[.OrgOwner]

How much of the blame should George Bush and his administration take for the current meltdown of the financial markets? Would this crash have happened regardless? It's not like this situation has been impossible to forecast but it does appear that plenty of heads were hidden deep in the sand while the cracks were forming.. On a positive note oil is through the floor.

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by .OrgOwner

How much of the blame should George Bush and his administration take for the current meltdown of the financial markets? Would this crash have happened regardless? It's not like this situation has been impossible to forecast but it does appear that plenty of heads were hidden deep in the sand while the cracks were forming.. On a positive note oil is through the floor.

While it's fair to say that the markets are cyclical (there have been many crashes over the years), this one wouldn't be quite so bad for the US if it's government (Bush) wasn't spending so much money fighting such a protracted war in Iraq.

The knock-on effect currently being felt around the world, however, is mainly due to the natural entanglement of the so-called free world markets and the fact that all world leaders desperately tried to prolong the inevitable. It's a little like forest fires. Nobody likes them but they do have a part to play. Even though many would like to blame him for everything, he isn't the sole reason for the economic slowdown. He didn't help matters, but the strategies that brought this slowdown were set in motion well before he got into power.

[ghbzorro]

I believe that amoral pile of cretins (Bush and his Masters) has caused an unbounded proliferation of previously existing but less pervasive plundering behaviours.

So my vote is YES.

And they will do more global damage before their time is up.

I may eventually develop a strong opinion on this issue.

[.OrgOwner]

But the scope of this meltdown is something new, the real estate crash and the rampant and reckless lending practices have led the US and the rest of the world into some new depths of financial distress. I'm not convinced we are anywhere near the end of this and much of it may have been avoided if measures were taken early. It was simply bad economic management.

[Surffrog]

The problems are two-fold. First, everybody in business recognises the need to open up new markets in which to sell their products. As markets mature, so sales slow, peak and plato. Share prices then do the same - a business whose share price remains static isn't making investors any money, so they sell and the share price drops. Now the business is losing money.

There aren't that many new (or developing) markets left today. China, Vietnam, India... The rest just aren't there yet. They're going to take longer to become of value (if ever in some cases). In the meantime, business still needs to keep investors happy.

Secondly, where financial institutions are concerned, there's only so much money they can earn an investor before the investor starts to pay big bucks in tax and nobody what's to do that. So, for this reason and the fact the investors want to earn ever-more serious amounts of money, they have to come up with even more complicated strategies in order for their products to work.

The more complex and potentially rewarding the product is, the bigger the risk. Previously, that wasn't a problem since it was the investor that lost out not the bank - never the bank in fact. They didn't even suffer the bane of nearly all small to midsize business - cash flow. When a deal when bad, they could borrow from each other at a rate that would make all of us cry. And why not. The interest banks charge the rest of us mere mortals normally keeps them well in profit and capable of paying back the loans without raising a sweat. However, it only takes one big financial institution to collapse for the rest to realise that absolutely every loan comes with a risk, that they haven't all been playing by the rules and that they themselves are now at risk.

The banks then withhold loans (have you seen how difficult it is to get a mortgage lately?) even from themselves and, like dominos, the weak beginning to fall. Only the weak might well not be the small. You've heard the expression, "The bigger they are the harder they fall." Now you'll get a chance to see it. When they fall they do so owing billions of dollars to other forms of business. Yep, this is going to be one hell of a forest fire all right.

But all the above notwithstanding, it isn't actually Bush's fault (God, I really hate the fact that I'm defending him), he just made an already bad situation much worse.

[.OrgOwner]

You have to feel for people who had planned to retire, imagine how much net worth has been erased between real estate and the stock market recently.

[denzee]

It's as much Bush's fault as Katrina was his fault. Could he personally have done more? Absolutely, but there are many, many people below him to spread blame around. In the sense that he is the Captain of the ship, he is ultimately responsible for what occurs, good and bad.
I'm sure many financial people saw this coming and just hoped it would go away before it hit.
Question is now, who pays??? Are bailouts (with taxpayer money) the proper way to handle this???

[low-rider]

meltdown? u r lucky.

i'm living in a country where my generation and generations before are living through hard financial and economic times all their (our) lifes.

don't get me started about prices and salaries here. and now world is going through "economic and financial meltdown". i don't know how much more financies can melt down in croatia. average annual income is 9.500 us dollars (that is per year). and let's say price of 1 gallon of petrol is now about 8.5 us dollars. last year i payed for my blade (i bought new one) about 21.000 us dollars with tax. and they gave me discount. 6 years ago i bought my car (skoda octavia) for about 40.000 us dollars. that car would be about 15.000 dollars in us. now i'm preparing to take a loan or bank credit to buy a house. average price of the house in my town is about 100.000 euros which is about 170.000 us dollars.

so you know nothing about economical melt down

[denzee]

Why don't you come to Canada low-rider? Everyone else does. You don't even have to do it the proper way. That's way too much trouble. Just come on over, claim refuge status and it's all yours. Really that simple. Free housing, medical, prescriptions monthly income and you name it. Then if you have a trade and I'm sure you do, work under the table. Oh and don't forget the rest of your family too!
New Canadians will receive more income than Veterans who fought for this Country.
I am a little bitter about this arrangment but hey, I'd love to see good productive people over here such as yourself. Plus you have a Blade!
Sorry for side stepping this thread a bit.

[low-rider]

Originally Posted by denzee

Why don't you come to Canada low-rider? Everyone else does. You don't even have to do it the proper way. That's way too much trouble. Just come on over, claim refuge status and it's all yours. Really that simple. Free housing, medical, prescriptions monthly income and you name it. Then if you have a trade and I'm sure you do, work under the table. Oh and don't forget the rest of your family too!
New Canadians will receive more income than Veterans who fought for this Country.
I am a little bitter about this arrangment but hey, I'd love to see good productive people over here such as yourself. Plus you have a Blade!
Sorry for side stepping this thread a bit.

hehehe i like Canada (at least in the photos)

but i wouldn't like to use system like that and make real Canadians angry. but maybe if i marry some canadian girl it will be legal and clean hehe

i have cousin in toronto but he is some kind of manager in one company and works second job (4 hours a day) in other. his wife also has a job as a software programmer. he has university degree from here and now is planing on quiting that second job and wants to go to some college there. my english is not so good so i hope i didn't write something wrong

but i'm not so brilliant as my cousin so Canada wouldn't have any use of me

comparing to others here i'm managing to do well because me and my father we have two companies but even with two companies it is hard life here. taxes are high, life expenses are high, police tickets are veeeery high

when i hear that average annual income in us or canada is about 100.000 dollars (at least somebody told me that here) and prices in us and canada are lower for most of the things (like fuel, cars, bikes...) and prices for houses are about the same i wonder how people are living here at all.

do you think my blade is better then urs because it costs dobule then u pay in us or canada? i dont think so. the same bike but not the same price

[steingar]

Yes, it is the fault of Bush, almost directly. He and his advisors have disdained regulation and applauded increases in rates of home ownership while ignoring the increasing risk-prone behavior in the financial sector. They've had ample opportunity to reign in this behavior, and plenty of warning signs to boot. However, Bush has pursued policy over reality since he took office (I could cite spectacular instances) and this is just one aspect of it. Unfettered capitalism is good, right? So the new American way is capitalism for the profits and socialism for the debts. By the way, I hope you really wanted to own AIG, because now you do.

[Duster929]

Every time there's one of these spectacular crashes, we all act like it's the first time. The fact is, American history is rife with examples of unfettered capitalism causing huge bubbles and crashes.

The reasons for this happening are no different, fundamentally, from the reasons for the tech crash of 2000/2001, or the massive corporate governance scandals a la Enron which caused another major correction.

There are people looking for opportunities to make money fast. When they find an opportunity, they exploit it. Eventually, they over-exploit the opportunity and try to come up with more ways to squeeze money out of it. As they get more and more inventive at "creating value", the actual value of their enterprises diverges further and further from the fundamental value, which never changed in the first place. Eventually, reality sets in.

In most places, there are regulations against rampant greed, so that when reality sets in, you get a correction. In America, with it's unbridled optimism, people really do believe that "trees grow to the sky", and take a dim view of regulatory efforts to slow down growth and keep things realistic. So whereas most economies experience a business cycle, America experiences booms and busts.

From the beginning of its economy, Americans have been looking for some kind of economic fountain of youth, some kind of Eldorado, a source of limitless wealth and opportunity. Fishing. Farming. Mining. Oil. Pharmaceuticals. Technology. Ethanol. Mortgages. The gold rush and its consequences are part of American mythology, and admit it or not, that mythology shapes the culture.

What's the next gold rush? I don't know, but whatever it is, it will have a spectacular rise, a spectacular fall, and we'll all look around saying "how did we let this happen?" "Should we have more regulation?" "We knew it was a shell game all along."

What's that saying about history repeating?

--- D

[nedro]

For the first time in history, America went to war against a country that DID NOT ATTACK US!
G.W. Bush sent them there.

[Duster929]

Originally Posted by nedro

For the first time in history, America went to war against a country that DID NOT ATTACK US!
G.W. Bush sent them there.

Korea? Vietnam? First Gulf War?

--- D

PS. Oh, I forgot, in September 1996, Bill Clinton launched 44 cruise missiles at various sites in Iraq. People forget this. He also said at that time "the United States was prepared to do so again if the Iraqi ruler "violates the United Nations prohibitions.""

[nedro]

Originally Posted by Duster929

Korea? Vietnam? First Gulf War?

--- D

PS. Oh, I forgot, in September 1996, Bill Clinton launched 44 cruise missiles at various sites in Iraq. People forget this. He also said at that time "the United States was prepared to do so again if the Iraqi ruler "violates the United Nations prohibitions.""

Oh please, don't be retarded. In each one of those cases, the counrty its self was directly responsible for the actions that lead up to conflict. This was not the case with G.W.'s war. There was NO justification for his actions what-so-ever.

[Duster929]

Originally Posted by nedro

Oh please, don't be retarded. In each one of those cases, the counrty its self was directly responsible for the actions that lead up to conflict. This was not the case with G.W.'s war. There was NO justification for his actions what-so-ever.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they weren't responsible. Just saying that they didn't attack the United States.

And my PS is just to the point that G.W. isn't the first or only American president to have attacked Iraq. Unfortunately the USA has a history of three successive Presidents that have attacked their country.

For what it's worth, I'm no supporter of G.W. I just think that, as much of a jackass as he is, he's only the latest in a long line.

--- D

[red_johnny]

Originally Posted by nedro

Oh please, don't be retarded. In each one of those cases, the counrty its self was directly responsible for the actions that lead up to conflict. This was not the case with G.W.'s war. There was NO justification for his actions what-so-ever.

REALLY? So a few airplanes flying into buildings dont ring a bell? True the terrorists were not based out of Iraq but Iraq had connections to the terrorist network. THAT ALONE was a good enough reason. Reason #2 the Iraq people NEEDED us. We did a very good thing in Iraq and I think that we are getting close to a point where we can draw some troops back but it will be a LONG time before we can draw everyone back. Just like Germany, Korea, Japan...ect. Like it or not America is the worlds police. If we do not step in then who does? It bites us in the arse sometimes but I would rather have the USA do something than be like everyone else and sit on their arse and watch people die.

[Duster929]

Originally Posted by red_johnny

Like it or not America is the worlds police.

I didn't get that memo. Last I heard, America was a sovereign nation just like all the others. A little bigger, a lot richer, but not possessing any greater authority in the affairs of other nations than, say, Holland.

I agree that if America doesn't step in, no one will. But let's not confuse that with the idea that America has the RIGHT to step in. Police are appointed, hired, and overseen by the people whom they police. The world didn't hire the USA to serve and protect them.

--- D

[red_johnny]

Originally Posted by Duster929

I didn't get that memo. Last I heard, America was a sovereign nation just like all the others. A little bigger, a lot richer, but not possessing any greater authority in the affairs of other nations than, say, Holland.

I agree that if America doesn't step in, no one will. But let's not confuse that with the idea that America has the RIGHT to step in. Police are appointed, hired, and overseen by the people whom they police. The world didn't hire the USA to serve and protect them.

--- D

Wow man, dont take it so litterally. America is not the appointed world police but we do alot for the world LIKE police. Is that better? BTW I hope I am not offending anyone with my comments. Its Just OPINION. Thats it.

[sheepofblue]

Bush is just as much to blame as Pelosi, Obama, McCain, Clinton...... and the list goes on. Congress has encouraged and/or MANDATED bad loans for a while now. They have rewarded greed with bailouts. They have participated in the greed (find out how many had below market rates on loans from Countrywide). But Bush is the devil so rant on and let the rest of them continue dragging us into the sewer that is their home.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by Duster929

I didn't get that memo. Last I heard, America was a sovereign nation just like all the others. A little bigger, a lot richer, but not possessing any greater authority in the affairs of other nations than, say, Holland.

I agree that if America doesn't step in, no one will. But let's not confuse that with the idea that America has the RIGHT to step in. Police are appointed, hired, and overseen by the people whom they police. The world didn't hire the USA to serve and protect them.

--- D

For most people the police are there to contain and repress the people and are selected by the dictator or oligarchs for that purpose. I for one am thankful I live in a society where the police are largely on my side (despite the anti-police whining that has been occurring as of late) Only a minority of the world has that blessing.

[Duster929]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

For most people the police are there to contain and repress the people and are selected by the dictator or oligarchs for that purpose. I for one am thankful I live in a society where the police are largely on my side (despite the anti-police whining that has been occurring as of late) Only a minority of the world has that blessing.

I too prefer our concept of policing. That's why I'm sensitive about calling the USA the world police (and red johnny, I knew what you meant, I'm not trying to be difficult). I think it's ok for people to say that the US should get involved in foreign policy and try to help the world be a better place so that more people can live in freedom, etc. But let's be careful about calling the US the world police. That implies that the US is the "good guys" and that we have the authority to impose our rules on other people. Maybe we are the good guys, maybe we're helping these places out... but let's be conscious of the fact that no one gave us that mandate, and we don't really have the RIGHT to do it. We're interfering, and it may be the right thing to do, but we're still interfering.

Sorry for the thread hijack. GW is the devil, it's all his fault. Let's carry on.

--- D

[steingar]

Sorry sheep, but most of the regulatory authority emerges from the Executive branch. The Legislative can pass bills, but nothing happens unless the laws are acted upon by the Executive, ala illegal immigration. Moreover, had Bush really wanted to show leadership in this area he could have proposed legislation to Congress. He never did, but instead basked in the false prosperity and claimed his tax cuts caused it all. To add to it he had a Congress that did practically everything he wanted for six years. This is what we get for electing incompetent leaders. He ruined successive businesses, and now he's ruined the country. What'd you expect?

[.OrgOwner]

And the rot is spreading around the world. Today was more of the same and now the UK is starting to feel the heat.

[low-rider]

i would like to say something about US being a world police or world's peace maker. first of all i don't want to express my oppinion about bush because i feel i don't have the right to judge him because i am not us citizen so i wouldn't know is he good or bad president.

i would like to say that US and other powerfull countries are not taking action in some parts of the world because they are worried for some poor countries. they are taking actions because they have interest in that part of the world (it doesnt matter is that interest oil or strategical military interest or something third). my country and surrounding countries were in war back in the 90's. there was real war in my country for almost 5 years. many thousands of old and young people died, women and children... neighbouring country attacked my country because they wanted to capture our territory and we were defending our territory, our nation, our culture. you know what happened. nothing. the world and powerfull countries just stood and watched that. and they wanted us to be peacful and we were because we thought that europe and us will help us. in the end after 4 and half years of occupation of part of my country we decided to take action and to free those territories by ourselves and we did that. why the situation was like that? because pwerfull countries had political and strategical interests to act like they did act. so i don't believe that powerfull countries are some humanitarians which wanna help poor people in the world. politics and interests are always behind that. today our generals are in international prisons because they defended our country. tell me...if someone attacks US and ur army defends your country...is it a crime?

and one more thing. u all see situation from ur perspective. u don't know what is really happening in some of those countries...i know that because for long time world has believed that we are occupators and attackers. u as a regular people know what is presented to u through newspapers and tv news. u were not there so u can tell what is right or what is wrong to do in the world.

[red_johnny]

Originally Posted by low-rider

i would like to say something about US being a world police or world's peace maker. first of all i don't want to express my oppinion about bush because i feel i don't have the right to judge him because i am not us citizen so i wouldn't know is he good or bad president.

i would like to say that US and other powerfull countries are not taking action in some parts of the world because they are worried for some poor countries. they are taking actions because they have interest in that part of the world (it doesnt matter is that interest oil or strategical military interest or something third). my country and surrounding countries were in war back in the 90's. there was real war in my country for almost 5 years. many thousands of old and young people died, women and children... neighbouring country attacked my country because they wanted to capture our territory and we were defending our territory, our nation, our culture. you know what happened. nothing. the world and powerfull countries just stood and watched that. and they wanted us to be peacful and we were because we thought that europe and us will help us. in the end after 4 and half years of occupation of part of my country we decided to take action and to free those territories by ourselves and we did that. why the situation was like that? because pwerfull countries had political and strategical interests to act like they did act. so i don't believe that powerfull countries are some humanitarians which wanna help poor people in the world. politics and interests are always behind that. today our generals are in international prisons because they defended our country. tell me...if someone attacks US and ur army defends your country...is it a crime?

and one more thing. u all see situation from ur perspective. u don't know what is really happening in some of those countries...i know that because for long time world has believed that we are occupators and attackers. u as a regular people know what is presented to u through newspapers and tv news. u were not there so u can tell what is right or what is wrong to do in the world.

I hear you loud and clear. Its as per your last statement it holds true for Iraq as well. Media is the most evil of evils. They can turn a good story bad and ruin peoples lives. Alot of people see bush as being evil but they know not of the evil that Sadam was brining to the table. The US freed those people and EVERYONE is better for it. Yes there were some casualties on the way but WAR always produces that. As far as your first comments I will say other coutrys stayed out because of how nasty things were getting. If they stepped in sooner it would not have gotten that far out of hand.
To those who think bush was so evil just think, it could have been worse. It could have been Kerry. Now as we look to the future a new evil leers its head in Obama. Lets pray he dont find his way into the white house.

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by red_johnny

Media is the most evil of evils. They can turn a good story bad and ruin peoples lives.

It's easy tp see the ham acting staff of Fox news and CNN throwing in the Spin. The problem is the uneducated can't see it and are buying into it.

Originally Posted by red_johnny

A lot of people see bush as being evil but they know not of the evil that Sadam was brining to the table.

Sadam was evil. He was a dictator. But who helped install him? Yep, the US.

I think you're also missing Lowrider's point here. The US (and the rest of us, lets be honest here) Sit back when we don't think there's any PERSONAL BENEFIT. Bush didn't go to Iraq to free the people. Bush went to finish where daddy left off and to get oil concessions for US business.

Bush isn't evil, he's just an idiot with a lot of money and so-called "friends" using him to their gain.

Originally Posted by red_johnny

To those who think bush was so evil just think, it could have been worse. It could have been Kerry. Now as we look to the future a new evil leers its head in Obama. Lets pray he dont find his way into the white house.

Sorry, but your last couple of sentences just prove you don't know what you're talking about. If anyone is going to perpetuate these wars it will be McCain.

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by .OrgOwner

... and now the UK is starting to feel the heat.

Yes, and we knew that it was coming for a long time now.

[red_johnny]

Originally Posted by Surffrog

I think you're also missing Lowrider's point here. The US (and the rest of us, lets be honest here) Sit back when we don't think there's any PERSONAL BENEFIT. Bush didn't go to Iraq to free the people. Bush went to finish where daddy left off and to get oil concessions for US business.

Sorry, but your last couple of sentences just prove you don't know what you're talking about. If anyone is going to perpetuate these wars it will be McCain.

Bush DID go to free those people. AND it had nothing to do with oil!! Good god man, have you been there? I HAVE and I can tell you first hand that no oil is going to the US from Iraq. I have seen the look on the faces of those people as I GAVE them supplys, food, water. They can hold their heads up higher and not live in fear. I had countless numbers of people come to me and shake my hand for freeing them. You cant sit there and tell me what we went in there for when you were not there!

Its clear you support Osama I mean Obama sorry, too easy to confuse the two, they act too much alike. McCain will help end these wars as he knows military and the arts of war. Can you say that of Obama? He knows Nothing of the military so how can he possibly run one?

Last thing, its clear our views are differant but understand that I am not stupid for my choices just as you are not stupid for yours. I can just as easily tell you that you dont know what your talking about because of your views. And with that I bid you all farewell. I usually never go into the politic sections because of arrogant people which is why I am leaving now. I know that I cant change your opinions and that you cant change mine. So ....bye.

[denzee]

The US had every right to go into Iraq. Time and time again Saddam interferred with Inspectors trying to do their job inspecting for weapons with was a complete non-compliance with the UN resolutions after the Gulf War. Had the US kept doing nothing and a Chemical weapon was released by Saddam everybody would have been critisizing the US for allowing Saddam to continue rejecting Inspectors as long as he did.
By the way, all of the other Country's in the UN voted in favour of serious consequence leading up to Military action action against Saddam if he didn't comply. It was only at the end France and Germany said they would veto any such resolution that included war because they new the possibilty of war was intensifying and a real possibilty at this point.
Later it was found those two Country's were illegally involved in the food for oil program that was to have been haulted after sanctions were imposed on Iraq. This explained their veto.
This caused the US to go in without UN approval.
I always asked myself. Why would Saddam not allow the inspectors to do their jobs if he truly never had the now famous "WMD". He had it made as a dictator. He had power, money, women you name it. Why would he not give in even at the eleventh hour before war broke out. Surely he new he could never survive the rath of the US Military.
Does anybody know the answer to this question?