have many other sites on the net to argue this Kerry vs Bush.

The AARP forums were ruined by the invasion of young (20 somethings) leftists insulting members. It didn't take long before many quit the boards disgusted.

I will not read any more posts to this thread. If the election political discourse spills over to other threads I will leave this site for good.

Ol_Rancher fires the first Volley in this thread.
Ol_Rancher Telling us how Awful it will be, if the Repubs lose the White House and the Gloom and doom we'll face, until we get someone like Reagan in. Nope he does not like to discuss politics :

Well it is interesting to read that someone else sees stagflation as a probable economic senerio for  the nation. Although there is a case for it beginning now or having begun already, I foresee it more clearly in the not too distant future.

Worst probable case: Republicans lose white house. Tax increases follow, entitlements come due, government prints money to pay it, benefits are trimmed, earnings fall, market moves sideways for a long time, unemployment worstens, productivity keeps pace or improves to mitigate recession ...

I avoided terrorist disruption or real estate collapse as maybe an even worse senerio is possible but I hope not probable.

I am now in 25% cash (MMs, CDs,) for the first time rather than nearly all equities. My pension valuation serves as my bond portion of portfolio. Even my equity positions are now mostly income or growth/ income or balanced mutual funds. I am hoping the dividends thrown off by the income portion of the funds ease the possible long wait until real robust growth returns.

The last period of stagflation seemed to last a long time and took a vigorus new Fed chairman and Preident (Regan) to shake of the malaise and stagflation.

 

[JPatrick]

What is amazing to me, is that a lot of the folks that claim to hate discussing politics like the following old Ol_Rancher post, is actually the one that first brought up politics in response #14 in this thread.

Ol_Rancher Claiming his disgust for political discussions last year.



Ol_Rancher Telling us how Awful if the Repubs lose the White House and the Gllom and doom we'll face, until we get someone like Reagan in. Nope he does not like to discuss politics :

I say lets git a rope

 

[haha]

Cutthroat,

I just noticed that cool new avatar you have. I can't remember ever seeing a trout take a flying bug, but you have spent a lot more time on the river than I. Does this happen?

Ha

 

[Ol_Rancher]

Cut-Throat,

Perhaps I should have left off from the worst possible senerio, the bit about Republicans losing. I expect that to happen followed by tax increases. That is not to say that a Republican white house would not raise taxes. Who ever is in power as the entitlements and other bills come due will be forced to raise taxes, cut benefits and print money. I see no other solution.

My point was not to take a back handed shot at Democrats. I avoid reading the sometimes harsh point and counter point of political debates here. The animus exchanged during the election on the AARP boards soured me from engaging or reading them. No one changes their stance and only too often members are lost and the comarade of the group is jeopardized.

Mea Culpa for the inclusion of a political party in my economic prediction.

To be honest about my politics, I am conservative but truely believe that after too many years, local, state, and national governments need a change of party control. I once lived in a state where one party remained in power over 30 years and the lawmakers, party officals, and bureaucrats jammed the states machinery to the point of decay.

My economic prediction stands.

The replacement of Arthur Burns as Fed chairman and a change of economic  policy by the incoming administration did end the stagflation. I am not sure that Regan would be the man for these times as I felt he was for those. In fact Greenspan said today that economic flexibility and technological improvements to better utilize capital, enabled the U.S. to weather the recent economic disruptions. I agree with him. Any benefit of the Bush tax cuts has been offset by increased government spending with no end in sight.

The looming bills will come due during the next 8 - 10 years no matter who wins the white house. The party in power better have a great response. As for me I continue to reallocate to better survive possible hard times while not forgoing upside potential if I am wrong. My mantra is 'dividends' and my hope is that the current capital gains tax rate will remain intact.

As for  'get a rope' ... I don't eat no New York made chilli or picante sauce.

 

[brewer12345]

Hey kids, in line with the notion that the gummint will send the dollar into the ditch via excess spending: fire sale currently going on for GIM. It is at a roughly 7% discount to NAV, which is pretty attractive if you want unhedged foreign bond exposure. I may be adding some today...

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Cutthroat,

I just noticed that cool new avatar you have. I can't remember ever seeing a trout take a flying bug, but you have spent a lot more time on the river than I. Does this happen?

Ha

While we are waiting for C-T

Personally, I love discussing politics (or most anything else)
Sure people get testy. What's wrong with that?

Off topic and for your amusement, the other night I was talking on
the phone and said (to somone) "Yep, my brain is workin' 24/7!"
DW was passing through and observed, "So is your mouth!"

Elvis has left the building.................

JG

 

[Cut-Throat]

The replacement of Arthur Burns as Fed chairman and a change of economic  policy by the incoming administration did end the stagflation. I am not sure that Regan would be the man for these times as I felt he was for those. In fact Greenspan said today that economic flexibility and technological improvements to better utilize capital, enabled the U.S. to weather the recent economic disruptions. I agree with him. Any benefit of the Bush tax cuts has been offset by increased government spending with no end in sight.

Ol_Rancher,

You'd better get your facts straight. It was Jimmy Carter that appointed Paul Volker to the Fed. Volker replaced Burns in 1979. 2 Full years before Reagan Became President. This is what caused the Prime rate to go to 20% and end Inflation. You Cons have spun this story so often, you seem to believe in fantasies.

So now that we agree that it was the replacement of Burns by Volker that turned the economy around. You just need to give the Proper credit to Jimmy Carter.

Mikey,

I have had that avatar of the trout eating a fly for over a year. Glad you like it. And yes trout do that.

 

[Ol_Rancher]

Credit given.

I thought that Paul Volker was the greatest and irreplacable. Alan Greenspan has proven to be as good if not better (IMHO). I do miss the outgoing nature of Volker and his everpresent cigar. I was suprised that Volker got involved in the mess at the U.N..

I hold my breath until learning who Bush choses to replace Greenspan. This is one time I expect Bush or any president to rise above politics and appoint the best. This appointment is more important to me than the replacement nominee of Sandra Day on the court.

I am glad we have found common ground and have returned to economic issues. I have come to value your input on financial topics and the economy.

 

[Cut-Throat]

I am glad we have found common ground and have returned to economic issues. I have come to value your input on financial topics and the economy.

Ditto what you said! 8)