Stock Market
 

I have one thing to say about yeterday stocks and the next 12 months . Thank you Mr. Obama he is suppoce to be the leader and he s______ us royal. He promised change and we got it right up our ___s_ take it for what its worth.

Who said, "I hope you like this changey hopey thing." Oh, right, that crazy women from Alaska, who don't look so crazy now. Would I vote for her, maybe, maybe not, depends on who else is running and what their platform is. But one thing I know, I will not be voting for any incumbunts, that is for sure.

All you geniuses give Obama much to much credit/blame for the stock market crash. Simply an emotional, right wing and hatred-filled reaction based on nothing factual. But you'all just can't help yourselves. :(

Factual? You mean like a Stimulus that didn't stimulate? How about last summer's Recovery Summer that sizzled? How about Obamacare that has scared employers into not hiring? Really.

You are correct.....too much credit and too much blame is given to the WH.

Of course that mantra only applies when the other party is leveling the criticism, right ? I recall Bush...oh heck..not recall...still responsible for all the ills in the world !

Having said that I agree with the too much praise and too much blame...HOWEVER you ACTUALLY DO WHAT YOU ARE CRITICIZING..YOU blame the right wing for all the ills of the market...you generalize and call all right wingers haters. YOUR attitude is the problem...it all depends on the party with folks like you. The generalizations only apply when YOU apply them.

Obama did not cause the drop...he will not be responsble when it rises. HE IS supposed to be responsible for exerting leadership and honesty, which he has not.

The most appropriate, accurate single statement about Obama I have seen to date:

"HE IS supposed to be responsible for exerting leadership and honesty, which he has not."

Thanx Bucco.:BigApplause:

btk

Stockbroker
 

I called my stockbroker and asked him what I should be buying.

He said, "If the current administration is in office much longer, canned goods and ammunition are your best bet."

:1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl: amen to your broker - am going shopping now!

:crap2::crap2:

Absolutely Correct
 

You're exactly right, Bucco.

And you're further right when you suggest that President Bush is not responsible for "all the ills of the world". If one wanted to blame him for making decisions that only the executive branch can make, or blame him for not vetoing irresponsible legislation passed by the Congress, then they'd be right.

If you really think about it, Congress under the control of two different political parties is "zero for two" in passing two different pieces of legislation which are important causes for the increases in deficit spending and the national debt we're so concerned about now--the "Bush" tax cuts and TARP and the 2010 stimulus legislation. Those things, plus the cost of the wars, are huge elements of the debt we've run up in the last decade or so.

But blaming either President Bush or President Obama solely for the resulting problem? No way!

I think President Bush can be blamed for getting us into two wars and keeping us there for almost his entire two terms and the cost thereof. President Obama continued those wars and actually approved a surge in both personnel and spending. Those costs are on his ledger.

The "Bush tax cuts"? Bush may have suggested them--I can't even remember--but it was Congress who passed them on a purely partisan and political basis. The argument at the time was that the extra money flowing into the economy would create spending, jobs and economic growth. And if you recall, like the "stimulus" spending of 2008-2010, those tax cuts didn't have the intended effect either.

President Obama? The stimulus packages were designed by the executive branch and passed by Congress. They haven't worked either. It was a good try--something had to be done at the time to unfreeze the banking system--but long term the stimulus investments didn't work as intended. Obama has to take responsibility for that.

I think that notwithstanding the personal distaste or even hatred people might have for a President for political or ideological reasons, we shouldn't forget what a President can really do and what they are really responsible for. What they really can accomplish from their perch in the oval office is a whole lot less than what they get blamed for.

"Leadership and honesty"? How many of the following list can you give high marks to on those counts? Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Clinton, Bush, Obama? Not more than just a few, in my opinion.

But what's the old saying? "Heavy is the head that wears the crown."

Regarding "Heavy is the head that wears the crown."......and.....

"The fish rots from the head down" as Dukakis so aptly said it (and then yawned and took a long nap on the podium!)

:beer3::beer3: I still chuckle when I think of that picture with him in the tank wearing that helmet.:jester:

That's how I feel. I took on that attitude in 2008. I am resigned to the belief that nothing is going to get better until after the 2012 election when this sorry excuse of an administration is but a long horrible nightmare from the past.

I hope the American people learn from this BIG mistake and never do it again. I think we should run the government like a bussiness and have a board of directors that over sees the president. Congress is suppose to but they cant do it. What happens is a mess like what we have. And I dont care no one can say that its not dem or repub. royal mess. Next time folks dont vote for someone just because its politicly correct that gets us no where. Do I have the answers no, but I'm not blind. I think the 90 day probation period would be workable.

Reminds me of the bumper sticker that says, "You voted for Obama in 2008 to prove that you were not a racist, now vote him out of office in 2012 to prove you are not stupid" :BigApplause:

Better get that bunker built. :D

Yes, but I think I'll have a mint first.http://www.philosophersguild.com/ind...by=rank%20DESC

I May Not Have To Worry
 

And if the majority of Americans don't vote thoughtfully in 2012, we'll be saying things won't get better until 2016.

Y'know, if some pretty good voting decisions aren't made pretty soon, I'm not going to have to worry about the results.

LOL......thought about mentioning that too, but the "barely breathing" guy saying such a profound statement was what I wanted to focus on.

Speaking of that dopey tank scene, have you ever seen Susan Estrich, his campaign manager talk about what she thought when she saw that tank driving scene on t.v. and she had not been advised of it before? She is the funniest person (with Carol Channing type voice), and hearing her tell about how idiotic and game-ending that scene was is hysterical.

Dow Down 600
 

With 10 minutes to go:22yikes:

This Hope and Change, evidently from Bush, has been going real well. Obama inherited from Bush a AAA Credit rating and 5.7% unemployment and has really turned things around. He changed course and has really got the nation moving. Moving down the road to ruin, but moving it is.

And it was Sarah Palin who was the person everyone was scared of with her message of fiscal austerity and individual rights to build a life unencumbered by the heavy hand of government?

If it wasn't so stupid, it would be almighty funny.

I thought he was going to be another Jimmy Carter, I was wrong, he is much worse! How can this guy have a 40% approval rating?

Easy, they only poll the middle and the left.

No. I think it is because most Americans know that a 2 % tax increase on the rich would have avoided this market drop. I bet the rich are down more than 2% now. Greedy ^%$#@^&^$'s got what they deserve. If the market don't turn around, I may have to go back to work.. Thanks to the GOP and the Tea Party. I am a conservative, but this was handled wrong by my GOP and now we lower income people have to suffer.

Right on VK, I am glad to see someone with some thought and factual information speaks out. I am so frustrated with the right wing extremists yelling and screaming so loud so as to obscure their culpability in the obvious failure of this county to manage it's economy.

When they stop issuing SS checks and my military pension drys up I will just issue IOUs like the government is issuing to me. What goes around comes around.

So when I get mine you get yours. What a deal.

The House passed the bill. Obama was warned that if he didn't tell the Senate to vote on it and pass it, this was going to happen. Obama did nothing, of course, and now we are paying for it, big time. Thanks again for voting "present" Obama.

You are so wrong, but I respect your right to guess.

Obama knew it was the right thing to do but it would not look so good on his "campaign trail".

Finally!
 

From another fiscal conservative...

Finally...reality!

Tea Parties fault? The GOP?

Thats nothing short of delusional. The Democrats have controlled congress for the better part of 5 years.

No budget for over 800 days from Obama and the Democrats.

The GOP passed cut cap and balance and the Democrats blocked it. Had it passed and been signed there would have been no downgrade. S&P already said that.

But some of you blame the Tea Party? Really?

For all you "rich people" haters, let me give you a little reality check.

Poor people aren't poor because rich people are rich.

Any one of you ever been offered a job, health benefits and a 401K plan by a poor person?

The true THEIF is the government, not people who worked hard all their lives and made it big.

No Surprise Here
 

Those that continue to assert that "cut, cap and balance" was the way to go or even politically possible, haven't done the arithmetic.

What would the country look like if we "capped" federal spending at $3.9 trillion and then "cut" expenses by $1.6 trillion to "balance"? If the Tea Party had such a plan, what was it? Where would $1.6 trillion be cut? What would the effect have been on the U.S. economy? The world economy?

I know an answer will take more than fourteen words and will actually have to include some numbers, but go ahead and give it a try.

Well, they had to wait for Obamacare to pass before they knew what was in it?

:BigApplause::BigApplause:

Typical smoke and mirrors VK. We don't and never had a tax problem, we have a SPENDING problem.

The government is a big giant wasteful spending black hole and most thinking people know it.

You can type up all the 15 page diatribes you like but it doesn't change a thing nor does it make it true.

This is a government spending problem pure and simple and there are plenty of places to cut without raising a dime in taxes.

But some of us know the government NEVER does with less. Only we are expected to do with less.

Amen.:cry:

While I’m at it, here’s another big fat lie from the left. All you hear them say including Obama is that millionaires and billionaires aren’t paying their fair share. Isn’t it interesting that they consider a small business with maybe two or three employees grossing $250k a year millionaires and billionaires whom they can also fleece so they can keep spending.

Why don’t we just pound them with higher taxes, toss in a little Obamacare and more regulation for good measure, maybe that will make them hire more employees and take the risk to expand their business. The very businesses by the way who employ a good bit of the people out there… or used to anyway.

But none the less, it’s all the Tea Party’s fault I’m sure. All we need to do is tax more and spend more and everything will be just peachy.

The total lack of common sense these days is mind boggling.

Here’s a simple idea. Why doesn’t the government balance their own budget and keep their grimy little mitts out of ours? You might be surprised how fast the economy turns around and how much more revenue they generate.

It seems the Wall Street Journal has a disagreement with your analysis.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...782561014.html

Predictable
 

First, Richie, I never said I was against cut, cap and balance. In fact, on many occasions in this forum I have said I embrace the ideals of the Tea Party, just not the destructive and irresponsible way they tried to go about getting their way.

What I asked above was, if the bill that was passed by the House was put into law, what $1.6 trillion in spending would be cut? And what might the effect have been on the U.S. and world economy?

Predictably, I didn't get an answer. That's because those here that mindlessly embrace the Tea Party with soundbite-type statements have never done the arithmetic. That's because the Tea Party themselves have never done the arithmetic or put forth a detailed plan on what the "cuts" would be in cut, cap and balance.

Even the official GOP budget, the Paul Ryan proposal, which was very much the right size in my opinion, only cut $4.4 trillion in spending in ten years. That plan was far from capping and balancing and would have added $12-14 trillion to the national debt in ten years.

So once more, anyone want to try answering my question?...what $1.6 trillion in federal spending would you cut in order to balance the budget? If you can't answer the question, don't bother responding with some repetitive soundbite or link to an article that also doesn't answer the question.

And by the way, Richie, the article you linked was only letter to the editor published by the Wall Street Journal. You weren't suggesting that the article stated the actual opinion of the publication were you? Or were you?