US Stocks Down 15% in 2 Weeks

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Amazing we're off 2000 points from its peak a few weeks ago.

[rwoy]

Our downgrade has everything to do with Obama massively increasing spending while cutting taxes.
 

Seriously?  Obama was responsible for about $1.44 trillion vs Bush's $5.07 trillion.  Heck, the Bush tax cuts alone cost us $1.8 trillion.

[You kip if you want to...]

Our downgrade has everything to do with Obama massively increasing spending while cutting taxes.
 

Seriously?  Obama was responsible for about $1.44 trillion vs Bush's $5.07 trillion.  Heck, the Bush tax cuts alone cost us $1.8 trillion.

And S&P pointed that out in their assessment.

[Lief 🗽]

Facts? Where we're going, we don't need facts...

[J. J.]

Our downgrade has everything to do with Obama massively increasing spending while cutting taxes.
 

Seriously?  Obama was responsible for about $1.44 trillion vs Bush's $5.07 trillion.  Heck, the Bush tax cuts alone cost us $1.8 trillion.

Multiply that  $1.44 trillion by four.  Bush had eight fiscal years, Obama's had two.  S & P also pointed that out.

You have to increase revenue and cut spending (I'd say cut more of the latter, as that obviously didn't work).

[rwoy]

Our downgrade has everything to do with Obama massively increasing spending while cutting taxes.
 

Seriously?  Obama was responsible for about $1.44 trillion vs Bush's $5.07 trillion.  Heck, the Bush tax cuts alone cost us $1.8 trillion.

Multiply that  $1.44 trillion by four.  Bush had eight fiscal years, Obama's had two.  S & P also pointed that out.

You have to increase revenue and cut spending (I'd say cut more of the latter, as that obviously didn't work).

To be fair, it has been 2 1/2 years of Obama so it should be multiplied by 3.2 (bringing it to $4.6 trillion).  Waaaaay too much but still less than Bush.

I agree that you have to increase revenue and cut spending.  Unfortunately the Republicans in Congress said they wouldn't let him increase revenues.

So yeah, the leadership from both parties are to blame.  The Democrats I blame for their stupidity and the Republicans I blame for, well, for lack of a better term, their treason.

[BigSkyBob]

Our downgrade has everything to do with Obama massively increasing spending while cutting taxes.
 

Seriously?  Obama was responsible for about $1.44 trillion vs Bush's $5.07 trillion.  Heck, the Bush tax cuts alone cost us $1.8 trillion.

1)  Obama wasted a nearly a trillion dollars on a failed "stimulus" program, alone. That, and other spending increases, and tax cuts, caused the downgrade. No matter how much you claim Bush was the one that loaded up the camel, the fact remains that it was Obama that placed the straw that broke the camel's back [the trillion dollar stimulus,tax cuts,etc.] He should have reasonably known that the debt and deficit levels was too high, and acted to hold the line. Instead, he went on a spending orgy that cost this nation its AAA credit rating.

2) Your claim that the Bush tax cuts cost "$1.8 trillion" is pure conjecture. All that we know for sure is how much revenue we did raise under the Bush tax policy. We simply don't know what those revenues would have been had tax policy not been altered. In any case, in the next two years they are the Obama tax cuts, and, in the last two years they were really Obama's tax cuts by assent.

[BigSkyBob]

Our downgrade has everything to do with Obama massively increasing spending while cutting taxes.
 

Seriously?  Obama was responsible for about $1.44 trillion vs Bush's $5.07 trillion.  Heck, the Bush tax cuts alone cost us $1.8 trillion.

And S&P pointed that out in their assessment.

It is the assessment of S&P that France is AAA. Credit default swaps on Chilean  debt are actually cheaper than those for France's debt. We could discuss some of their other calls going into 2008.

[BigSkyBob]

Our downgrade has everything to do with Obama massively increasing spending while cutting taxes.
 

Seriously?  Obama was responsible for about $1.44 trillion vs Bush's $5.07 trillion.  Heck, the Bush tax cuts alone cost us $1.8 trillion.

Multiply that  $1.44 trillion by four.  Bush had eight fiscal years, Obama's had two.  S & P also pointed that out.

You have to increase revenue and cut spending (I'd say cut more of the latter, as that obviously didn't work).

To be fair, it has been 2 1/2 years of Obama so it should be multiplied by 3.2 (bringing it to $4.6 trillion).  Waaaaay too much but still less than Bush.

I don't think this is the correct comparison. The deficit since Obama has taken office is greater than 1.44 trillion. Clearly, some of Obama's deficit is being apportioned to previous Presidents. The comparision is between Bush over ten-and-a-half years versus Obama over two-and-a-half years. To have the correct comparison, you must see what Obama's responsibility is eight years from now, and compare that to  Bush's figure, today. Or, you could compare Obama's $1.44 trillion today, to what Bush's responsibility was exactly eight years ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[opebo]

Multiply that  $1.44 trillion by four.  Bush had eight fiscal years, Obama's had two.

During recessions spending automatically increases, J.J.

[Zarn]

Multiply that  $1.44 trillion by four.  Bush had eight fiscal years, Obama's had two.

During recessions spending automatically increases, J.J.

Bush had a recession.

[J. J.]

Multiply that  $1.44 trillion by four.  Bush had eight fiscal years, Obama's had two.

During recessions spending automatically increases, J.J.

Ever hear of the Keynesian Endpoint?

[opebo]

Ever hear of the Keynesian Endpoint?

Why would I hear of some nonsense coined a year ago by an idiot?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Strongly considering converting my portfolio to cash at the end of the day.

[opebo]

Strongly considering converting my portfolio to cash at the end of the day.

Why not gold?

[Torie]

Strongly considering converting my portfolio to cash at the end of the day.

Learn to always have at least 20% of your portfolio in bonds, and 20% in equities, and play with the percentages in between, but don't make big risk exposure  moves without good fundamental reasons, Dukie. That is one old man's advice. I don't think there are good fundamental reasons for the market to seriously tank downward from here myself by the way.

[rwoy]

Our downgrade has everything to do with Obama massively increasing spending while cutting taxes.
 

Seriously?  Obama was responsible for about $1.44 trillion vs Bush's $5.07 trillion.  Heck, the Bush tax cuts alone cost us $1.8 trillion.

1)  Obama wasted a nearly a trillion dollars on a failed "stimulus" program, alone. That, and other spending increases, and tax cuts, caused the downgrade. No matter how much you claim Bush was the one that loaded up the camel, the fact remains that it was Obama that placed the straw that broke the camel's back [the trillion dollar stimulus,tax cuts,etc.] He should have reasonably known that the debt and deficit levels was too high, and acted to hold the line. Instead, he went on a spending orgy that cost this nation its AAA credit rating.

It isn't a matter of "claiming" that Bush loaded the camel ... it is fact.  I think we disagree about what broke the camel's back though.

All the credit rating does is measure the probability that the creditor will pay.  Historically there has been nothing safer in the world than US treasuries.  However, when with the latest fiasco Congress showed that they have some members who just may be crazy and stupid enough to actually default.  THAT is what broke the camel's back ... the shaken trust.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but it is reasonable to make assumptions based on historical performance.

[opebo]

Learn to always have at least 20% of your portfolio in bonds, and 20% in equities,

Where's the other 60%? 

[Torie]

Learn to always have at least 20% of your portfolio in bonds, and 20% in equities,

Where's the other 60%? 

Your equity to bond ratios bounce around over time. Mine has ranged from about 20% equities up to about 45%. In the bubble run up in 2000 I got it down to about 20%, and it got up to about 40% before the dump of the last two weeks.  I only make a change when I see some substantial change in the risk reward ratio, as the expected equity premium bounces around. At the top of the bubble in 2000, the equity premium got negative. The real expected return on equities was about 3.5% (1% dividends plus 2.5% real economic growth), while the return on long term TIPS (treasury inflation adjusted bonds), was in excess of 4%. It is around 3%-4% now.

Make sense?

[J. J.]

Ever hear of the Keynesian Endpoint?

Why would I hear of some nonsense coined a year ago by an idiot?

Actually first approached in the mid to late 1930.  Make sure you send a thank you note to Hitler for not getting there.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Strongly considering converting my portfolio to cash at the end of the day.

Learn to always have at least 20% of your portfolio in bonds, and 20% in equities, and play with the percentages in between, but don't make big risk exposure  moves without good fundamental reasons, Dukie. That is one old man's advice. I don't think there are good fundamental reasons for the market to seriously tank downward from here myself by the way.

Companies are making money. I think most of it is psychological at the moment. I've reduced my holdings to a few stocks that are sound companies (AAPL/DPZ//MO/T) so I've been outperforming the current trend. I suppose the wild swings of the week have made me paranoid. I remember wanting to do the same thing just prior to the collapse in 2008. I think we're a bit more stable than that now.

[opebo]

Ever hear of the Keynesian Endpoint?

Why would I hear of some nonsense coined a year ago by an idiot?

Actually first approached in the mid to late 1930.  Make sure you send a thank you note to Hitler for not getting there.

Hmm... ok.  So you're saying WWII wasn't Keynesian?

[BigSkyBob]

Our downgrade has everything to do with Obama massively increasing spending while cutting taxes.
 

Seriously?  Obama was responsible for about $1.44 trillion vs Bush's $5.07 trillion.  Heck, the Bush tax cuts alone cost us $1.8 trillion.

1)  Obama wasted a nearly a trillion dollars on a failed "stimulus" program, alone. That, and other spending increases, and tax cuts, caused the downgrade. No matter how much you claim Bush was the one that loaded up the camel, the fact remains that it was Obama that placed the straw that broke the camel's back [the trillion dollar stimulus,tax cuts,etc.] He should have reasonably known that the debt and deficit levels was too high, and acted to hold the line. Instead, he went on a spending orgy that cost this nation its AAA credit rating.

It isn't a matter of "claiming" that Bush loaded the camel ... it is fact.

No doubt Bush place one-time loads on the camel to fight wars in the Middle-East, and he placed a ongoing burden to fund the medicare prescription benefit, "No child left behind," and, the ongoing costs for wounded soldiers.  On the other hand, LBJ left the one-time burden of Vietnam, and the financial blackholes of medicaid, and medicare. If we are going to assign blame to whom loaded the camel, LBJ is the prime offender.

Obama's tax subsidy scheme is going to be another financial blackhole like medicare and medicaid. Employers are going to look at the subsidy and say, "Why should I provide subsidized health insurance [for low-wage workers] if the government would do it for me if I dropped my plan?" And, this is not to mention the trillion for the failed "stimulus" bill, and the costs of "surging" the war in Afghanistan, bombing Libya, nation-building in Iraq, and the ongoing costs for soldiers wounded in his wars.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only in your imagination. In the real world, S&P placed the blame on its belief that the promised budget cuts won't materialize.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but it is reasonable to make assumptions based on historical performance.
[/quote]

True, but, that score is not based on reasonable assumptions. 

[BigSkyBob]

Ever hear of the Keynesian Endpoint?

Why would I hear of some nonsense coined a year ago by an idiot?

Actually first approached in the mid to late 1930.  Make sure you send a thank you note to Hitler for not getting there.

Okay, refresh me. I know that they tried to lower the deficits in 1937, and the economy softened a second time. Keynesians claim that it showed their theory was correct, and maintaining deficits was the way to go. Their critics note that WWII, not Keynesian deficits, ended the depression.

Is the "Keynesian endpoint" the point where the economy can't afford the zombie juice any longer, the artificial prosperity ends, and the slump resumes?

[rwoy]

Oh BigSkyBob,

No doubt Bush place one-time loads on the camel to fight wars in the Middle-East, and he placed a ongoing burden to fund the medicare prescription benefit, "No child left behind," and, the ongoing costs for wounded soldiers. 

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were "one-time loads"?  So they are over?  Oh wait ... nope, those quagmires are still going.  And while the Afghan was unavoidable, the Iraq war was totally unnecessary.  The medicare was $180 billion.  Bush had $608 billion in spending on non-defense discretionary spending.  There was another $224 billion in the TARP bailouts. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What?  You've gotta go back to the 1960s?  Heck, why not blame FDR for the New Deal?  Or the Founding Fathers for breaking with Britain?  Bush's policies directly impact the current economy.


Obama's tax subsidy scheme is going to be another financial blackhole like medicare and medicaid. Employers are going to look at the subsidy and say, "Why should I provide subsidized health insurance [for low-wage workers] if the government would do it for me if I dropped my plan?" And, this is not to mention the trillion for the failed "stimulus" bill, and the costs of "surging" the war in Afghanistan, bombing Libya, nation-building in Iraq, and the ongoing costs for soldiers wounded in his wars.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but it is reasonable to make assumptions based on historical performance.
[/quote]

True, but, that score is not based on reasonable assumptions. 
[/quote]

Just because you don't like the #'s doesn't make them any less valid.  But don't take my word for it.  Google "cost of bush tax cuts" and read article after article after article.