Clinton: Bush should raise taxes to pay for recovery

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Me too. I'd bet dollars to donuts that O'Reilly's facts are wrong. And yet, I have no interest in researching them at this time.

Well, he is not the only one saying it. But, yes, I would like to see the make up of that 14%. Again, I hope it works, but W has a pretty bad overall track record.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by sparky

Strand may not have lost anything. I had stock in MCI, and overnight got nailed with a 3500 dollar loss.

Many people lost a ton of money in all those companies that went bust either via fraud or false speculation.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Thus, I AM supported by facts, to the chagrin of Jason who unfortunately lost his quarter at the Diner at the end of the Galaxy and couldnt afford to buy a paper. (I am teasing you btw)

No facts have supported you here when you were responding to me.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Actually, the actual fraud that occured in MCI and ENRON started, I believe, in the late 90's

I agree things appeared much rosier when Clinton was President and have never said anything different than that.

My only point is that much of that picture was created by the economic stimulus that happened when trillions in wealth were created though IPO's that had no chance of staying that high. For example, stock prices are guaged on future revenue expectations and none of these companies had ever made a dime. So, they go public and under a true model should have a price per share of like $10.00 at the most, and they are suddenly trading at $180 per share on pure speculation. That means these companies suddenly had billions to hire people, buy industrial goods, rent office space, build buildings, build warehouses, etc. Then, when they continue to make no money, they went belly up and all that commerce no longer existed, which results in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Similarly, the corp. fraud caused a false rise in stock price which allowed those companies to buy buildings, hire people, raise their consumption of consumer goods - which resulted on the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs, which were lost when those companies failed.

Finally, the millions of average investors who suddenly lost a ton of money also stopped buying things, which, along with the above to things, caused factories and other comnpanies to lay off people'

All of that facilitated the crash in the economy - how could it not when all that tax rev. was gone

So, that rosy picture was somewhat built on stilts and it crashed.

Ok, I just want to go over some of your statemtents:
You say the "fraud occurred in the late 90's with Enron and MCI" I'd be willing to bet that the actual fraud (in the form of creative financing) has been going on since the 80's. It was exposed as Bush took office or shortly thereafter, but there were indications of it happening by the way Enron gouged California in selling us back our own energy. that should have set off a red flag. The inflated stock prices for these companies was a monster of their OWN making.

as for the tech bubble...Im beginning to think that in the end, it really didnt affect me at the lower end of the economic ladder because I never did any wheeling/dealing. That sort of collapse really hit the speculators the hardest.
I dont play the stock market. I consider it a form of gambling and my money is too important to risk losing it on risky (to me anyway) ventures.

As for actual jobs lost, Im not sure exactly WHAT effect the corporate fraud had...obviously, the employees of those particular companies are S.O.L....
but as I said, those are relatively few companies...I dont know if they were absorbed by other employers or not...Im thinking if they were skilled, they were able to find other jobs.

you state the factories laid off people due to a decrease in buying. I disagree. I think factories laid off people because they began to outsource their business. Americans lost a lot of work due to companies going overseas. I cant think of a single company that made the news for laying off people due to a decrease in buying....if you can, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[strandinthewind]

Actually, here is that article:

The Nasdaq Bubble

After the 1987 stock market crash, the global markets resumed their previous bull market trend. This powerful trend was driven by computer technology. Many of the technology stocks were listed on the Nasdaq exchange, which is an electronic marketplace.

In the early 1990’s, the personal computer was rapidly gaining acceptance for business and personal use. The computer was at last becoming more reasonably priced and more user-friendly. Computers were no longer the fodder of geeky hobbyists. They were veritable business tools, which were vital in gaining a competitive edge. Business applications were invented to aid the user in accounting, calculating taxes and word processing. Computers also began to compete with televisions as a form of entertainment, as PC video games flooded the marketplace. Corporations such as Microsoft prospered enormously as almost every computer system contained their operating system software.

During this time, the US computer industry focused more upon computer software versus hardware. This is because software was an extremely high margin product, due to it not being a physical product, like chips. Software companies produced a markup from selling licensed information, which costs very little to reproduce. Computer hardware became a commodity product, i.e. virtually indistinguishable from the product of any other competitor. Commodity products produce very little profits as each competitor constantly undercuts each other’s prices. Asian companies, with small manufacturing costs, produced virtually all of the hardware components at this point. Software, however, was protected as intellectual property with patents. Therefore, a product such as Microsoft Windows is a one of a kind product. This creates a strong barrier to entry, a benefit which is highly sought after in business.

The stock prices of software companies were marching ahead rapidly. Many small software companies were started by college students in garages, paying their employees with as much pizza and soda they desired. Every startup wanted to become “the Next Microsoft”.

Eventually, several of these start-up companies took the notice of serious venture capitalists, who were looking to finance these operations, take them public and reap massive profits. Soon the fledgling startups began to pay their hopeful employees with company shares. The premise was that when the company went public, the early shareholders would become instantly wealthy. The majority of the software companies were started in Silicon Valley, near San Francisco, which was a technology Mecca. The Nasdaq index of technology stocks was rising extremely fast, creating many millionaires.

Computers became further popularized in the mid 1990’s, as blockbuster PC games were created, such as Sim City and Duke Nukem. This fueled an increase in tech savvy youth, as computers went from “geek to chic”.

The Internet Age

Around 1994, a new frontier called the internet, was first being made available to the general public. In actuality, a primitive form of the internet had been around since 1969. This early internet was called DARPANet and was created by government agencies as an efficient way to exchange scientific and military information to computers in different locations. By the 1990’s the internet had evolved as a way to communicate using email, use chat rooms and view informational websites.

Almost immediately, businesses saw the internet as a profit opportunity. America Online made the internet available for the masses. The Yahoo search engine was started in 1994 as a directory for the universe of websites. Amazon became the first online bookstore in 1994. EBay was started in 1995 as an online auction site. As the internet moved from the hobbyist domain to a commercialized marketplace, online business owners became fantastically wealthy. Many technology companies were now selling stock in IPO’s. Most initial shareholders, including employees, became millionaires overnight. Companies continued to pay their employees in stock options, which profited greatly if the stock went up even slightly. By the late 1990’s, even secretaries had option portfolios valued in the millions! Many companies had BMW sign on bonuses! This is surely an example of irrational exuberance.

Tech Stock Mania

Several economists even postulated that we were in a “New Economy”, where inflation was nonexistent and the stock market crashes were obsolete! Even worse, it was said that earnings were not relevant in picking stocks either! The “Old Economy” referred to industrial stocks, such as those in the Dow Jones Average. Another buzzword was “Paradigm Shift”, which is a synonym of “New Economy”. Investors were enamored by these buzzwords, as they deceptively described something that was sleek, sexy, and exciting.

From 1996 to 2000, the Nasdaq went from 600 to 5,000! Dot-com companies run by people who were barely in their 30's, were going public and raising hundreds of millions of dollars of capital. These companies didn’t even have much of a business plan, and certainly didn’t have any earnings, either! For example, Pets.com had no earnings yet came public and raised billions of dollars. Dot-coms wasted millions of dollars per night on frivolous parties. Hard work was never part of the picture for dot-commers. There are many stories of dot-com employees walking around barefoot in the office and playing foosball all day. At one point, a new millionaire was created every 60 seconds! Many of these instant millionaires thought that they were so brilliant, that all they had to do was play to make money. Never mistake a bull market for brains.

The Bubble Pops

By early 2000, reality started to sink in. Investors soon realized that the dot-com dream was really a bubble. Within months, the Nasdaq crashed from 5,000 to 2,000. Hundreds of stocks such as Pet.com, which were each worth billions, were off the map as quickly as they appeared. Panic selling ensued as investors lost trillions of dollars. The stock market kept crashing down to 800 in 2002. One high flier, Microstrategy, slid from $3500 per share to $4! Numerous accounting scandals came to light, showing how many companies artificially inflated earnings. Shareholders were crippled. In 2001, the economy entered a recession as the Fed repeatedly cut rates, trying to stop the bleeding. Millions of workers were now jobless and had lost their life savings.

Needless to say, the New Economy was a farce, and traditional economic principles still hold. What is sadly interesting is how bubbles will continue to occur in the future. When they do occur, foolish investors will say, “This time is different!”

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No facts have supported you here when you were responding to me.

oh yes they did:
you said Bush did better than Clinton (and I quoted your own words) and I said you were wrong, I directed you to look at my thread again with Census data,
and Suze's graph proved me right as well.

Give it up Jason.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Many people lost a ton of money in all those companies that went bust either via fraud or false speculation.

Thank God I didn't have much left in the market to lose. The only things left, Home Base and MCI, totally **** the bed. I lost about 7 grand. I pulled most of my money out in 98 when it was all cresting. Timing is everything.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Actually, here is that article:

The Nasdaq Bubble

After the 1987 stock market crash, the global markets resumed their previous bull market trend. This powerful trend was driven by computer technology. Many of the technology stocks were listed on the Nasdaq exchange, which is an electronic marketplace.

In the early 1990’s, the personal computer was rapidly gaining acceptance for business and personal use. The computer was at last becoming more reasonably priced and more user-friendly. Computers were no longer the fodder of geeky hobbyists. They were veritable business tools, which were vital in gaining a competitive edge. Business applications were invented to aid the user in accounting, calculating taxes and word processing. Computers also began to compete with televisions as a form of entertainment, as PC video games flooded the marketplace. Corporations such as Microsoft prospered enormously as almost every computer system contained their operating system software.

During this time, the US computer industry focused more upon computer software versus hardware. This is because software was an extremely high margin product, due to it not being a physical product, like chips. Software companies produced a markup from selling licensed information, which costs very little to reproduce. Computer hardware became a commodity product, i.e. virtually indistinguishable from the product of any other competitor. Commodity products produce very little profits as each competitor constantly undercuts each other’s prices. Asian companies, with small manufacturing costs, produced virtually all of the hardware components at this point. Software, however, was protected as intellectual property with patents. Therefore, a product such as Microsoft Windows is a one of a kind product. This creates a strong barrier to entry, a benefit which is highly sought after in business.

The stock prices of software companies were marching ahead rapidly. Many small software companies were started by college students in garages, paying their employees with as much pizza and soda they desired. Every startup wanted to become “the Next Microsoft”.

Eventually, several of these start-up companies took the notice of serious venture capitalists, who were looking to finance these operations, take them public and reap massive profits. Soon the fledgling startups began to pay their hopeful employees with company shares. The premise was that when the company went public, the early shareholders would become instantly wealthy. The majority of the software companies were started in Silicon Valley, near San Francisco, which was a technology Mecca. The Nasdaq index of technology stocks was rising extremely fast, creating many millionaires.

Computers became further popularized in the mid 1990’s, as blockbuster PC games were created, such as Sim City and Duke Nukem. This fueled an increase in tech savvy youth, as computers went from “geek to chic”.

The Internet Age

Around 1994, a new frontier called the internet, was first being made available to the general public. In actuality, a primitive form of the internet had been around since 1969. This early internet was called DARPANet and was created by government agencies as an efficient way to exchange scientific and military information to computers in different locations. By the 1990’s the internet had evolved as a way to communicate using email, use chat rooms and view informational websites.

Almost immediately, businesses saw the internet as a profit opportunity. America Online made the internet available for the masses. The Yahoo search engine was started in 1994 as a directory for the universe of websites. Amazon became the first online bookstore in 1994. EBay was started in 1995 as an online auction site. As the internet moved from the hobbyist domain to a commercialized marketplace, online business owners became fantastically wealthy. Many technology companies were now selling stock in IPO’s. Most initial shareholders, including employees, became millionaires overnight. Companies continued to pay their employees in stock options, which profited greatly if the stock went up even slightly. By the late 1990’s, even secretaries had option portfolios valued in the millions! Many companies had BMW sign on bonuses! This is surely an example of irrational exuberance.

Tech Stock Mania

Several economists even postulated that we were in a “New Economy”, where inflation was nonexistent and the stock market crashes were obsolete! Even worse, it was said that earnings were not relevant in picking stocks either! The “Old Economy” referred to industrial stocks, such as those in the Dow Jones Average. Another buzzword was “Paradigm Shift”, which is a synonym of “New Economy”. Investors were enamored by these buzzwords, as they deceptively described something that was sleek, sexy, and exciting.

From 1996 to 2000, the Nasdaq went from 600 to 5,000! Dot-com companies run by people who were barely in their 30's, were going public and raising hundreds of millions of dollars of capital. These companies didn’t even have much of a business plan, and certainly didn’t have any earnings, either! For example, Pets.com had no earnings yet came public and raised billions of dollars. Dot-coms wasted millions of dollars per night on frivolous parties. Hard work was never part of the picture for dot-commers. There are many stories of dot-com employees walking around barefoot in the office and playing foosball all day. At one point, a new millionaire was created every 60 seconds! Many of these instant millionaires thought that they were so brilliant, that all they had to do was play to make money. Never mistake a bull market for brains.

The Bubble Pops

By early 2000, reality started to sink in. Investors soon realized that the dot-com dream was really a bubble. Within months, the Nasdaq crashed from 5,000 to 2,000. Hundreds of stocks such as Pet.com, which were each worth billions, were off the map as quickly as they appeared. Panic selling ensued as investors lost trillions of dollars. The stock market kept crashing down to 800 in 2002. One high flier, Microstrategy, slid from $3500 per share to $4! Numerous accounting scandals came to light, showing how many companies artificially inflated earnings. Shareholders were crippled. In 2001, the economy entered a recession as the Fed repeatedly cut rates, trying to stop the bleeding. Millions of workers were now jobless and had lost their life savings.

Needless to say, the New Economy was a farce, and traditional economic principles still hold. What is sadly interesting is how bubbles will continue to occur in the future. When they do occur, foolish investors will say, “This time is different!”

Nobody ever said the tech bubble bursting wasnt significant...

But, its not the only thing that the economy was built on otherwise, we would have gone under completely. I'd remind you too that people have been predicting doom and gloom about the inflated housing prices too. everyone is expecting the housing bubble to burst but it hasnt yet...people tend to be optimistic when they are making money ya know......

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by sparky

Thank God I didn't have much left in the market to lose. The only things left, Home Base and MCI, totally **** the bed. I lost about 7 grand. I pulled most of my money out in 98 when it was all cresting. Timing is everything.

I got out in 2000. It's a damn good thing because I'd have nothing left today.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Ok, I just want to go over some of your statemtents:
You say the "fraud occurred in the late 90's with Enron and MCI" I'd be willing to bet that the actual fraud (in the form of creative financing) has been going on since the 80's. It was exposed as Bush took office or shortly thereafter, but there were indications of it happening by the way Enron gouged California in selling us back our own energy. that should have set off a red flag. The inflated stock prices for these companies was a monster of their OWN making.

The records indicate the fraud was conceived and begun during Clinton's regime and continued into W's. So, you have to fault both of them.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

cas for the tech bubble...Im beginning to think that in the end, it really didnt affect me at the lower end of the economic ladder because I never did any wheeling/dealing. That sort of collapse really hit the speculators the hardest.
I dont play the stock market. I consider it a form of gambling and my money is too important to risk losing it on risky (to me anyway) ventures.

As for actual jobs lost, Im not sure exactly WHAT effect the corporate fraud had...obviously, the employees of those particular companies are S.O.L....
but as I said, those are relatively few companies...I dont know if they were absorbed by other employers or not...Im thinking if they were skilled, they were able to find other jobs.

Well, when people make money they spend it and when they have no money they cannot spend it. Again, there are many articles out there that demonstrate the loss of jobs due to these events was astounding and had it not been for lower interest rates and housing appreciation, the economy would have failed even more.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

you state the factories laid off people due to a decrease in buying. I disagree. I think factories laid off people because they began to outsource their business. Americans lost a lot of work due to companies going overseas. I cant think of a single company that made the news for laying off people due to a decrease in buying....if you can, I'd be interested in hearing it.

How could the loss of a significant amount of demand not have a detrminental effect on the jobs hired to meet that demand Of course it did.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The records indicate the fraud was conceived and begun during Clinton's regime and continued into W's. So, you have to fault both of them.

Well, it may have been conceived under Clinton but it was found out during W's regime. Ken Lay is an old friend of his. Where is he now? The Caymans?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Nobody ever said the tech bubble bursting wasnt significant...

But, its not the only thing that the economy was built on otherwise, we would have gone under completely. I'd remind you too that people have been predicting doom and gloom about the inflated housing prices too. everyone is expecting the housing bubble to burst but it hasnt yet...people tend to be optimistic when they are making money ya know......

the housing market is the most significant thing that kept the economy afloat. Many people sold their houses and realized hundreds of thousands in gain and I am not talking about millionaires here. Suddenly the house they paid $40,000 for ten or fifteen years before was worth $200,000. When you have no job, that is a cash cow waiting to be milked. Also, some people who took lesser paying jobs and refinanced at the historically low interest rates, which gave them cash to spend if they took cash out.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Well, it may have been conceived under Clinton but it was found out during W's regime. Ken Lay is an old friend of his. Where is he now? The Caymans?

But, doesn't that somewhat beg the question of why W caught Enron. I mean the fraud went on in Texas while W was the gov. -- so he certainly gets no free pass.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The records indicate the fraud was conceived and begun during Clinton's regime and continued into W's. So, you have to fault both of them.
***************
Well, when people make money they spend it and when they have no money they cannot spend it. Again, there are many articles out there that demonstrate the loss of jobs due to these events was astounding and had it not been for lower interest rates and housing appreciation, the economy would have failed even more.
***************
How could the loss of a significant amount of demand not have a detrminental effect on the jobs hired to meet that demand Of course it did.

I dont see how you can fault Clinton if he didnt know about it--the whistle blowers only acted during Bush's term
************
again, I believe the people that lost jobs from those two companies were absorbed back into the work force.
************
I am saying that its far more likely that companies laid off people due to offshoring rather than a drop in demand. Depending upon the company, I think demand was the same (unless you're talking luxury goods)
people still need food/clothes/housing/etc.....

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

oh yes they did:
you said Bush did better than Clinton (and I quoted your own words) and I said you were wrong, I directed you to look at my thread again with Census data,
and Suze's graph proved me right as well.

Give it up Jason.

I never said Bush did better - please quote me saying that.

Again, I said 12.7% is an historically good number and though 12.7 is higher than any other number in W's tenure, W is throwing an historically large number at it to try and stop it. Where does Clinton figure in that. Again, Bill O'Reilly mentioned Clinton and this conversation started from that perspective, which is why I quoted him and you are attributing his words to me.