Who or what caused the current economic crisis? What do you foresee? How to fix it?
I've heard so many explanations of who or what caused the current credit/economic crisis. Predictions of doomsday scenarios with long lines of people waiting for bread. Listening to the financial news has left my head spinning. I see a potential opportunity to buy and make a lot of money at the stock market bottom. But when? Please share your thoughts.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
moorhouselondon
To address your question properly, if you find a company that meets the criteria I mentioned, you can buy it at any time - provided that you look at their Annual Report and see for yourself that they are not propped up by bank overdrafts. It seems that banks are losing sight of their original "values" when lending money, so watch out for sort-term indebtedness to the bank, which can be recalled at any time. Manufacturing is not sexy, but without it nothing can be -er- manufactured. Pension Funds et al have to invest their money somewhere, so i reckon they will start to put it back into large companies with good solid assets.
>>I think the lesson people should learn from this debacle is that people should invest
That would indeed help enormously, but the small man disappeared out of the stock market fifty years ago. These days enormous amounts of pension and life assurance money is invested daily, and it is the people running these operations who are to blame.
A major problem is the internecine affaires between a lot of big companies in the finance business. They sit on each others boards and vote for each other. As soon as a bank or an insurance company leands anybody any significant sum, they're on the board. The effect is that everybody thinks and behaves the same way, so that if somebody thinks it's a good idea to invest in gold mines everybody invests in gold mines. If somebody thinks that the stock market will go down, it goes down. If mortgages are best, then mortgages we will have.
Can the small man beat the system? Possibly, but not often. If a sort of mini-recession does come, probably health-care will be a good investment. I'd stay away from energy and car manufacturing and all things associated with that. You have to look at what people will always need, even when they've got no money.
That would indeed help enormously, but the small man disappeared out of the stock market fifty years ago. These days enormous amounts of pension and life assurance money is invested daily, and it is the people running these operations who are to blame.
A major problem is the internecine affaires between a lot of big companies in the finance business. They sit on each others boards and vote for each other. As soon as a bank or an insurance company leands anybody any significant sum, they're on the board. The effect is that everybody thinks and behaves the same way, so that if somebody thinks it's a good idea to invest in gold mines everybody invests in gold mines. If somebody thinks that the stock market will go down, it goes down. If mortgages are best, then mortgages we will have.
Can the small man beat the system? Possibly, but not often. If a sort of mini-recession does come, probably health-care will be a good investment. I'd stay away from energy and car manufacturing and all things associated with that. You have to look at what people will always need, even when they've got no money.
>Who or what caused the current economic crisis?
The first and main reason is the bad Bush's administration, they were busy with wars and their personal benefits behind that, they left the country goes to the wrong way without got attention and efforts to the economy.
The first and main reason is the bad Bush's administration, they were busy with wars and their personal benefits behind that, they left the country goes to the wrong way without got attention and efforts to the economy.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
That bill never made it out of commitee. It was a nice slieght of hand, nothing more. "Lookie here at this hand" while the other steals your wallet.
There is plenty of blame to around. Republicans and Democrats, bankers and consumers, brokers and investors, a half dozen of one and six of the others. The rest is just partisan politics bullshit when we need cooperation and real reform, not just posing and making speeches. No one has stepped up yet to try it, and given the amounts being thrown around, I doubt anyone will. Though I am sure there will be a big line around the block to take credit when some plan actually works.
There is plenty of blame to around. Republicans and Democrats, bankers and consumers, brokers and investors, a half dozen of one and six of the others. The rest is just partisan politics bullshit when we need cooperation and real reform, not just posing and making speeches. No one has stepped up yet to try it, and given the amounts being thrown around, I doubt anyone will. Though I am sure there will be a big line around the block to take credit when some plan actually works.
>> That bill never made it out of commitee. <<
**THAT'S THE POINT**.
Dodd was chairman of the committee, and he prevented it from gettting out of committe because he was getting massive donations from Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac.
**THAT'S THE POINT**.
Dodd was chairman of the committee, and he prevented it from gettting out of committe because he was getting massive donations from Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac.
>...getting massive donations...
Whether or not this is the case, I get the impression that both parties have more than a few skeletons in their closets. I'm steering clear of a political slanging match here, so let us speak in general terms:
If people in official positions put forward policies that were good for the world at large, rather than their own pockets and those of their immediate families and friends, then the world would not have any of these problems.
The question is whether electing a new president will be seen by Wall Street and other markets around the world as the start of a new era where any perceived misuse of resources engendered by the current administration will be actively curtailed. If so, then which way will the markets head if (a) McCain gets in? (b) Obama gets in?
Whether or not this is the case, I get the impression that both parties have more than a few skeletons in their closets. I'm steering clear of a political slanging match here, so let us speak in general terms:
If people in official positions put forward policies that were good for the world at large, rather than their own pockets and those of their immediate families and friends, then the world would not have any of these problems.
The question is whether electing a new president will be seen by Wall Street and other markets around the world as the start of a new era where any perceived misuse of resources engendered by the current administration will be actively curtailed. If so, then which way will the markets head if (a) McCain gets in? (b) Obama gets in?
Don't try using logic on Scott, he is immune.
No, you're inane.
Obama will be a disaster for the markets. That is sure.
Obama will be a disaster for the markets. That is sure.
No, you're an idiot.
McCain will finish what Kennedy started and get that WWIII going for real.
McCain will finish what Kennedy started and get that WWIII going for real.
We're already in WWIII, you're just too willingly blind to accept it. Another "useful idiot" -- or full-blown supporter -- of jihadists.
Paranoid much?
No, realistic.
Realistically Paranoid of your shadow and everything else you mean, got it.
>> I'm steering clear of a political slanging match here ... the start of a new era where any perceived misuse of resources engendered by the current administration will be actively curtailed. <<
No, you're not steering clear. You're claiming to while slamming Bush.
Bush is clearly NOT responsible for this. The Dems resisted all Repub efforts, including Bushs's, to rein in FanMae and FredMac. That's not in dispute; there's tons of video of it all over the net.
No, you're not steering clear. You're claiming to while slamming Bush.
Bush is clearly NOT responsible for this. The Dems resisted all Repub efforts, including Bushs's, to rein in FanMae and FredMac. That's not in dispute; there's tons of video of it all over the net.
The important thing to remember here is what "any perceived misuse of resources" means in the eyes of the market, not what I vote - I'm in UK so I don't have a voice anyway.
Any perceived instability in the apparent democracy you are supposed to be living under, in USA, is going to affect the world. It does affect the world, so if you are going to argue about corruption without getting any effective answers internally, then what is the world at large expected to think?
In Europe we can't do what we like in what we like to think is a comparatively free market, because things in our T's & C's for many things are governed by laws made in the USA. Unfortunately therefore we can't insulate ourselves from the USA, so we have been drawn into watching this election battle and keeping our fingers crossed that the politicians concerned conduct themselves with the correct "principles".
Things like the voting controversy at the last election do not engender confidence around the world in whether democracy was achieved in USA any more than it is in say Zimbabwe.
I understand there was a potential court case over whether or not there should be independent oversight over how the voting machines used in the last USA elections were configured and specified. Money overriding Democracy? Is that right?
You're concentrating on talking about Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac, but there's lots of other things you could be talking about which might also have affected the situation. This is just one tiny drop in the ocean.
Any perceived instability in the apparent democracy you are supposed to be living under, in USA, is going to affect the world. It does affect the world, so if you are going to argue about corruption without getting any effective answers internally, then what is the world at large expected to think?
In Europe we can't do what we like in what we like to think is a comparatively free market, because things in our T's & C's for many things are governed by laws made in the USA. Unfortunately therefore we can't insulate ourselves from the USA, so we have been drawn into watching this election battle and keeping our fingers crossed that the politicians concerned conduct themselves with the correct "principles".
Things like the voting controversy at the last election do not engender confidence around the world in whether democracy was achieved in USA any more than it is in say Zimbabwe.
I understand there was a potential court case over whether or not there should be independent oversight over how the voting machines used in the last USA elections were configured and specified. Money overriding Democracy? Is that right?
You're concentrating on talking about Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac, but there's lots of other things you could be talking about which might also have affected the situation. This is just one tiny drop in the ocean.
moorhouselondon: The problem has been that the Europeans have always wanted tighter financial controls, but this has always been rejected by Washington. The reason is the misunderstanding that government control does not mean government ownership nor dictation, but setting the rules of the game and ensuring that all players stick to it. This paranoia about "free market economy" which one finds in the US (often negatively throw at the Europeans as us being "socialist") has often known no bounds. I was reading recently in Le Monde that the third world countries who'll weather the storm the best will be those who did not let the world bank dictate their financial systems. Of couse the best will probably be China, who holds over a trillion dollars of US currency, mostly bonds. I don't know whether it is the same in the US, but here in Germany, the price of gas has dropped 17 cents in under four weeks - not due to lack of demand but due to the reduction in speculation. Probably because there not enough liquidity to go round. If this is the case, it is high time that this sort of thing was stopped. It is time that democracy stands higher than the markets, ie: the tail should stop wagging the dog.
Subprime Loans are just that Subprime, so Fannie and Feddy have absolutely nothing to do with Subprime mortgages. McCain was correct to want to control Fannie and Freddy, but that is not a significant cause of the crisis we are in.
The lack of regulation in the Derivitives market combined with multiple other areas in finance where there were inadequate controls and a lack of transparency are to blame for the crisis. Throughout the financial sector people were insuring loans without having the capital or ability to insure them. They were making loads of money on empty promises to insure against losses that they could never cover. Although Deregulation is often times a Republican platform, the Democrats did not take any steps to regulate the dervitives market either. The Democrats have a very weak claim that it is a Republican problem because the Democrats were not in any way different than the Republicans in this area of regulation. If anything I would argue that McCain Fiengold were correct about Campaign Finance reform because the Financial sector has been one of the largest contributers to political campaigns in the last 20 years and they pushed for poor oversight and got it, on both sides of the Aisle.
The lack of regulation in the Derivitives market combined with multiple other areas in finance where there were inadequate controls and a lack of transparency are to blame for the crisis. Throughout the financial sector people were insuring loans without having the capital or ability to insure them. They were making loads of money on empty promises to insure against losses that they could never cover. Although Deregulation is often times a Republican platform, the Democrats did not take any steps to regulate the dervitives market either. The Democrats have a very weak claim that it is a Republican problem because the Democrats were not in any way different than the Republicans in this area of regulation. If anything I would argue that McCain Fiengold were correct about Campaign Finance reform because the Financial sector has been one of the largest contributers to political campaigns in the last 20 years and they pushed for poor oversight and got it, on both sides of the Aisle.
>> Subprime Loans are just that Subprime, so Fannie and Feddy have absolutely nothing to do with Subprime mortgages. <<
Not true. They were essentially forced to underwrite lots of subprime loans to satsify Dem pressure.
The Dems are now blaming derivatives, but that's phony. Derivatives are not the real problem. Unsound lending leading to under-valued assets is the real problem.
Not true. They were essentially forced to underwrite lots of subprime loans to satsify Dem pressure.
The Dems are now blaming derivatives, but that's phony. Derivatives are not the real problem. Unsound lending leading to under-valued assets is the real problem.
Yep, the dems caused it all. Repub never did a bad thing...ever.
One thing I don't quite understand about the American way. Not being critical either way here, this is a genuine question:-
Fannie and Freddy are controlled by the government. At any one time in voting for something there should be some kind of voting majority. That majority of voters should surely be the controlling party?
In UK we have a Labour government at the mo. We did have a situation recently where the London Mayor (a Tory), kicked out (allegedly) the Police Chief from under the nose of the gov.
Is this a similar situation to what you are talking about with F&F?
Fannie and Freddy are controlled by the government. At any one time in voting for something there should be some kind of voting majority. That majority of voters should surely be the controlling party?
In UK we have a Labour government at the mo. We did have a situation recently where the London Mayor (a Tory), kicked out (allegedly) the Police Chief from under the nose of the gov.
Is this a similar situation to what you are talking about with F&F?
>>>Derivatives are not the real problem. Unsound lending leading to under-valued assets is the real problem.
IWhat you are basically saying is that there is nothing wrong with derivatives so long as no one ever has to use them. The sole function of these derivatives is to protect the lender in the event that there is a default. Part of their due diligence in purchasing these instruments would be familiarizing themselves with the banks underwriting practices. Of course they are needed when there is a housing downturn that is their function. When that happens they are supposed to pay, but they are failing to pay because they never had the money to pay in the first place. They just took the money while things were good and lift up their hands when it gets tough.
Speculation has been removed from the financial sector AGAIN. And the cause of the crisis is not that Fannie and Freddy were out there going crazy, their market share diminished significantly during the buildup to the crisis, and they were not advocating the predatory lending schemes that were responsible for a very large portion of the problems.
The subprime loans would never have been made if it were not for the ready access to capital that was created by the false sense of security that the derivatives created. Normaly conservative investors were buying mortgage backed financial instruments because they were under the deluded impression that they were adequately insured agains losses. On paper they were. Without the derivitives you would not have had the capital, and without the capital you would not have had the subprime loans, and without all the capital and subprime loans you would not have had the bubble. Financial institutions do not lend money because the government tells them to, they loan money based on the availibility of capital and the availability of capital on risky loans would have been non-existent if if were not for the phoney insurance agains loss, and false sense of security that the derivitives created. On paper it was not that big a risk.
IWhat you are basically saying is that there is nothing wrong with derivatives so long as no one ever has to use them. The sole function of these derivatives is to protect the lender in the event that there is a default. Part of their due diligence in purchasing these instruments would be familiarizing themselves with the banks underwriting practices. Of course they are needed when there is a housing downturn that is their function. When that happens they are supposed to pay, but they are failing to pay because they never had the money to pay in the first place. They just took the money while things were good and lift up their hands when it gets tough.
Speculation has been removed from the financial sector AGAIN. And the cause of the crisis is not that Fannie and Freddy were out there going crazy, their market share diminished significantly during the buildup to the crisis, and they were not advocating the predatory lending schemes that were responsible for a very large portion of the problems.
The subprime loans would never have been made if it were not for the ready access to capital that was created by the false sense of security that the derivatives created. Normaly conservative investors were buying mortgage backed financial instruments because they were under the deluded impression that they were adequately insured agains losses. On paper they were. Without the derivitives you would not have had the capital, and without the capital you would not have had the subprime loans, and without all the capital and subprime loans you would not have had the bubble. Financial institutions do not lend money because the government tells them to, they loan money based on the availibility of capital and the availability of capital on risky loans would have been non-existent if if were not for the phoney insurance agains loss, and false sense of security that the derivitives created. On paper it was not that big a risk.
Isn't backing something when you know realistically that you cannot if things go bad, then isn't that fraud? If so, then why aren't those people being prosecuted as such?
There is no debtors prison in the United States and that has been very helpful to the financial sector in the past. It is unlikely that anyone will suffer any consequences (other than the taxpayer.)
We need regulations, Obviously the financial sector needs some more regulation given the 700 Billion bailout package. Banks and Insurance companies have underwriting guidelines and since we have just traded our kids college money to make sure that investors don't suffer the consequences of risk we have an obligation to do what any reasonable business in the world would do and have expectations that go along with that money and a plan for how we are going to recoup it.
The Derivative itself is just the tip of the iceberg. Derivatives allowed Bankers to reclassify their debt and they really liked that. The short story is that these derivatives often times are used as a way of making it look like you have substantially more money than you have. It is odd to think of but a good portion of the bad debt has been repackaged and re-sold eight or nine times. There are several articles out there that describe all the shady dealings but the net result was that the financial sector has been substantially less transparent than they need to be and it is now almost impossible to know which companies actually have money and which are just paper tigers. That is why no one wants to loan money.
bankers to engage in higher risk financial deals than the guidelines allow them to, The derivatives allowed them to fudge the rules a little bit and now several of them are dangerously over leveraged. If you ended up with a bucket load of derivative obligations, what happened more times than not was that you created your own derivatives that you negotiated on to other people so that you could clean your own books and often times make a tidy profit. Of course if you still have them there is no way in hell that you could repackage and unload them now.
We need regulations, Obviously the financial sector needs some more regulation given the 700 Billion bailout package. Banks and Insurance companies have underwriting guidelines and since we have just traded our kids college money to make sure that investors don't suffer the consequences of risk we have an obligation to do what any reasonable business in the world would do and have expectations that go along with that money and a plan for how we are going to recoup it.
The Derivative itself is just the tip of the iceberg. Derivatives allowed Bankers to reclassify their debt and they really liked that. The short story is that these derivatives often times are used as a way of making it look like you have substantially more money than you have. It is odd to think of but a good portion of the bad debt has been repackaged and re-sold eight or nine times. There are several articles out there that describe all the shady dealings but the net result was that the financial sector has been substantially less transparent than they need to be and it is now almost impossible to know which companies actually have money and which are just paper tigers. That is why no one wants to loan money.
bankers to engage in higher risk financial deals than the guidelines allow them to, The derivatives allowed them to fudge the rules a little bit and now several of them are dangerously over leveraged. If you ended up with a bucket load of derivative obligations, what happened more times than not was that you created your own derivatives that you negotiated on to other people so that you could clean your own books and often times make a tidy profit. Of course if you still have them there is no way in hell that you could repackage and unload them now.
> Bush is clearly NOT responsible for this.
Bush has a HUGE responsibility for adding to our economic crisis.
bush.bmp
Bush has a HUGE responsibility for adding to our economic crisis.
bush.bmp
I notice that it has gone up steadily since the "Greed is Good" 80's and skyrocketed during the Bush administration, where greed ruled supreme.
ALL spending bills for the U.S. govt MUST start in the house of representatives. Well, at least according to the Constitution, which admittedly doesn't matter much at all to Dems. Still, generally house leaders are jealous of their prerogative on that issue.
So, Bush NEVER spent even a PENNY that did come thru the house first.
CONGRESS spends money, not the president. Yes, the president has some influence, even at times a significant influence, but ultimately it is ALWAYS up to congress.
So, Bush NEVER spent even a PENNY that did come thru the house first.
CONGRESS spends money, not the president. Yes, the president has some influence, even at times a significant influence, but ultimately it is ALWAYS up to congress.
I guess it doesn't matter that the House was controlled by the rethugs up until very recently, and those rethugs were in lockstep with the White House and Bush apparently didn't realize he could veto spending bills.
Yes it has! So much has to indeed do with GREED.
How to fix it? A few ideas:
Raise productivity growth
Increase wages
Stabilize housing market
Dump all brokers/dealers
Remove the $100,000 cap on insured bank deposits
How to fix it? A few ideas:
Raise productivity growth
Increase wages
Stabilize housing market
Dump all brokers/dealers
Remove the $100,000 cap on insured bank deposits
> Bush apparently didn't realize he could veto spending bills.
I believe that Bush is the most dangerous president in history! That dude will go out with a roar (perhaps starting the war with Iran.)
I believe that Bush is the most dangerous president in history! That dude will go out with a roar (perhaps starting the war with Iran.)
>> I guess it doesn't matter that the House was controlled by the rethugs up until very recently <<
Yes, and things were going very well economically until the Dimocrats took over two years ago. Not a coincidence.
There's absolute video evidence of the Dems' covering up for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when the Repubs tried to look into their bogus finances. Video clip after video clip. Only someone absolutely in the tank for Dims could even try to deny it. It's so glaringly obvious, even some liberal Dems have admitted it.
Yes, and things were going very well economically until the Dimocrats took over two years ago. Not a coincidence.
There's absolute video evidence of the Dems' covering up for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when the Repubs tried to look into their bogus finances. Video clip after video clip. Only someone absolutely in the tank for Dims could even try to deny it. It's so glaringly obvious, even some liberal Dems have admitted it.
The rethugs just set everything up for a fall, with trillion dollar no-bid government handouts...umm contracts to the likes of Haliburton and deregulation of everything from Wall St to pig farmers. It is no wonder their fancy house of cards fell the first time someone bothered to look at it closely.
This was not a crisis that was created in two years, this was not a crisis created by Bush alone, this was not a crisis created by Fannie & Freddie. The Republicans were in charge for a long period leading up to the crisis, so they are marginally more to blame than the Democrats, the Democrats were not calling for Derivatives legislation so they were not unable to fix the problem they did not even try to fix the problem. The Democrats did absolutely nothing in the last two years to address the issue so they are really no better than the Republicans.
The deficit is bad and the Republicans have been really really fiscally irresponsible, but that, while bad, did not cause this problem. The Democrats seem poised to increase spending rather than address the deficit so they do not seem fiscally responsible either. The deficit is a symptom of the problem. The Republicans need to tax more and the Democrats need to spend less. The only way to have good policy is to make the deficit an issue because the ability to increase the deficit masks the real problems in the economy. We have been keeping the interest rate artificially low for decades. The ability to do that without good fiscal policy lies in the ability to deficit spend. Bush is TOO MUCH of a Democrat when it comes to spending. The Democrats have also become just as corporate as the Republicans.
Neither party did dick to stop this mess and now they are just finger pointing and pursuing the same bad policies they have followed for the last 50 years. We need a reasonably small government and progressive taxation, and balanced, not nonexistent or overwhelming regulation. We just blew through 700 bn we need to tax the wealthy and can't give it away to the less wealthy. This is not the time for government run health care, the government is too fiscally irresponsible to make on that responsibility. This is not the time for a tax cut to the wealthy either. McCain was right when he did not support the tax break before. He used to be a super fiscal conservative who was not completely against progressive taxation. That is what we need, but that is also not who he seems to be any more. The spend spend spend liberals need to be stopped and the tax break tax break tax break republicans need to be stopped.
The deficit is bad and the Republicans have been really really fiscally irresponsible, but that, while bad, did not cause this problem. The Democrats seem poised to increase spending rather than address the deficit so they do not seem fiscally responsible either. The deficit is a symptom of the problem. The Republicans need to tax more and the Democrats need to spend less. The only way to have good policy is to make the deficit an issue because the ability to increase the deficit masks the real problems in the economy. We have been keeping the interest rate artificially low for decades. The ability to do that without good fiscal policy lies in the ability to deficit spend. Bush is TOO MUCH of a Democrat when it comes to spending. The Democrats have also become just as corporate as the Republicans.
Neither party did dick to stop this mess and now they are just finger pointing and pursuing the same bad policies they have followed for the last 50 years. We need a reasonably small government and progressive taxation, and balanced, not nonexistent or overwhelming regulation. We just blew through 700 bn we need to tax the wealthy and can't give it away to the less wealthy. This is not the time for government run health care, the government is too fiscally irresponsible to make on that responsibility. This is not the time for a tax cut to the wealthy either. McCain was right when he did not support the tax break before. He used to be a super fiscal conservative who was not completely against progressive taxation. That is what we need, but that is also not who he seems to be any more. The spend spend spend liberals need to be stopped and the tax break tax break tax break republicans need to be stopped.
BeHenderson for President '08 or '12
>> this was not a crisis created by Fannie & Freddie <<
Wrong. That is the core of the problem. Falsified assets underwritten by Fannie and Freddie.
>> The Republicans were in charge for a long period leading up to the crisis, so they are marginally more to blame than the Democrats <<
But the Dems were the ones that prevented investigation into Fan / Fred and insisted that they were sound and didn't need any investigating.
Wrong. That is the core of the problem. Falsified assets underwritten by Fannie and Freddie.
>> The Republicans were in charge for a long period leading up to the crisis, so they are marginally more to blame than the Democrats <<
But the Dems were the ones that prevented investigation into Fan / Fred and insisted that they were sound and didn't need any investigating.
"Fannie! Freddie! Bill Ayers! Terrorist! Lefties! Squawk! Polly wanna cracker" - SP
Banal and trite as always.
SP = Sarah Palin
SP = Scott Pletcher
Coincidence? I think not.
SP = Scott Pletcher
Coincidence? I think not.
I also might add that aside from Bush being the worst president in our century that, we who live beyond our means also have contributed to economic devastation.
LOL Bob.. I'm nor sure I 'm just trying to survive in a Democrat and Republican world. I enjoy your funnier comments, I'm not sure I will be able to get your vote let alone the nations.
Bob and Bev on the same side of the Political spectrum these days, not much controversy to be had there. Don't see you here that much Bev nice to see you. the Lounge seems like a hotbed of controversy lately. Almost makes P&R seem tame.
Pletcher once again you are putting forward misleading Republican propaganda
Bob and Bev on the same side of the Political spectrum these days, not much controversy to be had there. Don't see you here that much Bev nice to see you. the Lounge seems like a hotbed of controversy lately. Almost makes P&R seem tame.
Pletcher once again you are putting forward misleading Republican propaganda
No, I'm presenting facts and responding to other posters' claims.
They claimed Obama was qualified to be potus because he went to Harvard and because of his miscellaneous jobs after his graduation.
Of course Obama himself in 2004 in his Senate run stated that he was not qualified to run for potus. He had already graduated Harvard by then, and done all his "community organizing" (in conjunction with other Marxists and communists), etc..
So the quite logical q is:
By your claims, then is everyone who went to Harvard / Harvard Law automatically qualified to be potus?
For that matter, why should ANYONE with NO executive experience be considered "qualified" for potus?
They claimed Obama was qualified to be potus because he went to Harvard and because of his miscellaneous jobs after his graduation.
Of course Obama himself in 2004 in his Senate run stated that he was not qualified to run for potus. He had already graduated Harvard by then, and done all his "community organizing" (in conjunction with other Marxists and communists), etc..
So the quite logical q is:
By your claims, then is everyone who went to Harvard / Harvard Law automatically qualified to be potus?
For that matter, why should ANYONE with NO executive experience be considered "qualified" for potus?
Thanks for the points =o)