Obama's Going to Do What?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

Consumer confidence has tanked. Consumers and business who lack confidence will not spend, invest or hire employees. The stimulus did nothing to change that nor will it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_bi_ge/economy

A year ago the confidence level was 76. Now it is 25. Over a 50 point drop. Only a fool would think people have confidence in the administration right now.

The expectation index which is an outlook for the next 6 months fell from 42 to 27 so the outlook people have is equally grim.

82

[quote]hedo wrote:
Consumer confidence has tanked. Consumers and business who lack confidence will not spend, invest or hire employees. The stimulus did nothing to change that nor will it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_bi_ge/economy

A year ago the confidence level was 76. Now it is 25. Over a 50 point drop. Only a fool would think people have confidence in the administration right now.

The expectation index which is an outlook for the next 6 months fell from 42 to 27 so the outlook people have is equally grim.[/quote]

It’s pretty obvious that the markets have no confidene in Obama. Investors disapprove of his policies, thinking that they’ll only make matters worse. YET! Opinion polls show him with a 68% approval rating.

I think the media and his own excuse making (i.e. “blame Bush”) will insulate him - even as we amble toward depression - enough for re-election…after that it’s elevation to 'Best President of All-Time" status and some global job, created for him. U.S. presidents will probably have to answer to him after he leaves Washington.

Because a world without Obama…well…I mean…who wants to live in that?

83

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
It’s pretty obvious that the markets have no confidene in Obama. Investors disapprove of his policies, thinking that they’ll only make matters worse. YET! Opinion polls show him with a 68% approval rating.

I think the media and his own excuse making (i.e. “blame Bush”) will insulate him - even as we amble toward depression - enough for re-election…after that it’s elevation to 'Best President of All-Time" status
…[/quote]

Worked for FDR.

84

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
It’s pretty obvious that the markets have no confidene in Obama. Investors disapprove of his policies, thinking that they’ll only make matters worse. YET! Opinion polls show him with a 68% approval rating.

I think the media and his own excuse making (i.e. “blame Bush”) will insulate him - even as we amble toward depression - enough for re-election…after that it’s elevation to 'Best President of All-Time" status
…

Worked for FDR.[/quote]

Not up on your history are you?

85

Funny thing about idiots: No matter how often you inform them of their condition, and no matter how many people do so and no matter how compelling the evidence, they never learn that it is the case.

You, sir, are no exception to this general truth.

86

Exception? He’s a prime example of it.

87

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
hedo wrote:
Consumer confidence has tanked. Consumers and business who lack confidence will not spend, invest or hire employees. The stimulus did nothing to change that nor will it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_bi_ge/economy

A year ago the confidence level was 76. Now it is 25. Over a 50 point drop. Only a fool would think people have confidence in the administration right now.

The expectation index which is an outlook for the next 6 months fell from 42 to 27 so the outlook people have is equally grim.

It’s pretty obvious that the markets have no confidene in Obama. Investors disapprove of his policies, thinking that they’ll only make matters worse. YET! Opinion polls show him with a 68% approval rating.

I think the media and his own excuse making (i.e. “blame Bush”) will insulate him - even as we amble toward depression - enough for re-election…after that it’s elevation to 'Best President of All-Time" status and some global job, created for him. U.S. presidents will probably have to answer to him after he leaves Washington.

Because a world without Obama…well…I mean…who wants to live in that?[/quote]

So clearly when the market goes up that means they have confidence. Or could it be underlying economic conditions created during the previous admin driving the marketplace, especially when that 14,000 high was under Bush…hmmmm…so with your logic, the market really, really, really didn’t have confidence in Bush, and given we’re half of that high and at the same point we were over 10 years ago(!) we probably shouldn’t let republican near economic policy, ever again.

Of course you probably think the fundamentals of the economy are strong, like McCain right?

88

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Funny thing about idiots: No matter how often you inform them of their condition, and no matter how many people do so and no matter how compelling the evidence, they never learn that it is the case.

You, sir, are no exception to this general truth.[/quote]

It’s sad when someone can make HH seem level headed, objective, and intelligent.

89

[quote]100meters wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
hedo wrote:
Consumer confidence has tanked. Consumers and business who lack confidence will not spend, invest or hire employees. The stimulus did nothing to change that nor will it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_bi_ge/economy

A year ago the confidence level was 76. Now it is 25. Over a 50 point drop. Only a fool would think people have confidence in the administration right now.

The expectation index which is an outlook for the next 6 months fell from 42 to 27 so the outlook people have is equally grim.

It’s pretty obvious that the markets have no confidene in Obama. Investors disapprove of his policies, thinking that they’ll only make matters worse. YET! Opinion polls show him with a 68% approval rating.

I think the media and his own excuse making (i.e. “blame Bush”) will insulate him - even as we amble toward depression - enough for re-election…after that it’s elevation to 'Best President of All-Time" status and some global job, created for him. U.S. presidents will probably have to answer to him after he leaves Washington.

Because a world without Obama…well…I mean…who wants to live in that?

So clearly when the market goes up that means they have confidence. Or could it be underlying economic conditions created during the previous admin driving the marketplace, especially when that 14,000 high was under Bush…hmmmm…so with your logic, the market really, really, really didn’t have confidence in Bush, and given we’re half of that high and at the same point we were over 10 years ago(!) we probably shouldn’t let republican near economic policy, ever again.

Of course you probably think the fundamentals of the economy are strong, like McCain right?
[/quote]

Uh. No. It can’t be underlying conditions created by the Bush administration. Markets are bets on the future. See…I know this is hard to understand, so play close attention. People invest to make MONEY! Shocking, I know. It’s not an opinion poll or popularity contest. The goal is buy low and sell high! Thus MAKING A PROFIT!

Keeping up so far? Now really concentrate on this part: When stocks are low, like they are now, investors generally want buy so that when they go back UP (this is where it gets tricky) they can sell them and make money (remember: THAT’S the goal!).

Before Obama got the nomination we thought we were near what’s called THE BOTTOM (which is an ideal time to buy stock!). And we actually thought we hit bottom a few times because stocks rose again. But Obama was sworn in…and it dropped about 350 points. Then he gave his speech and it dropped a few hundred. Then Geithner gave his speech…and it dropped another 300. Then the simulus passed. Uh-oh. Another few hundred and one of the worst weeks in the history of the market.

Then he announces his housing plan. Wall Street yawned…lost some more value. Now he’s going to raise cap-gains…lost 250 yesterday. Bernanke said today that the recession will end mid-this year. BOOM! We are up 250 today. See! People are thinking about…THE MOTHER FUCKING FUTURE, DICKWAD!

Don’t worry. Obama will kill that momentum tonight.

90

[quote]100meters wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
hedo wrote:
Consumer confidence has tanked. Consumers and business who lack confidence will not spend, invest or hire employees. The stimulus did nothing to change that nor will it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_bi_ge/economy

A year ago the confidence level was 76. Now it is 25. Over a 50 point drop. Only a fool would think people have confidence in the administration right now.

The expectation index which is an outlook for the next 6 months fell from 42 to 27 so the outlook people have is equally grim.

It’s pretty obvious that the markets have no confidene in Obama. Investors disapprove of his policies, thinking that they’ll only make matters worse. YET! Opinion polls show him with a 68% approval rating.

I think the media and his own excuse making (i.e. “blame Bush”) will insulate him - even as we amble toward depression - enough for re-election…after that it’s elevation to 'Best President of All-Time" status and some global job, created for him. U.S. presidents will probably have to answer to him after he leaves Washington.

Because a world without Obama…well…I mean…who wants to live in that?

So clearly when the market goes up that means they have confidence. Or could it be underlying economic conditions created during the previous admin driving the marketplace, especially when that 14,000 high was under Bush…hmmmm…so with your logic, the market really, really, really didn’t have confidence in Bush, and given we’re half of that high and at the same point we were over 10 years ago(!) we probably shouldn’t let republican near economic policy, ever again.

Of course you probably think the fundamentals of the economy are strong, like McCain right?
[/quote]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street

Seriously. If you do not understand that markets are THE best indicator of investors confidence in the future (NOT the past) then there is not much anyone can say to you. Shit! Even Yahoo understands this.

91

[quote]hedo wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
100meters wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
This is typical. There is all sorts of argument and redirection of the conversation. “You bastard you made fun of the poor and food stamps!” God DAMN you! But no one has even attempted to answer the original mother fucking question: How is raising the cap-gains tax good? To recap, again!

It generates LESS revenue for the fed, punishes and discourages investment…BUT! It DOES punish those fat-cats! Damn them!

Can anyone make an argument? Anyone at all? Last call!

Dude, it raises revenue. You’re confused. Short term it may lead to some increase due to tax timing,etc, but longer term you just lose revenue. The CBO estimated that extending the 2003 cap gains tax cut costs 20 billion dollars over 10 years.

Of course the losses from the income tax cuts really hurt, but still the point is you raise them for revenue.

Uh, dude. No it doens’t. It never has! No one - except you - is even pretending it will. For someone so well acquainted with ‘simple’ mathmatics, you seem to struggle with simple math:

Less investing = fewer investors = fewer tax (CG) taxpayers = less revenue to tax = less tax revenue. This is not income tax (that’s a whole other issue). This is a tax that people can choose NOT to pay by simply NOT investing. And that’s bad. You agree that’s not good, right?

It’s basic economics. He isn’t going to understand it.

Fanatics don’t let confusing things like facts change their mind, otherwise they wouldn’t be fanatics.

The market is tanking because Obama is president and Democrats are in control of congress. The markets are a predictor of the direction the economy is taking (more basic economics I know…)otherwise known as an indicator.

The market began to tank when it looked like he would get the nomination and his victory seemed likely. The market is now in a free fall because traders and investors don’t have any confidence in him or his policies.

It isn’t falling because Bush was president for the last two terms. Most money managers are fleeing to safety because it’s amateur hour in the White House and the special interests are driving the spending. Until that changes the market will continue to fall. No reason for it to turn.

A capital gains increase now will be another reason for the market to drop and wealth to decrease. Keep in mind that those who pay capital gains are not the people Obama owes and is beholden to.

Use this as your guide. Think about what Obama and his fellow traveller’s could do to fuck up the economy and that is the decision they will make. When it blows up on them, they blame Bush. Increase spending, raise tax’s, lower domestic energy production, waste money on special interests…sound familiar. [/quote]

Hmmm… I wonder if Obama’s market returns beat Bush’s? Since dems always do, suspect so this time too. But when it happens of course the president has nothing to do with it. (must cut and save this for future reference)

92

[quote]100meters wrote:

Hmmm… I wonder if Obama’s market returns beat Bush’s? Since dems always do, suspect so this time too. But when it happens of course the president has nothing to do with it. (must cut and save this for future reference)[/quote]

Correct, that is congress not the president that creates legislation. The president can cheer-lead and bang his dick on the desk, but until it passes both houses, he cannot do shit…Do you know nothing about the constitution?

93

[quote]hedo wrote:
The market is tanking because Obama is president and Democrats are in control of congress…[/quote]

In all fairness we’ve been heading for this cliff for a while now – viz, deficit spending, inflation, etc. It is true Obama will make it worse just by signing his name on legislation but let’s try to be objective about it. This is not a political problem. Tis a government problem.

94

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:

Bernanke said today that the recession will end mid-this year. [/quote]

This is the same Bernanke who accidentally revealed the secret of the U.S. government’s super-duper money-making capability.

“…the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

So THAT’s where all this bailout money is coming from. I knew there had to be an explanation.

95

[quote]pat wrote:
100meters wrote:

Hmmm… I wonder if Obama’s market returns beat Bush’s? Since dems always do, suspect so this time too. But when it happens of course the president has nothing to do with it. (must cut and save this for future reference)

Correct, that is congress not the president that creates legislation. The president can cheer-lead and bang his dick on the desk, but until it passes both houses, he cannot do shit…Do you know nothing about the constitution? [/quote]

Ok, so Bush not responsible whatsoever for his massive stock market gains of negative 22%! But your republican congress is. Therefore we can conclude we’ll never vote republican again.

I wonder if Obama/dem congress can beat -22%?

96

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

Bernanke said today that the recession will end mid-this year.

This is the same Bernanke who accidentally revealed the secret of the U.S. government’s super-duper money-making capability.

“…the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

So THAT’s where all this bailout money is coming from. I knew there had to be an explanation.[/quote]

jesus please tell me he was drunk when he said that or somthing

97

[quote]100meters wrote:
pat wrote:
100meters wrote:

Hmmm… I wonder if Obama’s market returns beat Bush’s? Since dems always do, suspect so this time too. But when it happens of course the president has nothing to do with it. (must cut and save this for future reference)

Correct, that is congress not the president that creates legislation. The president can cheer-lead and bang his dick on the desk, but until it passes both houses, he cannot do shit…Do you know nothing about the constitution?

Ok, so Bush not responsible whatsoever for his massive stock market gains of negative 22%! But your republican congress is. Therefore we can conclude we’ll never vote republican again.

I wonder if Obama/dem congress can beat -22%?[/quote]

The government doesn’t run the stock market…this is America not the USSR. Neither are responsible directly for the stock market. The market can and does respond to the actions of the government, but it is correlative, not cause and effect. Only by legislation can the government have any effect on the market forces.
For instance, the sub-prime mess was signed into law by Carter…Nobody thought interest rates would ever get below 10% again so nobody was worried. The Clinton administration further forced private businesses to lend to people who could not pay the money back.

For the record over the past 60 years, Republicans only ran congress for 12 of them. Actually less because the prior to 06 the congress was split. Now do you really want to play a blame game? Because the litany of democrat failures is a vast deep well of embarrassment. There is plenty of blame to go around, right down the bums who bit off more than they can chew financially.

If you want to be blameless, be responsible and sponge off of no one. Pay your debts and spend only what you can afford. It is we who did this that are blameless, but it is us who will foot the even more massive bill.

98

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
if CD taxes are so terrible

why weren’t they removed completely during Reagan or any of the Bush years?

or completely gutted to insignificant levels?

if having lower CD tax = more Fed revenue, wouldn’t having NO CD tax = much more Fed revenue?

I agree with you guys that the stupid robber gang mentality exists in politics, especially when its narrowed down to two parties.

but the CG tax is dropped, and people benefiting from that make money, and the Fed makes money (balancing out losses from CD tax?) people will be pissed if there’s no expansion of social programs for them to use.

of course people will be pissed if everyone but them is making money from the action of their own government.[/quote]

google laffer curve. You do understand the difference between a curve and a linear progression on a graph, right?

99

[quote]pat wrote:
100meters wrote:
pat wrote:
100meters wrote:

Hmmm… I wonder if Obama’s market returns beat Bush’s? Since dems always do, suspect so this time too. But when it happens of course the president has nothing to do with it. (must cut and save this for future reference)

Correct, that is congress not the president that creates legislation. The president can cheer-lead and bang his dick on the desk, but until it passes both houses, he cannot do shit…Do you know nothing about the constitution?

Ok, so Bush not responsible whatsoever for his massive stock market gains of negative 22%! But your republican congress is. Therefore we can conclude we’ll never vote republican again.

I wonder if Obama/dem congress can beat -22%?

The government doesn’t run the stock market…this is America not the USSR. Neither are responsible directly for the stock market. The market can and does respond to the actions of the government, but it is correlative, not cause and effect. Only by legislation can the government have any effect on the market forces.
For instance, the sub-prime mess was signed into law by Carter…Nobody thought interest rates would ever get below 10% again so nobody was worried. The Clinton administration further forced private businesses to lend to people who could not pay the money back.

For the record over the past 60 years, Republicans only ran congress for 12 of them. Actually less because the prior to 06 the congress was split. Now do you really want to play a blame game? Because the litany of democrat failures is a vast deep well of embarrassment. There is plenty of blame to go around, right down the bums who bit off more than they can chew financially.

If you want to be blameless, be responsible and sponge off of no one. Pay your debts and spend only what you can afford. It is we who did this that are blameless, but it is us who will foot the even more massive bill.[/quote]

Carter signed sub-prime mess… Debunked already. I’ll assume you mean the CRA, which was responsible for what %4 of all subprimes? So that leaves us with banks and financial institutions which points to lack of regulation, then we can get in blame game that still on balance tilts substantially towards republicans.

But yes the macro-economic policies of admin/party in charge has an effect on the market.

Also if you disagree you should be correcting the other posters blaming Obama for the current market performance, right?

100

[quote]100meters wrote:
Carter signed sub-prime mess… Debunked already. I’ll assume you mean the CRA, which was responsible for what %4 of all subprimes?
[/quote]
nothing has been debunked. That is if you admit the validity of supply and demand and the business cycle. CRA was not solely responsible for housing bubble and financial collapse, but it was absolutly the beginning of it. The root cause if you will. We’ve been through this before.