Worth reading. Also mentioned in the article was the possible detrimental backlash that the US "War on Terror" has had on the US economy.

http://channels.netscape.com/pf/stor...4.htm&sc=robtz

 

Minus all of the "blame Bush" content, I think we're in for a recession.

Rather than trying to blame Bush and his response to 9/11, I think it's simpler.

Post 9/11, the housing market was the brightest spot in our economy. Low interest rates gave the ability to continually refinance, leading to high sustained levels of consumer spending. Lower taxes and higher spending led to job growth, but higher values and low rates fueled refi activities led to higher debt and the demand for "unconventional" financing. As much as 50% of home purchases (in CA, 30% nationwide) in late '05 to early '06 are done using interest-only or payment-option loans, creating major risk to financial institutuions if the market flattens or experiences a downturn.

Now realizing that we are looking down the barrel of a gun, the fed is now looking at clamping down on such "risky" loans, making it harder for people to purchase homes at today's inflated values. Even Greenspan recently admitted that there are localized bubbles, and while the Fed tried to check this inflation, albeit too late, China and Japan countered efforts to raise loan rates, keeping rates low.

If and when new loan rules kick in, we are in for a rude awakening. It won't be like the stock crash of 2000. You'll see 10 for sale signs at the corner in stead of two. Your house that would have sold in two weeks will now take two months to sell. Buyers will have you fixing things or making concessions where before, it would have been an as-is sale. The inability of people to qualify for refinance loans will result in slashed consumer spending.

Local retail chains and mall stores will be half empty. Corporate branch offices will close or consolidate. You will lose your job.

Have a great day!

Edit: Here's a link about changing loan standards:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/06/real...ines/index.htm

 

...wait wait wait. The reason the economy was bad in Bush's first term was Clinton, and the reason the economy will get worse in his second is because of the housing market? Ok, whatever you want. I think the economy got worse because cutting taxes while increasing gov't spending makes for a bad economy...but I guess that would just be 'blaming Bush' now wouldn't it...

 

Fill in the blank:

After the tax cuts, taxrolls ---------------.

a) increased
b) decreased
c) It doesn't matter, because I hate my country

 

Whatever, you never site any facts.

 

Under Clinton, people got rich in the ------------------------- .
Under Bush, people got rich in the ------------------------.

a) Stock Bubble
b) Real Estate Bubble
c) Lewinsky Bubble

 

That qualifies as a "C."

 

OH, you political and economic genious you. I'm sorry to ever have argued with your obviously never-ending wealth of knowledge and patriotism.


I THOUGHT that more money in+ less money out = better...but you made me SEE. I now know that less money in+more money out is much better for an economy. Heck, I'm going to apply it to my bank account. I'll tell my boss I want a pay cut, and then go buy two new cars on credit. That will SURELY fix my finances for the next...year.


Of course BushJr should be idolized for his economic plan. I see it now. Make the government BIGGER and spend MORE money, including entering the most expensive war to date, but appease the supposedly 'conservative' voter base (who votes for small gov't, less spending) by lowering taxes. Maybe the people will THINK we're spending less, since we tax them less. Yeah...yeah...THAT's the ticket.

 

:rotfl: Own3d

 

...and you still don't understand the fact that anyone who cares enough to argue over BS like this must not hate this country. I know you don't hate this country, and neither does Salty or any other conservative here. So why keep using that used up insult when you know it isn't true for anyone here? (except the new guy who doesn't pay taxes and admits to hating the US right now hahahaha...)

 

You are the wise one who brought up Clinton. Apples to Apples, oh extremely liberal one!

 

Yeah, owned by his own naivety.

 

...yes, I did. Because everytime anyone brings up how bad the economy was from 2000-2004, you and all the other Bush lovers bring him up.

 

How naive do you have to be to think that: less in + more out = good for economy. Oh wait, that's not naive...that's sheep.

 

Hella, how can you argue with that? Any real conservative should be (and many are) fuming over the idiocy of the republican party right now! Tax less and yet spend more? That is the absolute WORST economic policy ever. All three people who I had teach me economics told me it does not work (2 republicans and a liberal). Deficit spending is such a risk, especially considering who is holding our debt (foriegn countries). You say that MV is liberal, but really he is being completely conservative in his thinking right now.

I personally would have not had a problem with tax cuts at all, and would have supported them had these republicans had they also cut spending. But with a extremely expensive war, medicare (dumb idea) and baby boomers on the way to retirement this was the worst possible time. It is leaving us (the under 30 club) and all of our current and future kids with a enormous tax burdon in the near-ish future, especially with a recession which is starting to seem more and more likely. To me that is foolish, selfish, and ignorant.
-Jeff