Jump to content

DKW - Saw you bashing Obama and defending Bush below


RunInRed

Recommended Posts

And let me start off by saying I know posting on this board anything progressive or "non-conservative" is about as ambitious as going into Iraq and thinking we can impose a Democracy but here goes:

For all the Bush defenders can you please tell me what he has accomplished in his 6+ years of office? If it wasn't for 9/11, I'm not even sure this guy would be relevant at all. His immediate reponse to 9/11 (particularly Afghanistan) was stellar but it has been down hll since (see Iraq, Iran, Bin Laden still on the loose, etc). But forgetting foreign policy for a second, some one tell me one piece of positive legislation or one great initiative his administration has accomplished in regards to health care, social security, energy, public education, poverty, social and economic welfare, immigration, women issues, etc.?

When history tells it story, this guy will be an after thought. Iraq will go down in the chapters with Vietnam and he will be the least acheived President in the past 50 years. This is all despite having his party in control of congress for the majority of his Presidency as well - he's had a rubber stamp to get things done and he really hasn't done anything.

I'm not sure who the "answer" is in terms of the '08 election and I'm not even suggesting it's Obama or any other Democrat or Republican...but defending Bush as a good President is like saying Iraq has been a success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





And let me start off by saying I know posting on this board anything progressive or "non-conservative" is about as ambitious as going into Iraq and thinking we can impose a Democracy but here goes:

For all the Bush defenders can you please tell me what he has accomplished in his 6+ years of office? If it wasn't for 9/11, I'm not even sure this guy would be relevant at all. His immediate reponse to 9/11 (particularly Afghanistan) was stellar but it has been down hll since (see Iraq, Iran, Bin Laden still on the loose, etc). But forgetting foreign policy for a second, some one tell me one piece of positive legislation or one great initiative his administration has accomplished in regards to health care, social security, energy, public education, poverty, social and economic welfare, immigration, women issues, etc.?

When history tells it story, this guy will be an after thought. Iraq will go down in the chapters with Vietnam and he will be the least acheived President in the past 50 years. This is all despite having his party in control of congress for the majority of his Presidency as well - he's had a rubber stamp to get things done and he really hasn't done anything.

I'm not sure who the "answer" is in terms of the '08 election and I'm not even suggesting it's Obama or any other Democrat or Republican...but defending Bush as a good President is like saying Iraq has been a success.

Do you have a job? Enjoy working? Looked around lately at all the construction and expansion?

Any other questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let me start off by saying I know posting on this board anything progressive or "non-conservative" is about as ambitious as going into Iraq and thinking we can impose a Democracy but here goes:

For all the Bush defenders can you please tell me what he has accomplished in his 6+ years of office? If it wasn't for 9/11, I'm not even sure this guy would be relevant at all. His immediate reponse to 9/11 (particularly Afghanistan) was stellar but it has been down hll since (see Iraq, Iran, Bin Laden still on the loose, etc). But forgetting foreign policy for a second, some one tell me one piece of positive legislation or one great initiative his administration has accomplished in regards to health care, social security, energy, public education, poverty, social and economic welfare, immigration, women issues, etc.?

When history tells it story, this guy will be an after thought. Iraq will go down in the chapters with Vietnam and he will be the least acheived President in the past 50 years. This is all despite having his party in control of congress for the majority of his Presidency as well - he's had a rubber stamp to get things done and he really hasn't done anything.

I'm not sure who the "answer" is in terms of the '08 election and I'm not even suggesting it's Obama or any other Democrat or Republican...but defending Bush as a good President is like saying Iraq has been a success.

Do you have a job? Enjoy working? Looked around lately at all the construction and expansion?

Any other questions?

It's NOT the economy stupid! :no:<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agh...So Bush is reponsible for my job and for the construction projects I see going on around me? I KNEW I missed something. LMFAO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let me start off by saying I know posting on this board anything progressive or "non-conservative" is about as ambitious as going into Iraq and thinking we can impose a Democracy but here goes:

For all the Bush defenders can you please tell me what he has accomplished in his 6+ years of office? If it wasn't for 9/11, I'm not even sure this guy would be relevant at all. His immediate reponse to 9/11 (particularly Afghanistan) was stellar but it has been down hll since (see Iraq, Iran, Bin Laden still on the loose, etc). But forgetting foreign policy for a second, some one tell me one piece of positive legislation or one great initiative his administration has accomplished in regards to health care, social security, energy, public education, poverty, social and economic welfare, immigration, women issues, etc.?

When history tells it story, this guy will be an after thought. Iraq will go down in the chapters with Vietnam and he will be the least acheived President in the past 50 years. This is all despite having his party in control of congress for the majority of his Presidency as well - he's had a rubber stamp to get things done and he really hasn't done anything.

I'm not sure who the "answer" is in terms of the '08 election and I'm not even suggesting it's Obama or any other Democrat or Republican...but defending Bush as a good President is like saying Iraq has been a success.

Well, Bush inherited the Internet bubble and the subsequent stock market collapse. He averted one whale of a recession by lowering tax rates all around, especially in the critical area of capital gains, with significant help from Allan Greenspan who lowered interest rates to next to zero. While the deficit took a hit, it is now at a lower propertion of the GDP of anytime in recent history with the exception of Clinton's last two years in office. Further, if you really look at job growth and personal household wealth in this country, there is no question that the economy has done quite well. So, on the economic front, Bush has done far, far better than the buffoons of Johnson, Nixon, and Carter.

However, I am not an ardent Bush fan. I believe he failed by not implementing long-term curbs on entitlement growth, and actually added a completely new entitlement program with the God-awful Prescription Act--perhaps one of the most costly and totally unnecessary programs in US history.

And, while Iraq has demonstrated the administration's staggering incompetence, the prosecution of war against terrorist organizations has actually been doing rather well, whether in the Philippines, Thailand, or elsewhere. Afghanistan is a shining example. The key difference was that there was an uncontested need to be in Afghanistan.

So, while I'll gladly eviscerate Bush on an number of points, his presidency had its bright spots, something you simply cannot say about Lyndon Baines Johnson or Jimmy Carter. Nixon's sole positive contribution was rapproachment with China, making him only the third worst president of the last fifty years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we could argue about Bush's tax policy all day long...but I will say this about his economic approach, he has been far from a fiscal conservative. The deficit spending has been out of control throughout his administration with very little positive social programs resulting from it. In addition, the money that has been wasted in Iraq is truly baffling - and the troops and tanks/humvees still don't have the body armour they need - truly unexcusable. Also, when you look at the living wage and factor in inflation, when you look at poverty levels....his economic policies have done more to prop up the upper class than anything else in my opinion.

Further Bush's attempt at "fixing Social Security" was a total disaster, he has done nothing to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and push clean energy initiatives, he has completely ignored global warming, has done nothing positive on healthcare (as you noted), has done nothing to improve public education and nothing on immigration. All completely inexusable in my opinion. Go back and look at his campaign promises and then look what he's actually done...the gap is astounding and again...he had a republican congress for the majority of his presidency!

I'll give you Nixon and Carter for Presidential disasters but I'm not so sure about LBJ. His administration got a pretty impressive list of legislation enacted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let me start off by saying I know posting on this board anything progressive or "non-conservative" is about as ambitious as going into Iraq and thinking we can impose a Democracy but here goes:

For all the Bush defenders can you please tell me what he has accomplished in his 6+ years of office? If it wasn't for 9/11, I'm not even sure this guy would be relevant at all. His immediate reponse to 9/11 (particularly Afghanistan) was stellar but it has been down hll since (see Iraq, Iran, Bin Laden still on the loose, etc). But forgetting foreign policy for a second, some one tell me one piece of positive legislation or one great initiative his administration has accomplished in regards to health care, social security, energy, public education, poverty, social and economic welfare, immigration, women issues, etc.?

When history tells it story, this guy will be an after thought. Iraq will go down in the chapters with Vietnam and he will be the least acheived President in the past 50 years. This is all despite having his party in control of congress for the majority of his Presidency as well - he's had a rubber stamp to get things done and he really hasn't done anything.

I'm not sure who the "answer" is in terms of the '08 election and I'm not even suggesting it's Obama or any other Democrat or Republican...but defending Bush as a good President is like saying Iraq has been a success.

Well, Bush inherited the Internet bubble and the subsequent stock market collapse. He averted one whale of a recession by lowering tax rates all around, especially in the critical area of capital gains, with significant help from Allan Greenspan who lowered interest rates to next to zero. While the deficit took a hit, it is now at a lower propertion of the GDP of anytime in recent history with the exception of Clinton's last two years in office. Further, if you really look at job growth and personal household wealth in this country, there is no question that the economy has done quite well. So, on the economic front, Bush has done far, far better than the buffoons of Johnson, Nixon, and Carter.

However, I am not an ardent Bush fan. I believe he failed by not implementing long-term curbs on entitlement growth, and actually added a completely new entitlement program with the God-awful Prescription Act--perhaps one of the most costly and totally unnecessary programs in US history.

And, while Iraq has demonstrated the administration's staggering incompetence, the prosecution of war against terrorist organizations has actually been doing rather well, whether in the Philippines, Thailand, or elsewhere. Afghanistan is a shining example. The key difference was that there was an uncontested need to be in Afghanistan.

So, while I'll gladly eviscerate Bush on an number of points, his presidency had its bright spots, something you simply cannot say about Lyndon Baines Johnson or Jimmy Carter. Nixon's sole positive contribution was rapproachment with China, making him only the third worst president of the last fifty years.

I agree with most of what you said. I find the constant Bush bashing to be ridiculous. If you read people like Molly Ivins and Marianne Means, you'd think Bush clubbed baby seals on the days he wasn't raping Girls Gone Wild.

Has he made mistakes? Absolutely. Is Iraq one of them? Not enough information to know yet. Yes, we've lost 3.000 some-odd troops. We lost more than that in an hour at Normandy. I think the mistake there was him blinking. Instead of pouring full-steam ahead and obliterating the enemy, he flinched when people started wanting to get out. He wavered from his "battle is long" position. And it kept Iraq from being the success it could still be given the right direction.

My "it's the economy" answer was merely to refute the blindness of the original post which wailed "what's Bush done for us?!?!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we could argue about Bush's tax policy all day long...but I will say this about his economic approach, he has been far from a fiscal conservative. The deficit spending has been out of control throughout his administration with very little positive social programs resulting from it. In addition, the money that has been wasted in Iraq is truly baffling - and the troops and tanks/humvees still don't have the body armour they need - truly unexcusable. Also, when you look at the living wage and factor in inflation, when you look at poverty levels....his economic policies have done more to prop up the upper class than anything else in my opinion.

Further Bush's attempt at "fixing Social Security" was a total disaster, he has done nothing to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and push clean energy initiatives, he has completely ignored global warming, has done nothing positive on healthcare (as you noted), has done nothing to improve public education and nothing on immigration. All completely inexusable in my opinion. Go back and look at his campaign promises and then look what he's actually done...the gap is astounding and again...he had a republican congress for the majority of his presidency!

I'll give you Nixon and Carter for Presidential disasters but I'm not so sure about LBJ. His administration got a pretty impressive list of legislation enacted.

I don't mean this as a slam, but do you have any of your own ideas? Do you bother to research what you're saying or do you just blindly parrot what Rosie, Barbara, Alec and Al Franken tell you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean this as a slam, but do you have any of your own ideas? Do you bother to research what you're saying or do you just blindly parrot what Rosie, Barbara, Alec and Al Franken tell you?

Are you kidding? Those are the facts. I don't take my beefs from any talking heads. Again, this is not meant as a Bush bash...but I just found it astounding that conservatives go ahead and bash many '08 candidates who actually have ideas and defend the current president when he hasn't done anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we could argue about Bush's tax policy all day long...but I will say this about his economic approach, he has been far from a fiscal conservative. The deficit spending has been out of control throughout his administration with very little positive social programs resulting from it. In addition, the money that has been wasted in Iraq is truly baffling - and the troops and tanks/humvees still don't have the body armour they need - truly unexcusable. Also, when you look at the living wage and factor in inflation, when you look at poverty levels....his economic policies have done more to prop up the upper class than anything else in my opinion.

Further Bush's attempt at "fixing Social Security" was a total disaster, he has done nothing to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and push clean energy initiatives, he has completely ignored global warming, has done nothing positive on healthcare (as you noted), has done nothing to improve public education and nothing on immigration. All completely inexusable in my opinion. Go back and look at his campaign promises and then look what he's actually done...the gap is astounding and again...he had a republican congress for the majority of his presidency!

I'll give you Nixon and Carter for Presidential disasters but I'm not so sure about LBJ. His administration got a pretty impressive list of legislation enacted.

First of all, let me take on the nonsense of economic policies propping up the upper class. Across the board, all classes have shown significant growth in household wealth after inflation. Second, unemployment has remained below 5% for almost all of the Bush presidency. Quite frankly, if you cannot find a good job in this economy, then you simply aren't trying.

You confuse legislation with positive economic results, especially in the case of LBJ. All you have to do is look at the pace of economic growth before and after his disastrous Great Society program to realize that he actually retarded social mobility rather through economic growth rather than stimulated it. In fact, if you look at the numbers, the decline in the poverty rate in this country actually slowed once Johnson's programs (And attendant skyrocketing tax rates) too effect. Aside from the Voting Rights Act, the Johnson legacy has very little to recommend it. Ask just about any hospital administrator, and they'll be the first to tell you that Medicare and Medicaid was so bizarrely constructed that it has driven the cost of healthcare up throughout the country over the past 40 years.

Further, Lyndon Johnson set into motion a great deal of stupidity with his Federal Judges appointment. Probably the single most stupid court decision of our time was mandated school busing within school districts. What started out as a laudable goal of integrating actually resulted in the exact opposite effect. Families not wanting to send their children to substandard inner city schools abandoned their working-class and middle-class neighborhoods and hightailed it to the suburbs. This, in turn, compounded the miseries of the inner city, with spiraling crime, and economic retrenchment as a result. So when you drive through entire shuttered blocks of Detroit or Birmingham or Atlanta, then you have Lyndon Baines Johnson to thank.

And, while we're on the subject of LBJ, I'd like to point out that LBJ was the one who set Social Security on the road to insolvency by using it as a financial resource for the Federal government. I would agree that Bush has done nothing to change the situation, and have been rather vocal on this board about the subject, but LBJ was the one who created this situation in the first place, just like he did with Medicare and Medicaid.

I also agree with you on his absolute failure to curb the growth of government. But Bush gets an overall Pass on the subject of the economy, while LBJ was a miserable failure.

Public education, as it is currently designed, is a mess that no President will be able to fix. You have the teachers' unions and the education establishment to deal with.

Here's an interesting fact: When adjusted for inflation, educational funding per student has doubled in the past 20 years, yet we are seeing absolutely no improvement in basic classroom performance. The only acceptable solution is to burn the entire educational establishment to the waterline and start over with a program that accelerates kids through based on mastery of material, not just lockstepping through based on age. Further, until you begin offering vocational training at age 14 for those not on college-prep track, you will never really show any statistical progress in the classroom, and no amount of funding is going to make a difference.

Finally, Global Warming is still being hotly debated among climatologists. We have argued this point ad nauseum on this board. Just use the handy-dandy search function to ferret out the Global Warming threads.

Overall, I rate Bush as a C- as a president. I actually will consider Clinton a middling C. Nixon? A D-. Carter and LBJ? An absolute F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we could argue about Bush's tax policy all day long...but I will say this about his economic approach, he has been far from a fiscal conservative. The deficit spending has been out of control throughout his administration with very little positive social programs resulting from it. In addition, the money that has been wasted in Iraq is truly baffling - and the troops and tanks/humvees still don't have the body armour they need - truly unexcusable. Also, when you look at the living wage and factor in inflation, when you look at poverty levels....his economic policies have done more to prop up the upper class than anything else in my opinion.

Further Bush's attempt at "fixing Social Security" was a total disaster, he has done nothing to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and push clean energy initiatives, he has completely ignored global warming, has done nothing positive on healthcare (as you noted), has done nothing to improve public education and nothing on immigration. All completely inexusable in my opinion. Go back and look at his campaign promises and then look what he's actually done...the gap is astounding and again...he had a republican congress for the majority of his presidency!

I'll give you Nixon and Carter for Presidential disasters but I'm not so sure about LBJ. His administration got a pretty impressive list of legislation enacted.

First of all, let me take on the nonsense of economic policies propping up the upper class. Across the board, all classes have shown significant growth in household wealth after inflation. Second, unemployment has remained below 5% for almost all of the Bush presidency. Quite frankly, if you cannot find a good job in this economy, then you simply aren't trying.

You confuse legislation with positive economic results, especially in the case of LBJ. All you have to do is look at the pace of economic growth before and after his disastrous Great Society program to realize that he actually retarded social mobility rather through economic growth rather than stimulated it. In fact, if you look at the numbers, the decline in the poverty rate in this country actually slowed once Johnson's programs (And attendant skyrocketing tax rates) too effect. Aside from the Voting Rights Act, the Johnson legacy has very little to recommend it. Ask just about any hospital administrator, and they'll be the first to tell you that Medicare and Medicaid was so bizarrely constructed that it has driven the cost of healthcare up throughout the country over the past 40 years.

Further, Lyndon Johnson set into motion a great deal of stupidity with his Federal Judges appointment. Probably the single most stupid court decision of our time was mandated school busing within school districts. What started out as a laudable goal of integrating actually resulted in the exact opposite effect. Families not wanting to send their children to substandard inner city schools abandoned their working-class and middle-class neighborhoods and hightailed it to the suburbs. This, in turn, compounded the miseries of the inner city, with spiraling crime, and economic retrenchment as a result. So when you drive through entire shuttered blocks of Detroit or Birmingham or Atlanta, then you have Lyndon Baines Johnson to thank.

And, while we're on the subject of LBJ, I'd like to point out that LBJ was the one who set Social Security on the road to insolvency by using it as a financial resource for the Federal government. I would agree that Bush has done nothing to change the situation, and have been rather vocal on this board about the subject, but LBJ was the one who created this situation in the first place, just like he did with Medicare and Medicaid.

I also agree with you on his absolute failure to curb the growth of government. But Bush gets an overall Pass on the subject of the economy, while LBJ was a miserable failure.

Public education, as it is currently designed, is a mess that no President will be able to fix. You have the teachers' unions and the education establishment to deal with.

Here's an interesting fact: When adjusted for inflation, educational funding per student has doubled in the past 20 years, yet we are seeing absolutely no improvement in basic classroom performance. The only acceptable solution is to burn the entire educational establishment to the waterline and start over with a program that accelerates kids through based on mastery of material, not just lockstepping through based on age. Further, until you begin offering vocational training at age 14 for those not on college-prep track, you will never really show any statistical progress in the classroom, and no amount of funding is going to make a difference.

Finally, Global Warming is still being hotly debated among climatologists. We have argued this point ad nauseum on this board. Just use the handy-dandy search function to ferret out the Global Warming threads.

Overall, I rate Bush as a C- as a president. I actually will consider Clinton a middling C. Nixon? A D-. Carter and LBJ? An absolute F.

You said retarded. I'm telling.

Let me add that I attended school in Australia for three years. Those blokes got it right.

You go to school for roughly 90 days and are then out of school for 30. At the end of 90 days if you haven't mastered the subjects, you return to that same section after the break to repeat it. "Grades" weren't the goal, achievement was. I liked it. Got a month off for Christmas (which was in the summer) a month off in the spring and a month off in the fall. Pretty freakin' awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said retarded. I'm telling.

You're right I should have said "slowed to a crawl." Thanks for letting me contribute to the dumbing down of this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I really don’t want to get into a historical debate on LBJ or even fight his battles – I will say that you definitely are not giving his administration enough credit for the Civil Rights legislation and the course it set the country on. Particulary, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – these two pieces are some of the greatest pieces of legislation in the last 50 years. Also, say what you want to about his initiatives with Medicare and Education but I would hate to see where we would all be with out them. While both systems need “fixes” don’t forget that these systems are part of the fabric of the America’s socio and economic opportunity systems and what makes this Country the brightest light in the all world. If you have ever known an elder who has relied on Medicare or if you have ever been a student relying on federal aid or low-interest loans, you can start by thanking this legislation. Again, I’m not saying all LBJ’s initiatives are perfect – but you can’t blame him by just saying “if we had done nothing we’d be better off” – that truly is an ignorant statement in my opinion. All these systems are outdated and need changes but that debate is for another day. Enough about LBJ.

As for GWB, a C- is beyond generous and to tout him as some economic force is laughable. Real Median household incomes have fallen $1,273 under Bush, the poverty rate has risen 1.3% and budget deficits have accumulated over 1.5 trillion. So again, even if I gave you the economy (debatable), Bush has accomplished very little in office. WE can do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read on, I have bashed Bush as a total failure with spending etc. Obama thread was just equal time. Bush mis-speaks, as we all do at some time and it is real news. Obama just blew the numbers then and three more time yesterday I just heard, and no one calls him on it. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read on, I have bashed Bush as a total failure with spending etc. Obama thread was just equal time. Bush mis-speaks, as we all do at some time and it is real news. Obama just blew the numbers then and three more time yesterday I just heard, and no one calls him on it. Why?

You know why...not that its "fair and balanced" ... but we all know why. But again, I'm less concerned about mispeaks and one-liners and more concerned about real change, real progress and real legislation. That's my beef with Bush. He has done very little and has had all the opportunity in the world to make his marks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real Median household incomes have fallen $1,273 under Bush, the poverty rate has risen 1.3% and budget deficits have accumulated over 1.5 trillion. So again, even if I gave you the economy (debatable), Bush has accomplished very little in office. WE can do better.

I wasn't discussing household incomes, which are notoriously fickle based on whether or not people elect to cut back on hours, retire early, or a host of other factors.

Instead, I was talking about Household WEALTH, which is the total holdings of all American households after debt, inflation, etc., and is a far more reliable barometer of the country's long term fiscal health. Jeez, I wish you kneejerk people would bother reading.

Further, the deficit has indeed risen. Yet, as I stated before, it is a far smaller percentage of the GDP than at anytime in the last half century, with the sole exception of 1999 and 2000, the height of the internet bubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real Median household incomes have fallen $1,273 under Bush, the poverty rate has risen 1.3% and budget deficits have accumulated over 1.5 trillion. So again, even if I gave you the economy (debatable), Bush has accomplished very little in office. WE can do better.

I wasn't discussing household incomes, which are notoriously fickle based on whether or not people elect to cut back on hours, retire early, or a host of other factors.

Instead, I was talking about Household WEALTH, which is the total holdings of all American households after debt, inflation, etc., and is a far more reliable barometer of the country's long term fiscal health. Jeez, I wish you kneejerk people would bother reading.

Further, the deficit has indeed risen. Yet, as I stated before, it is a far smaller percentage of the GDP than at anytime in the last half century, with the sole exception of 1999 and 2000, the height of the internet bubble.

Well I guess you can pick any stat you want to try to make your point...we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aaaahhhhhh, another unresolved issue in the political forum. What a surprise!! At last count, the score stands at:

Liberals: 0

Conservatives: 0

All those in between: 0

Kind of like debating BG in Rivals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real Median household incomes have fallen $1,273 under Bush, the poverty rate has risen 1.3% and budget deficits have accumulated over 1.5 trillion. So again, even if I gave you the economy (debatable), Bush has accomplished very little in office. WE can do better.

I wasn't discussing household incomes, which are notoriously fickle based on whether or not people elect to cut back on hours, retire early, or a host of other factors.

Instead, I was talking about Household WEALTH, which is the total holdings of all American households after debt, inflation, etc., and is a far more reliable barometer of the country's long term fiscal health. Jeez, I wish you kneejerk people would bother reading.

Further, the deficit has indeed risen. Yet, as I stated before, it is a far smaller percentage of the GDP than at anytime in the last half century, with the sole exception of 1999 and 2000, the height of the internet bubble.

The primary driver of "household wealth" rising has been been house prices. Imagine having bought this house 30 years ago.

http://homes.realtor.com/search/listingdet...srcnt=61#Detail

Now you're a millionaire. But if you sell your house to get your "wealth" and want to live in the same town, how much better off are you?

The number of millionaires has gone up dramatically due to home prices in key areas. If that bubble really bursts, "household wealth" will plummet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real Median household incomes have fallen $1,273 under Bush, the poverty rate has risen 1.3% and budget deficits have accumulated over 1.5 trillion. So again, even if I gave you the economy (debatable), Bush has accomplished very little in office. WE can do better.

I wasn't discussing household incomes, which are notoriously fickle based on whether or not people elect to cut back on hours, retire early, or a host of other factors.

Instead, I was talking about Household WEALTH, which is the total holdings of all American households after debt, inflation, etc., and is a far more reliable barometer of the country's long term fiscal health. Jeez, I wish you kneejerk people would bother reading.

Further, the deficit has indeed risen. Yet, as I stated before, it is a far smaller percentage of the GDP than at anytime in the last half century, with the sole exception of 1999 and 2000, the height of the internet bubble.

The primary driver of "household wealth" rising has been been house prices. Imagine having bought this house 30 years ago.

http://homes.realtor.com/search/listingdet...srcnt=61#Detail

Now you're a millionaire. But if you sell your house to get your "wealth" and want to live in the same town, how much better off are you?

The number of millionaires has gone up dramatically due to home prices in key areas. If that bubble really bursts, "household wealth" will plummet.

Home equity is one aspect, but even then there will not be a long-term plummet. This is real estate, not tulip bulbs or overvalued internet stocks. Land is land and, even if there is short term drops in markets, it is by no means permanent. Further, the true bubble is to found in select cities such as SF, Miami, and DC.

But the actual source of household wealth is equities such as stocks and bonds, which are now owned by roughly 60% of the American population. IRAs, 401(k)s etc constitute the lions share of equities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real Median household incomes have fallen $1,273 under Bush, the poverty rate has risen 1.3% and budget deficits have accumulated over 1.5 trillion. So again, even if I gave you the economy (debatable), Bush has accomplished very little in office. WE can do better.

I wasn't discussing household incomes, which are notoriously fickle based on whether or not people elect to cut back on hours, retire early, or a host of other factors.

Instead, I was talking about Household WEALTH, which is the total holdings of all American households after debt, inflation, etc., and is a far more reliable barometer of the country's long term fiscal health. Jeez, I wish you kneejerk people would bother reading.

Further, the deficit has indeed risen. Yet, as I stated before, it is a far smaller percentage of the GDP than at anytime in the last half century, with the sole exception of 1999 and 2000, the height of the internet bubble.

The primary driver of "household wealth" rising has been been house prices. Imagine having bought this house 30 years ago.

http://homes.realtor.com/search/listingdet...srcnt=61#Detail

Now you're a millionaire. But if you sell your house to get your "wealth" and want to live in the same town, how much better off are you?

The number of millionaires has gone up dramatically due to home prices in key areas. If that bubble really bursts, "household wealth" will plummet.

Home equity is one aspect, but even then there will not be a long-term plummet. This is real estate, not tulip bulbs or overvalued internet stocks. Land is land and, even if there is short term drops in markets, it is by no means permanent. Further, the true bubble is to found in select cities such as SF, Miami, and DC.

But the actual source of household wealth is equities such as stocks and bonds, which are now owned by roughly 60% of the American population. IRAs, 401(k)s etc constitute the lions share of equities.

Those top cities throw off the averages of household wealth due to home values. For the vast majority of people, their homes are easily their most valuable asset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. The housing bubble just isn't going to happen.

Let me amend that. There may be a two-year drop in home values, but it won't be cataclysmic.

The Dutch Tulip Bulb craze was a classic bubble, where single bulbs were fetching prices equivalent to an entire home in Amsterdam.

The Internet was a bubble because price/earnings ratios were often in the 200+ range when anything over 20 is cause for careful attention.

Housing? Not even close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. The housing bubble just isn't going to happen.

The bubble, or the burst?

The entire chicken little scenario.

I don't envision a huge drop in home values. I just question the value of inflated home values unless I plan to cash out of my inflated area and move to Youngstown, Ohio. Plus, I saw recently where only 5% of San Diegoans can afford a house at the median price in that city. Not sure overheated home prices are good overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...