Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

[Democratic Hawk]

More bullsh**t from America haters. The media never seemed to say that Bush was killing the stock market, which declined more under him than any other President since Hoover.

Well, if you want to be picky, the DOW has declined nearly 3000 points since Obama took office, while it declined by 1500 or so in the 8 years Bush was in office. It had stabilized somewhat by January of this year around the 9000 mark (in fact, my trust made $25,000 in December), but has plunged since Obama took office and put through the stimulus.

You about doubled what it went down, it is down about 1600 not 3000, and it was down about 2300 during Bush's tenure not 1500.  On top of that the biggest reason the Dow has been down has nothing to do with the Stimulus, but rather the abysmal economic numbers that keep coming out.  Most of the 4th Quarter earnings were released after Obama was elected.  The numbers that keep coming out are bad, but a month and a half in office is not going to have any impact on it.  The economy was in an absolute downward spiral when Bush left office, and that is why the market continues to go down.  Your not going to go from job losses of over 600,000 in the final months of one President's tenure, GDP dropping 6%, and economy in utter free fall and turn than around right away in the 1st month and a half of the next President's tenure.  Its going to get worse before it gets better and that is something we knew months ago.

Well, IIRC, the situation certainly got worse under Reagan before it got better. If the Carter era was characterised by stagflation (sluggish growth), the early years of Reagan were characterised by recession. So, no, Obama isn't going to turn things around overnight. Nor should any one expect him to

Yet, there is a RECESSION going on right now and signs are it's a bad ass of a one. Yet there are those who are in a collective state of denial - yet, miraculously, expect the same prescribed medicine to economic ills to somehow, someway yield different results

If tax cuts were a panacea, then why haven't the Bush tax cuts, which ran into trillions: 1) Put the U.S. economy on a sounder, long-term footing; 2) Led to a long period of sustained economic growth; 3) Created millions of new jobs; 4) Increased revenues; and 5) Balanced the budget

Surprising as it may seem now, there was a time when government was living within its means. Not that it lasted once GWB got his grubby plutocrat-enriching mitts on it

Yes, and no one can ever disagree, GWB was met with huge challenges in the wake of 9/11 but with challenge must come sacrifice and not just from the men and woman in uniform. He should have raised taxes (fairly, using the ability to pay principle) to pay for what was to ensure as his presidency progressed (or regressed, depending on your point of view)

It isn't going to be easy for this president and a bumpy-road is inevitable, certainly for as long as the recalcitrant Republican't Party absolves itself of any blame for the sh**tty hand which he was dealt and, more shamelessly still, tries to shift it

The Democratic Party, unlike the Republican't Party, is a big-tent (and many Democrats are ideologically, and temperamentally, cautious beasts); indeed, the Stalin-like purges from within and the past two election cycles have effectively emaciated the center-right of the party - and that, in many respects, is lamentable

There will be little chance of meaningful bipartisanship in addressing the challenges of today, and tomorrow, as long the Republicans remain in a collective state of myopia

Dave

[J. J.]

More bullsh**t from America haters. The media never seemed to say that Bush was killing the stock market, which declined more under him than any other President since Hoover.

It actually expanded under him, for most of his term.



It is currently doing worse under Obama than at any point under GWB (though that might be a short term trend).

[Stranger in a strange land]

It is currently doing worse under Obama than at any point under GWB (though that might be a short term trend).

he's only been in office for two months, and the stimulus was only passed in mid-February. I expect we won't see the bottom until late this year or early next year, but things should start improving - albeit slowly - after that.

[Coburn In 2012]

A great article that is right on.  The only surprise I am getting from obama is in how quickly he is destroying this country, especially our economy which was laughably supposed to be his strong point.  What a joke.  Well not a joke because it is so sad. 

I was feeling like everything would be okay because in four years we would elect a Republican and be finisihed once and for all with tar baby policies.  But I don't think we can survive four years of this crap.It's like he is in a hurry to see how fast he can ruin America.  I wonder if maybe Michelle, the "ashamed of America" first lady, is guiding policy.

[Democratic Hawk]

A great article that is right on.  The only surprise I am getting from obama is in how quickly he is destroying this country, especially our economy which was laughably supposed to be his strong point.  What a joke.  Well not a joke because it is so sad. 

All the causation, of which, long predated this president, Simpleton

[Stranger in a strange land]

A great article that is right on.  The only surprise I am getting from obama is in how quickly he is destroying this country, especially our economy which was laughably supposed to be his strong point.  What a joke.  Well not a joke because it is so sad. 

All the causation, of which, long predated this president, Simpleton

^^^^^^^^

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It actually expanded under him, for most of his term.

And Germany treated Jews better than most other countries for most of the last few hundred years, which is about equally relevant.

[Judäischen Volksfront]

If Sarah Palin were in the White House, the Dow would be at 600 something instead of 6000 something.

[Zarn]

If Sarah Palin were in the White House, the Dow would be at 600 something instead of 6000 something.

??

Are you hypothetical man?

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Awesome rally so far today.

[Holmes]

Yeah, it was good.... until I realized that I was hoping for it to get to 6900. Hum.

[VP Duke]

It's a start. Most of today's action stemmed from CITI's positive results. If that bank can get turned around, then we are going to see some positive news. I'm about to sell off my Altria soon and load up on Bank of America. They keep saying they need no more federal money, and at $4.80 a share, is still a good buy. For a long term investment, I think there is money to be made off of it.

[Holmes]

Good luck with that! Hopefully they don't need any more money, do you have a source?

[VP Duke]

Good luck with that! Hopefully they don't need any more money, do you have a source?

The CEO of BoA has been saying this publicly now for a week or so. He said to all employees that the company's reserves are sound and that they will not need anymore money from the government. Unless he's lying, which is possible but detrimental to the company, BOA should be alright for a long-term investment.

And at $4.80 a share, it's still a good buy (although I'll wait for a day when the market sells off to buy). It's nearly WFC right now as well, which is a good sign.

[Coburn In 2012]

A great article that is right on.  The only surprise I am getting from obama is in how quickly he is destroying this country, especially our economy which was laughably supposed to be his strong point.  What a joke.  Well not a joke because it is so sad. 

All the causation, of which, long predated this president, Simpleton

LOL but when Bush proved that many of this countrys problems were caused by the previous administration all you libs ran screaming and crying like bitches about how you cant blame the previous administration.  Bush was Pres on 9-11 so it was his fault you all said.  Even tho cigar had multiple chances to get bin laden and refused.  No it was still bushes fault.

Now we do the same damn thing-- say that the messiah is to blame for the lousy stock market and poor economy (and we offer proof in articles and such) -- and you say, oh noz!!! you have to blame the previous administration.

Funny how that works.  You can blame the previous admin. when it was Republican.  But when it was a democrat administraiton, hands off.

[jokerman]

More bullsh**t from America haters. The media never seemed to say that Bush was killing the stock market, which declined more under him than any other President since Hoover.

It actually expanded under him, for most of his term.

Do you know what a bubble is?  Purely irrational exuberance.

[VP Duke]

Bubbles help all Presidents. Saying it doesn't count for Bush is silly. Clinton certainly benefitted from the dot com bubble. The Nasdaq jumped something like 75% in the first three months of 2000 and 60% in 1999!

A new bubble will undoubtedly form in the next few years as well.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Excellent job at killing the stock market today, Mr. President!

[J. J.]

It actually expanded under him, for most of his term.

And Germany treated Jews better than most other countries for most of the last few hundred years, which is about equally relevant.

Comparing this to Germany, would be comparing Kaiser Bush to Reichsfuhrer Obama; it has gotten worse under the latter.

[Sam Spade]

The idea that the President has *that* much influence over the stock market and economy, except for providing incentives and disincentives through taxation (and, as is going on right now - crowding out the private market) is one of those silly ideas a lot of people have that ain't true.  I have to consider this article to be a load of garbage really.

Of course, for fernie , some idiot here on Monday said a faux bounce was about to occur.  I still don't know whether today is the beginning of *the bounce* I've been expecting (i.e. multi-week/month rally) or not, but there's certainly a decent chance that it is.  If not, it should definitely occur soon.

The Citi *memo* release today, btw, was likely an important catalyst.

[jokerman]

Bubbles help all Presidents. Saying it doesn't count for Bush is silly. Clinton certainly benefitted from the dot com bubble. The Nasdaq jumped something like 75% in the first three months of 2000 and 60% in 1999!

This is true, but at least that bubble involved actual innovation, and actually existed even while Clinton balanced the budget.  Bush's bubble was a mere inflation of easy credit and housing speculation, creating wealth out of thin air, and was aided by massive defecit spending.  Even with all of that his job creation and GDP numbers are abismal compared to Clinton (or most Presidents of the 20th century.

[Sam Spade]

Bubbles help all Presidents. Saying it doesn't count for Bush is silly. Clinton certainly benefitted from the dot com bubble. The Nasdaq jumped something like 75% in the first three months of 2000 and 60% in 1999!

This is true, but at least that bubble involved actual innovation, and actually existed even while Clinton balanced the budget.  Bush's bubble was a mere inflation of easy credit and housing speculation, creating wealth out of thin air, and was aided by massive defecit spending.  Even with all of that his job creation and GDP numbers are abismal compared to Clinton (or most Presidents of the 20th century.

The tech bubble was just as much garbage as this one (built on loose investment practices).  Look through the books of those old tech companies - their assumptions were completely fabricated.  Laughable really.  At the time, I had a couple of friends who were in profitable (and still profitable) computer/Internet businesses.  They told me - all these Internet companies are complete crap and will collapse.  I believed them - never got involved.  We know how that turned out...

Of course, the thing about the tech bubble was that it didn't encompass the *entire economy* like the housing/financial bubble did (even though there was a financial element to it).

Also, the housing/financial bubble was created (through hardcore manipulation of easy credit, which, btw, can be traced back to the mid-80s and spiked heavily after 1995) as a way to "paper" over the tech bubble collapse.  You see - if the tech bubble collapse had been allowed to take place (along with 9/11) without this massive housing/financial bubble, we would have had a *major* recession, probably equivalent to 1973-74 in magnitude.

Now, as always happens when government tries to *mitigate the economic pain*, it just makes things worse in the long run.  Problem is now - the papering over won't work - and even if it does, it'll be very temporary - like say six months or a year, maybe.

[jokerman]

Certainly the tech bubble was built upon loose investment practices,  but that doesn't mean it was pure garbage.  A lot of investments were infeasible and didn't payoff, certainly, but look at the effect on the overall economy.  You ignore the fact that actual ideas and technology were being created by this bubble.  Productivity growth surged in the late 90s and early 00s.  If the tech bubble had collapsed there would have been a major recession?  Perhaps a minor one, but more so it would have manifested in a great squeeze in the lower classes and major political upheavel to rectify growing income inequalities.

[Devilman88]

Of course Mr. Obama's radicalism is killing the economy, but the great one doesn't do any wrong.

[Nym90]

A great article that is right on.  The only surprise I am getting from obama is in how quickly he is destroying this country, especially our economy which was laughably supposed to be his strong point.  What a joke.  Well not a joke because it is so sad. 

All the causation, of which, long predated this president, Simpleton

LOL but when Bush proved that many of this countrys problems were caused by the previous administration all you libs ran screaming and crying like bitches about how you cant blame the previous administration.  Bush was Pres on 9-11 so it was his fault you all said.  Even tho cigar had multiple chances to get bin laden and refused.  No it was still bushes fault.

Now we do the same damn thing-- say that the messiah is to blame for the lousy stock market and poor economy (and we offer proof in articles and such) -- and you say, oh noz!!! you have to blame the previous administration.

Funny how that works.  You can blame the previous admin. when it was Republican.  But when it was a democrat administraiton, hands off.

What's even more funny is that you say that the Democrats' double standard is hypocritical while completely ignoring the very same Republican double standard that you just pointed out....