Hoo yeah! The economy's ON FIRE!
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 02:39
VIEWED: 7512
PAGE 3 of 7
Hello,
Please enjoy this timeline:
1990's - Enron begins to perform shady accounting practices.
December 2000 - Deregulation legislation passed in CA. (Bush not in office yet)
January 20, 2001 Bush reign starts
August 2001 - Enron debacle goes public
September 11, 2001 - Planes hijacked and crashed into prominent structures
December 2, 2001 - Enron declares Bankruptcy
Deregulation happened before Bush. If you blame deregulation for Enron, then be aware that Enron would have taken place regardless. Little Miss Muffit could have been in the White House, to the same effect. Bush does not equal Enron.
I believe that any sitting president would have had to cope with the Sept 11 attacks as well. These two negative impacts to the economy would have occurred regardless of who was president.
The Federal bank would have likewise lowered interest rates in response to this negative impact, regardless of who was president.
And the lowered rates would have caused a heretofore unprecedented housing crisis, also regardless of who was president.
The deficit, meanwhile, is a problem because of reckless spending for a reckless war. The impact of tax breaks pales in comparison to the catastrophic error of pouring hundreds of billions into Iraq.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's not forget Bush's other big contribution to our current downward sprial: transferring wealth to the wealthy.
I don't lay Enron entirely at Bush's feet, a lot of this happened on Clinton's watch. But the big players are Dick Cheney, and (early on) Phil and Wendy Gramm: supply-sider, "socialism for the rich", anti-regulation Republicans typical of the Bush/ Cheney philosophy. As such, she was in bed with industry from the start, trading "deregulation" for campaign contriubutions for hubby, and significant stake in income:
Quote:
Dr. Wendy Gramm, in her capacity as chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), exempted Enron's trading of futures contracts in response to a request for such an action by Enron in 1992. At the time, Enron was a significant source of campaign financing for Wendy Gramm's husband, U.S. Senator Phil Gramm.
Six days after she provided Enron the exemption it wanted, Wendy Gramm resigned her position at the CFTC. Five weeks after her resignation, Enron appointed her to its Board of Directors, where she served on the Board's Audit Committee. Her service on the Audit Committee made her responsible for verifying Enron's accounting procedures and other detailed financial information not available to outside analysts or shareholders.
Following Wendy Gramm's appointment to Enron's board, the company became a significant source of personal income for the Gramms. Enron paid her between $915,000 and $1.85 million in salary, attendance fees, stock option sales and dividends from 1993 to 2001. The value of Wendy Gramm's Enron stock options swelled from no more than $15,000 in 1995 to as much as $500,000 by 2000.
www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/Enron/articles.
cfm?ID=7104
Apparently, Enron and Cheney had close dealings. So close, the WH shredded tons of evidence even AFTER Enron declared bankruptcy, when all documents should have been retained. Part of the case Enron made to Cheney (apparently successfully) was NOT to impose price caps while Enron was (illegally) taking plants offline to extort billions from California in a last-ditch effort to prevent collapse. But peopel speculate- as people do- that Cheney and Enron had bigger plans, and you could see their outline in Enron's "India deal".
www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thanks for your strawman, but that's not what I said. You can tell by the fact those words don't appear in my post.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Wrong. As usual. The rich keep doing what made them rich in the first place, and that's make smart choices w/ their money. No one has EVER gotten rich by accepting Gov't hand outs and subsidies. Ever.
Quote:You forgot the real world example. You know, where it's actually happened, because all you've done is the vague handwaving I talked about earlier.
No, they're investing it more, as they anticipate grown to occur, and lo and behold..we have growth! Instead of 'playing it safe', as is the case when there's no or little growth expected, they see the signs and are willing to losen up their purse strings, invest in growing areas of the economy, and SOMEHOW those who had some $$ before now have MORE $$$ !! What a nutty concept! Except that it works, every single time. And the crap about 'only' the rich making more $$? That's more socialist bullshit. More $$ for investment means more people can start a new business of their own. That means folks who DON'T have the capital can borrow it, earn money, pay back the capital + interest, which gets their businesses started and gives a healthy return to those who risked investing in the 1st place. It's called a WIN/WIN situation.
Trickle Down 101 is now concluded. Thank you for attending.
I mean you sound like the communists "It does work, here's the theory, ignore the real world! It works in theory, oh yes!"
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
Dow 13,138.99 161.03 (-1.21%) Just another bad day in paradise, eh?
Quote:Gosh Auraptor, I'd hate to see what's stuck to your facts, considering where you prolly pulled them from. But in reality-land
And the crap about 'only' the rich making more $$? That's more socialist bullshit.
Quote:I guess the WSJ publishes "bullshit, then?
Income inequality worst since 1920s, according to IRS data Nick Juliano
October 12, 2007
Half of US senators are millionaires
The superrich are gobbling up an ever larger piece of the economic pie, and the poor are seeing their share of earnings shrink new IRS data shows the top 1 percent of Americans are claiming a larger share of national income than at any time since before the Great Depression. The top percentile of wealthy Americans earned 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, up from 19 percent in 2004, according to new Internal Revenue Service data published in the Wall Street Journal Friday. Americans in the bottom 50 percent of wage earners saw their share of income shrink to 12.8 percent in 2005, down from 13.4 percent.... the IRS data show income for the median earner fell 2 percent between 2000 and 2005 to $30,881. Earnings for the top 1 percent grew to $364,657 -- a 3 percent uptick
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Wealthy_grabbing_larger_share_of_US_1012
.html
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I didn't say "No one did well", I said the economy sucks. The FACT that there are more billionaires MEANS more $'s are concentrated in fewer hands (You weren't a good math student, I take it- ?)
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If no one did well, then how come there are so many NEW billionaires ? Explain.
It was said best in an I Dream Of Jeannie episode-
Major Nelson:
Can't you just make it rain in the Sahara?
Jeannie:
Yes Master, I could...but then another part of the world would suffer...
See, the billionares evolved by nefarious means, selling questionable loans and such.
Anyone doesn't see that there's something wrong with this economy is a dumb, felgercarb-eating biped!
Extra mean Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
year --- DOW close --- inflation adjusted value for 2000
_________________________________________________________
2000 --- 10734.90 ----- 10734.90
2001 --- 10189.13 ----- 11040.36
2002 --- 9226.43 ------ 11214.92
2003 --- 8993.59 ------ 11470.51
2004 --- 10317.39 ----- 11775.97
2005 --- 10547.67 ----- 12174.95
2006 --- 11408.67 ----- 12567.69
In other words (if you can't figure out what the numbers mean) the DOW NEVER closed above the inflation adjusted value for 2000.
Rue:
Just trying to figure out where you got your numbers, it's so hard to figure where you get stuff like this and how to calculate. Here is what I came up with using these two links to calculate the inflation rate adjustment and the Historical DJ close:
(Dow Close Link - Close as of Dec 31st of each year)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI
(Inflation Rate Adjustment Calculator based on Dec 2000 to Dec of each year)
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Inflation_Rate_Calcu
lator.asp
I got these numbers. Not all that different, except for 2006 and 2007, still a little bit different picture.
year --- DOW close --- Adj Inf Rate --- inflation adjusted value for 2000 --- % Diff
_________________________________________________________
2000 --- 10373.54 ----- n/a --- 10373.54 --- n/a
2001 --- 9851.56 ------ 1.55 -- 10534.33 --- (-6.83)
2002 --- 8896.09 ------ 3.97 -- 10785.37 --- (-18.89)
2003 --- 9899.05 ------ 5.97 -- 10992.84 --- (-10.94)
2004 --- 10590.22 ----- 9.37 -- 11345.54 --- (-7.55)
2005 --- 10912.27 ----- 13.1 -- 11732.47 --- (-8.20)
2006 --- 12194.13 ----- 14.2 -- 11846.58 --- 3.48
2007 --- *13357.74 ---- *19.82 - 12429.58 --- 9.28
*Close as of Sept 30, 2007, Inf Adj Rate based on Dec 2000 to Sep 2007
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
when I don't include a link I include searchable data - unique text that can be found via google
as to the sources - no mystery -
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1ECO/is_2002_July/ai_90796775/p
g_12
and BLS inflation calculator (which doesn't have its own link but can be found on this page http://www.bls.gov/bls/inflation.htm)
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As to Bush and the economy - he shoulda followed the rule - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But he's too smart for that. 
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Business failures like Enron were promoted by deregulation, which was directly traceable to Bush and friends (specifically Phil Gramm and his wife
Enron was more of Clinton's failures than Bush's. The corruption was occuring BEFORE Bush got into office.
OOPS!
"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No response to all the negative economic results under Bush - the feeble DOW, increased poverty, devalued dollar, turning a Federal surplus into massive debt ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME