Why Is The Stock Market Doing So Well In A Bad Recession?

cawacko said:
Thank you proving my point. These articles are all about “IF Republicans win the next election they will eliminate S.S.” Then Republicans win and nothing happens and you break it out again the next election cycle. Rinse, wash and repeat
Click to expand...

Uh no they aren't. They go back to Reagan and the actual attempts.:palm: That's why I included several. I could provide hundreds going back to the 1960s.
You recall the attempts to privatize, don't you? There was a yuge debate about how privatizing it could make it solvent and the corollary fear that it could also
empty it. That wasn't fantasy, those were conservative think tank proposals and bills.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Geeko Sportivo,



A lot of the money invested in stocks is borrowed? I thought that was illegal. Isn't that what caused the great crash of 1929?

If too much borrowed money is invested in stocks and a panic comes along then everybody will be trying to sell at once. If they can't recoup their base they won't be able to pay back the loans. Then the banks would fail. If there is a run on banks then the whole economy will crash hard.

Sounds dangerous.
Click to expand...

It is not illegal anymore. There were Bank regulations put in place to attempt to prevent it, but Trumptard signed an XO to remove them.
 
Micawber said:
Uh no they aren't. They go back to Reagan and the actual attempts.:palm: That's why I included several. I could provide hundreds going back to the 1960s.
You recall the attempts to privatize, don't you? There was a yuge debate about how privatizing it could make it solvent and the corollary fear that it could also
empty it. That wasn't fantasy, those were conservative think tank proposals and bills.
Click to expand...

Sure, Bush tried to create personal accounts and unfortunately it went nowhere. That’s not killing S.S. That’s transforming it and making it viable going into the future (something many of you Boomers don’t care about as long as you get yours today).
 
Social Security, in more ways than one the mother of all U.S. entitlement programs, has been the dragon that conservatives have succeeded in slashing, but never slaying, over its 80-year history. Their opposition has morphed from outright ideological grounds as the program was being debated during the New Deal era to a campaign masked in careful rhetoric once Social Security became virtually untouchable as a political animal.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/conservative-war-on-social-security-history

Rationalize 80 years of attacks:rolleyes:
 
cawacko said:
Sure, Bush tried to create personal accounts and unfortunately it went nowhere. That’s not killing S.S. That’s transforming it and making it viable going into the future (something many of you Boomers don’t care about as long as you get yours today).
Click to expand...

I don't object to the debate, I object to you denying the ideological battle your party has waged and failed to succeed with like...forever.
Just because you aren't making progress up the river doesn't mean I don't see the direction you are rowing.
 
Micawber said:
"Over the course of several secret meetings at the White House in the fall of 1997, Gingrich told me, he and Clinton sketched out plans for a center-right coalition that would undertake big, challenging projects such as a wholesale reform of Social Security."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterf...m-and-romney-on-social-security/#e9086b8108ed
Click to expand...

And nothing has changed.
 
cawacko said:
Sure, Bush tried to create personal accounts and unfortunately it went nowhere. That’s not killing S.S. That’s transforming it and making it viable going into the future (something many of you Boomers don’t care about as long as you get yours today).
Click to expand...

FWIW I don't collect any for more than a decade, and that is if and only if they don't move goalposts. I contributed since I was 14 years old,
I'd say I'm entitled to it.
 
Concart said:
This is what happens when you have a massive wage and wealth gap. The money does not trickle down to those that need it. The money goes into a giant poker game played by the wealthiest Americans. When they get a run of bad cards, they cash out, and wait for things to get better. It is an exchange of billions of dollars that produces absolutely nothing. Of course we can't take that money away from them and actually put it back into the economy. Because we'd be punishing the 'job producers'. That's how stupid the conservative movement has gotten. They're fine with their money going not to create new jobs, but to create more wealth for the already wealthy.
Click to expand...

Investing in a stock is investing in a company that produces jobs, dumbass.

For example: Investing in Amazon allowed Amazon to expand and hire more people. What Amazon does IS part of the economy, dumbass.
 
Concart said:
Supply side economics has provided the fuel for this poker game. Conservatives claimed that the rich guys would reinvest the money in the economy. They didn't. Consumer spending in the 80's and 90's was fueled not by real growth in wealth, but by consumer debt. That all blew up in 2008, but we learned absolutely nothing. That's why we have slow growth, a massive and growing wage/wealth gap, and a stock market that has little to do with what is happening in the real world.

You clearly don't understand what QE was all about. NONE of the money reached the money supply. It all sat in excess reserves. We are now slowly unwinding that balance sheet. The idea that it fueled the stock market is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Lie. The crash of 2007 (not 2008) was caused by Clinton era housing rules and Clinton era banking regulations, and by the Fed printing too much money.
Yes, Bush did not correct this. He's got blame in this as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top