PDA

View Full Version : BHO's Legacy



K G
03-02-2009, 11:23 AM
Now the DJIA is below 7k....scratch another item off of his "to do" list....:cool:

kg

badbullgator
03-02-2009, 11:25 AM
Keith
Did you think that capitalism and socialism could go hand in hand……
You are right one more pesky thing off his checklist. Oh but wait I am sure BO and the like will pop up any minute to explain that it is all the fault of Bush

EDIT: HOLY CRAP you are not kidding down 2.44% and it is not even noon!

Patrick Johndrow
03-02-2009, 11:32 AM
First time since 1997....the IDIOT has done what Bush couldn't


Congrats on stimulating the economy libs!!!

Franco
03-02-2009, 11:33 AM
The media is blaming today's Dow drop (over 2%) on the AIG news. AIG lost more than 60 BILLION in the last Q of 08. Obomo wants to rescue AIG by throwing more tax payer $ at the insurance leach.

Below 6,000 by month's end?

I would say with the confidence demonstarted by those with investment money is that they have no faith in Obomo's CRAP(Congress Revival Action Plan) program and we are living with the nightmare of electing this totally inexperienced community organizer to the highest postion in the land!

His legacy? It will be that Americans lost their common sense and elected an inexperienced career politician, one that has never run a business because they didn't like Bush's policies.

Patrick Johndrow
03-02-2009, 11:46 AM
His legacy? It will be that Americans lost their common sense and elected an inexperienced career politician, one that has never run a business because they didn't like Bush's policies.

I disagree…I think his legacy will be a reawakening of the middle class and this will NOT be good for liberals.


BHO setting liberals back 50 years regards

Franco
03-02-2009, 11:54 AM
I disagree…I think his legacy will be a reawakening of the middle class and this will NOT be good for liberals.


BHO setting liberals back 50 years regards

I would agree with you but, I think there are enough voters in this country now that want to see us fall from what we have stood for in the past. They like the destruction and havoc Obomo represents. They hate America's strength and values and want to see our demise and a socialist USA.

badbullgator
03-02-2009, 12:14 PM
Only down 3.22% at noon......

Franco
03-02-2009, 12:23 PM
Only down 3.22% at noon......

The morning activity, if it continues throughout the day will be a full blown crash.

The money movers and shaker have no confidence in the current administration and they are voting with their dollars!

twall
03-02-2009, 12:25 PM
I would agree with you but, I think there are enough voters in this country now that want to see us fall from what we have stood for in the past. They like the destruction and havoc Obomo represents. They hate America's strength and values and want to see our demise and a socialist USA.

Franco,

I'm not sure most of them want to see the destruction of our country. I think the entitlement mentality has become so ingrained in them, and they believe they are due what our President has promised them, that they will see our country completely destroyed before they realize he was not what they really wanted.

In the end, the result will be the same!

Tom

Franco
03-02-2009, 12:32 PM
Franco,

I'm not sure most of them want to see the destruction of our country. I think the entitlement mentality has become so ingrained in them, and they believe they are due what our President has promised them, that they will see our country completely destroyed before they realize he was not what they really wanted.

In the end, the result will be the same!

Tom

We can thank LBJ for starting that mentallity(downward spiral) of entitlements. That's why I think LBJ is much worse than Jimmy Carter.

badbullgator
03-02-2009, 12:38 PM
Franco,

I'm not sure most of them want to see the destruction of our country. I think the entitlement mentality has become so ingrained in them, and they believe they are due what our President has promised them, that they will see our country completely destroyed before they realize he was not what they really wanted.

In the end, the result will be the same!

Tom

I think that is spot on

YardleyLabs
03-09-2010, 12:01 PM
What a difference a year makes. Since 3/9/2009, the DOW is up 61% and NASDAQ is up 84%. Is that recovery and much a part of Obama's legacy as KG and company appeared to think the drop was after less than two months in office?

ducknwork
03-09-2010, 12:06 PM
I'll say yes if you agree to let the massive amounts of debt that he has created be part of his legacy also...;)

And the crooks in his cabinet.
And the ridiculous deficit spending.
And the growing tensions with Iran.
And being owned by the far east.

etc, etc...

Koolaid
03-09-2010, 12:18 PM
Better tell the republicans not to allow a Palin nomination in 2012...or else it's 4 more years of your favourite BHO

YardleyLabs
03-09-2010, 12:52 PM
I'll say yes if you agree to let the massive amounts of debt that he has created be part of his legacy also...;)

And the crooks in his cabinet.
And the ridiculous deficit spending.
And the growing tensions with Iran.
And being owned by the far east.

etc, etc...
Actually, I believe the deficit spending over the last 14 months is the reason the economy is now recovring, so it is both to his credit and his debit. Going forward is a different story. With the economy growing strongly, with or without growth in employment, it becomes more important to put the breaks on the deficit through whatever mix of spending cuts and tax increases is needed. While the proposed fbudget or fiscal 2010-2011 includes a reduced deficit from the last year and the projected deficit for this year, it does not go far enough and the current year projections are too high as well. As long as we are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will be difficult to cut military spending, and that is essential for reducing the deficit through spending cuts. I actually suspect that the deficit for 2009-2010 will be much lower than currently projected because I believe tax receipts will grow faster than estimated.

With respect to venality among his appointees, Obama seems to be doing about as well as his predecessors. He and his appointment process are clearly responsible for the results. However, I think the standards we seem to apply at times are making it impossible to get qualified people to accept appointments because even great candidates will find their reputations skewered on the alter of political expediency.

Obama is clearly responsible for the US side of relations with Iran. However, I am not sure how you can say anything is worse now than it was when Rice and Cheney were doing war dances on a regular basis to chant the inevitability of conflict.

Being owned by the far east, however, is an inherited condition, brought to us by Bush. As of Obama's inauguration China and Japan together owned $1.4 trillion in US Treasuries. That number has increased 18% through the end of 2009 while the total value of outstanding Treasuries has increased 16%. By contrast, Chnia and Japan together owned $379 billion in US Treasuries in March, 2001. The total growth under Bush was about 370%.

Goose
03-09-2010, 01:36 PM
What a difference a year makes. Since 3/9/2009, the DOW is up 61% and NASDAQ is up 84%. Is that recovery and much a part of Obama's legacy as KG and company appeared to think the drop was after less than two months in office?

Are you related to Forrest Gump?

YardleyLabs
03-09-2010, 02:11 PM
Are you related to Forrest Gump?
Are you still hoping that the Wizard of Oz can give you a brain?

If you want to be taken seriously, it is useful to lace your opinions with occasional supporting evidence. Unfortunately, that also means that you have to accept that evidence can swing both ways. Facts don't care about theories, but theories should still be tested by the facts.Personally, I believe that Obama had nothing to do with the crash during the first months of his presidency despite comments to the contrary made on this forum and elsewhere. I believe his policies have contributed to the economic results over the last year but at a cost, in terms of deficits, that will backfire badly if not brought under control. If that happens, he will be responsible for that as well.

ducknwork
03-09-2010, 02:14 PM
Well, at least he can add bringing the Olympics to Chicago to his legacy.

Goose
03-09-2010, 04:08 PM
Are you still hoping that the Wizard of Oz can give you a brain?

If you want to be taken seriously, it is useful to lace your opinions with occasional supporting evidence. Unfortunately, that also means that you have to accept that evidence can swing both ways. Facts don't care about theories, but theories should still be tested by the facts.Personally, I believe that Obama had nothing to do with the crash during the first months of his presidency despite comments to the contrary made on this forum and elsewhere. I believe his policies have contributed to the economic results over the last year but at a cost, in terms of deficits, that will backfire badly if not brought under control. If that happens, he will be responsible for that as well.

Settle down and unbunch your panties, son. I knew you weren't really related to Forrest Gump. John Maynard...maybe but not Forrest-Forrest Gump:) Gump's too honest.

You still own that Enron stock? They had a great year in 2000.

What a difference a year makes.

road kill
03-09-2010, 04:22 PM
What a difference a year makes. Since 3/9/2009, the DOW is up 61% and NASDAQ is up 84%. Is that recovery and much a part of Obama's legacy as KG and company appeared to think the drop was after less than two months in office?

Tell that to the people that lost EVERYTHING, including real estate values and don't have time to earn it back before they retire!!!

What a crock of crap.

Are you on the payroll of the DNC??

And you taunt someone about getting a brain from the Wizard??

This guy could do anything and you would shill for him.

SCAREY!!!

"Actually".......the recovery is due in large part to the system (that started a while before Obama was Pres) and the resiliancy of the economy and the dogged determination and entrepenuerial spirit of Americans.
But you go ahead and give all the credit to Obama.
He did it all by himself.
The American investor and market analysts had nothing to do with it.



rk

Franco
03-09-2010, 04:28 PM
The Stock Market is not an indication of our health/economy.

That's because the stock market is manipulated by the big investment banking firms and insiders on Wall St.

They get investors feeling good about the market, then create a big sell. They make thier money and the average Joes pay for it. Then, when the market is real low, they buy. Market starts looking like a decent investment and more averegae Joes buy in. Then the big boys sell everything, take thier profits while the Joes take thier lumps.

Then, the cycle starts over.

K G
03-09-2010, 05:54 PM
What a difference a year makes. Since 3/9/2009, the DOW is up 61% and NASDAQ is up 84%. Is that recovery and much a part of Obama's legacy as KG and company appeared to think the drop was after less than two months in office?

If that's what you measure success by, Jeff, then you might be inclined to think this Presidency has been successful. Don't forget that BHO was nominated for and won the Nobel Peace prize based on only 10 days in office....I mean, since we're talking time frames and all.... :rolleyes:

I don't understand why you aren't trumpeting the REALLY good news, Jeff....:smile:: there were ONLY an additional 32,000 unemployed last month! I wonder if those 32,000 are happy that the DJIA is up 61% and the NASDAQ up 84%? I'm guessing NOT. Do you want to compare TOTAL unemployment numbers NOW with what they were on 3/9/09? C'mon....you're a big boy....go for an apples-to-apples comparison if you don't mind a good stomach-churning revelation....but then reality's never been of much interest to those that sit near the top....or think they do.... ;-)

k g

YardleyLabs
03-09-2010, 07:41 PM
If that's what you measure success by, Jeff, then you might be inclined to think this Presidency has been successful. Don't forget that BHO was nominated for and won the Nobel Peace prize based on only 10 days in office....I mean, since we're talking time frames and all.... :rolleyes:

I don't understand why you aren't trumpeting the REALLY good news, Jeff....:smile:: there were ONLY an additional 32,000 unemployed last month! I wonder if those 32,000 are happy that the DJIA is up 61% and the NASDAQ up 84%? I'm guessing NOT. Do you want to compare TOTAL unemployment numbers NOW with what they were on 3/9/09? C'mon....you're a big boy....go for an apples-to-apples comparison if you don't mind a good stomach-churning revelation....but then reality's never been of much interest to those that sit near the top....or think they do.... ;-)

k g
The focus on the DJIA began with the OP (ooops, that was you!)a year ago as a measure of "Obama's Legacy". I actually agree that the DOW is only one very limited (but not irrelevant) measure of the economy, and it tends to be a leading indicator since it reflects a discounted version of anticipated future developments.

GDP growth was projected to reach 4% during 2010 in Obama's 2009/10 budget projections. That estimate was widely ridiculed for its optimism. The forecast growth rates have been far exceeded with growth at a 6% as of the end of 2009, and the 4% growth rate appears more and more reasonable. However, that is also only one indicator of economic health, albeit an important one. The fact is, that 6% growth probably would only have been 4% without the stimulus plan and there will be some natural slowdown as stimulus funds dry up. But of course we know that can't be true because we know the stimulus plan did nothing to help the economy.

On the employment front, we were losing jobs at 700,000 per month a year ago and well before that. In fact, under GWB, the US had the most anemic job growth it has experienced in any period since WWII with average annual growth of 0.28% vs nine times that rate under Clinton and seven times that rate under Reagan. Unfortunately, I suspect that we may have turned a corner in which economic growth is more effective at generating returns on capital in the US while generating jobs in other countries. I hope not. However, in prior recoveries, there has generally been a significant lag of 3-6 months between the beginnings of GDP growth and the beginnings of employment growth. If that holds true this time, we would expect to begin seeing significant job growth in the second and third quarters with or without a new job stimulus program.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the single most important action we can take to stimulate job growth is to have a national health insurance program that does not rely on employer financed benefits. In other countries, businesses do not generally contribute to either pension programs or health insurance. As a consequence these do not act as a barrier to employment. It would be much better to shift business funding for these programs from labor costs to general tax costs than to preserve the current system of financing which disadvantages American companies in global competition and disadvantages American labor as well.

No action on the economy by this or any other administration will replace the jobs lost over the last 2-3 years in less than several years. Historically, job growth has seldom been higher than 200-250,000 jobs per month under the best of economic conditions. At that rate it could take 4-6 years of great growth before we return to levels of employment seen prior to the recession. It that sense, this economic collapse shares some of the worst characteristics of the depression.

In my personal view, the best measure of economic growth is the rate of real dollar growth in median (not average) income. That growth rate has lagged increasingly behind the growth rate for average income for more than a decade, reflecting the growing concentration of income and wealth. So far, Obama has done nothing to address that particular problem.

road kill
03-09-2010, 07:46 PM
The focus on the DJIA began with the OP (ooops, that was you!)a year ago as a measure of "Obama's Legacy". I actually agree that the DOW is only one very limited (but not irrelevant) measure of the economy, and it tends to be a leading indicator since it reflects a discounted version of anticipated future developments.

GDP growth was projected to reach 4% during 2010 in Obama's 2009/10 budget projections. That estimate was widely ridiculed for its optimism. The forecast growth rates have been far exceeded with growth at a 6% as of the end of 2009, and the 4% growth rate appears more and more reasonable. However, that is also only one indicator of economic health, albeit an important one. The fact is, that 6% growth probably would only have been 4% without the stimulus plan and there will be some natural slowdown as stimulus funds dry up. But of course we know that can't be true because we know the stimulus plan did nothing to help the economy.

On the employment front, we were losing jobs at 700,000 per month a year ago and well before that. In fact, under GWB, the US had the most anemic job growth it has experienced in any period since WWII with average annual growth of 0.28% vs nine times that rate under Clinton and seven times that rate under Reagan. Unfortunately, I suspect that we may have turned a corner in which economic growth is more effective at generating returns on capital in the US while generating jobs in other countries. I hope not. However, in prior recoveries, there has generally been a significant lag of 3-6 months between the beginnings of GDP growth and the beginnings of employment growth. If that holds true this time, we would expect to begin seeing significant job growth in the second and third quarters with or without a new job stimulus program.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the single most important action we can take to stimulate job growth is to have a national health insurance program that does not rely on employer financed benefits. In other countries, businesses do not generally contribute to either pension programs or health insurance. As a consequence these do not act as a barrier to employment. It would be much better to shift business funding for these programs from labor costs to general tax costs than to preserve the current system of financing which disadvantages American companies in global competition and disadvantages American labor as well.

No action on the economy by this or any other administration will replace the jobs lost over the last 2-3 years in less than several years. Historically, job growth has seldom been higher than 200-250,000 jobs per month under the best of economic conditions. At that rate it could take 4-6 years of great growth before we return to levels of employment seen prior to the recession. It that sense, this economic collapse shares some of the worst characteristics of the depression.

In my personal view, the best measure of economic growth is the rate of real dollar growth in median (not average) income. That growth rate has lagged increasingly behind the growth rate for average income for more than a decade, reflecting the growing concentration of income and wealth. So far, Obama has done nothing to address that particular problem.


Can you dig up a number over the last year on that??



rk

YardleyLabs
03-09-2010, 08:23 PM
Can you dig up a number over the last year on that??



rk
By Quarter, Non-Farm Jobs Gained/(Lost) Per Month

2008-Q1:...(27,700)
2008-Q2:..(141,300)
2008-Q3:..(264,000)
2008-Q4:..(467,000)
2009-Q1:..(493,000)
2009-Q2:..(300,700)
2009-Q3:..(145,700)
2009-Q4:...(15,000)

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Derived from http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost)/surveymost (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost)

To me, that suggests that as soon as Obama began passing his economic program, with the first pieces taking effect in April, 2009, the employment pictures began improving dramatically. The fact is that, at the time of the inauguration, data from the fourth quarter of 2008 was not yet available. The actual average job loss during that period, once it became known, was much higher than preliminary estimates had suggested. BTW, in these numbers, the 2009-Q4 data is still an estimate and corrected data will not be available for another 1-2 months.

Total jobs lost over two years: 8.4 million.

K G
03-09-2010, 11:34 PM
To me, that suggests that as soon as Obama began passing his economic program, with the first pieces taking effect in April, 2009, the employment pictures began improving dramatically....

Of course it does....:rolleyes: Throwing taxpayer's money at problems can solve most all problems on paper...

What will your story be when a TON of these "jobs" go away when the "stimulus package" runs out? The clock is ticking....

k g

JDogger
03-10-2010, 01:39 AM
Of course it does....:rolleyes: Throwing taxpayer's money at problems can solve most all problems on paper...

What will your story be when a TON of these "jobs" go away when the "stimulus package" runs out? The clock is ticking....

k g

What is kg's prognostication? A return to republican control of the congress?
That will change things,.... how?
The clock is ticking...indeed, but what plan do you and yours put forward?

Nothing.

JD

ducknwork
03-10-2010, 07:13 AM
What is kg's prognostication? A return to republican control of the congress?
That will change things,.... how?
The clock is ticking...indeed, but what plan do you and yours put forward?

Nothing.

JD

So you like the idea of doing something, even if it is wrong?

paul young
03-10-2010, 07:54 AM
the original post that started this thread addressed the DJIA in March of 2009.

Jeff's post addressed the change over a period of 1 year in the DJIA. yet a bunch of you decided to take him to task over other aspects of the economy such as unemployment.

i have to ask why?

he did, indeed, make an "apples to apples" comparison.

this is a really good example of why real discussion of ANY topic on this board is so difficult.-Paul

road kill
03-10-2010, 08:14 AM
the original post that started this thread addressed the DJIA in March of 2009.

Jeff's post addressed the change over a period of 1 year in the DJIA. yet a bunch of you decided to take him to task over other aspects of the economy such as unemployment.

i have to ask why?

he did, indeed, make an "apples to apples" comparison.

this is a really good example of why real discussion of ANY topic on this board is so difficult.-Paul
Don't blame your inability to converse and debate all on Jeff!!:D



rk

Koolaid
03-10-2010, 08:27 AM
Don't blame your inability to converse and debate all on Jeff!!:D



rk

...Irony...

road kill
03-10-2010, 09:09 AM
...Irony...
It's a joke genius....there is your irony!!!:rolleyes:




rk

Goose
03-10-2010, 09:12 AM
What is kg's prognostication? A return to republican control of the congress?
That will change things,.... how?
The clock is ticking...indeed, but what plan do you and yours put forward?

Nothing.

JD

I'll take a stab at your question.

Number one...this country is broke and bankrupt and if you don't see that you're delusional.

So the first thing we do is hire fiscal conservatives to office. That means getting rid of all the democrats, all the keynesians and 90% of the republicans. Democrats have proven over the last 50 years to be the party of spend, spend and spend and they are the primary reason this country is ruined. But the RINO's have done a good job catching up with the democrats and we need to get rid of them, too. And throw them all in jail...especially the keynesians.

Secondly, blow up social security. Let the people keep their hard earned money rather than forcing them to flush it down this crap hole.

Thirdly, bring our soldiers home and let's downsize our military. A broke country can no longer be the world's police force. We simply don't have the money.

Fourth, audit the FED...now! And after the audit blow up the Fed, too.

Fifth, force all the banks and financial institutions to come clean with what the own (mortgage backed securities) and let's get an honest appraisal of what this crap-on-a-stick is worth. Mark this stuff to market and deal with it.


How about that for a start. I could go on but I sense you lefties are getting dizzy:)

We live in Cuba now.

YardleyLabs
03-10-2010, 09:17 AM
Of course it does....:rolleyes: Throwing taxpayer's money at problems can solve most all problems on paper...

What will your story be when a TON of these "jobs" go away when the "stimulus package" runs out? The clock is ticking....

k g
Keith,

I actually agree, as I noted in my earlier post where I said "The fact is, that 6% growth probably would only have been 4% without the stimulus plan and there will be some natural slowdown as stimulus funds dry up." The irony, of course, is that the right has been maintaining vociferously that no jobs have been created by the stimulus package. It will be funny (but sad) as they then begin to complain about the loss of jobs as the stimulus funds dry up. I think it's valuable to ask, as one is criticizing something, if your criticisms would be the same if the "villains" and the "friends" in the story swapped places, but the results were still the exact ones you are complaining about. There can be no solutions, compromises, or progress in a world where results are judged solely based on ideological consistency and not on their own merits.

road kill
03-10-2010, 09:23 AM
Keith,

I actually agree, as I noted in my earlier post where I said "The fact is, that 6% growth probably would only have been 4% without the stimulus plan and there will be some natural slowdown as stimulus funds dry up." The irony, of course, is that the right has been maintaining vociferously that no jobs have been created by the stimulus package. It will be funny (but sad) as they then begin to complain about the loss of jobs as the stimulus funds dry up. I think it's valuable to ask, as one is criticizing something, if your criticisms would be the same if the "villains" and the "friends" in the story swapped places, but the results were still the exact ones you are complaining about. There can be no solutions, compromises, or progress in a world where results are judged solely based on ideological consistency and not on their own merits.
I opposed ALL of the stimulus packages, not just the most recent one.

HUGE mistake by Bush.

I would like to see capital investment tax breaks for small business ($50mm or less).
Incentive for small business growth.
A loosening of credit to small businesses that have traditionally borrowed against a/r for cash flow but now can't.

Tax breaks for the "Fat Cats."
The people who have the MONEY need to spend (invest) it so we can get it!!
I am not talking millionaires here, I am talking people with MONEY who are not spending or investing right now.

Small efforts, but could get some things moving.



rk

Koolaid
03-10-2010, 10:10 AM
I opposed ALL of the stimulus packages, not just the most recent one.

HUGE mistake by Bush.


rk

There you go blaming it all on Bush again ;-)

Gerry Clinchy
03-10-2010, 10:18 AM
In fact, under GWB, the US had the most anemic job growth it has experienced in any period since WWII with average annual growth of 0.28% vs nine times that rate under Clinton and seven times that rate under Reagan. Unfortunately, I suspect that we may have turned a corner in which economic growth is more effective at generating returns on capital in the US while generating jobs in other countries. I hope not. However, in prior recoveries, there has generally been a significant lag of 3-6 months between the beginnings of GDP growth and the beginnings of employment growth. If that holds true this time, we would expect to begin seeing significant job growth in the second and third quarters with or without a new job stimulus program.


I think it is important to remember that with our huge economy, the true effects are always in delay ... momentum takes time to build; and it takes time for momentum to be slowed down. And I think it takes more than three or four years for the trends to show results.

With such a concept in mind it is reasonable to say that the economy that Clinton inherited from Reagan was a benefit that Clinton reaped. The economy could already have been cycling when Clinton was 1/2 way through his term(s). Then the Bush years started with the blow of 9/11 and later endured the economic impact of Katrina. It is time for the economy to start another cycle of recovery, but one would not expect it to be "sudden".

The housing industry is one fine example. Inextricably tied to the financial mess. Right now the govt is shoring up the housing industry. Expect a tumble when the buyer incentives expire. The housing market has not yet found its own bottom. That should occur when the incentives expire. People without jobs cannot buy homes. They can't rent decent housing either!


I suspect that the single most important action we can take to stimulate job growth is to have a national health insurance program that does not rely on employer financed benefits. In other countries, businesses do not generally contribute to either pension programs or health insurance. As a consequence these do not act as a barrier to employment. It would be much better to shift business funding for these programs from labor costs to general tax costs than to preserve the current system of financing which disadvantages American companies in global competition and disadvantages American labor as well.


Seems much simpler to implement such a transition by giving everyone a tax credit for health insurance payments, and for the govt to truly investigate how cost controls can be implemented on the health care system. I still recall the Florida hospital that continued to provide dialysis to illegals because they could not send the people home, even if paying their way. The illegals' countries would not take them. The illegals didn't want to go home because they knew they couldn't get the care at home. The cost in Florida is hundreds of millions of dollars. One can pretty safely extrapolate that those free care costs are similar in other states with high %-ages of illegals. INS would not help. They were only interested in illegals with criminal records. A good start for INS, perhaps, but doesn't do much for hospital costs.

Then there is, of course, the tort reform. Those class action suits are another piece of junk. A class action suit against Verizon resulted in much bucks for the attorneys and some "coupons" for those who were part of the class. I just saw another ad for a suit against Tyson chicken products and Activia yogurt! Again, the consumer gets coupons for product ... while the attorneys get mucho buckos. When the victimized consumer gets so little in the result, I think that money should be put into a "fund" for something else that would be more useful ... like the deficit! (How many people kept their receipts for Activia yogurt from 2 years ago?)

road kill
03-10-2010, 10:22 AM
There you go blaming it all on Bush again ;-)

I blame Bush's stimulus package on Bush.
Please man, step away from the BONG!!


I blame this mess on Janet Reno, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.
If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand.



rk

Koolaid
03-10-2010, 10:41 AM
The wonders of the internet...you have to explain that you were joking and I have to do the same...........

YardleyLabs
03-10-2010, 11:34 AM
I think it is important to remember that with our huge economy, the true effects are always in delay ... momentum takes time to build; and it takes time for momentum to be slowed down. And I think it takes more than three or four years for the trends to show results.

With such a concept in mind it is reasonable to say that the economy that Clinton inherited from Reagan was a benefit that Clinton reaped. The economy could already have been cycling when Clinton was 1/2 way through his term(s). Then the Bush years started with the blow of 9/11 and later endured the economic impact of Katrina. It is time for the economy to start another cycle of recovery, but one would not expect it to be "sudden".

I think the delay part is correct. I think the timing is different for different things. Monetary policy -- increasing and decreasing liquidity in the economy through rate changes and the volume of money pumped in -- generally operates with a six month lag. However, the nature of the effect is dependent on perceived longer term trends. Thus, increasing liquidity for lenders, does not benefit other businesses if the lenders are concerned about long term risks to principal. Variability in economic responses makes timing for monetary intervention more of an art form than a science as the Fed tries to balance stimulating the economy against the potential of inflation. Unfortunately, while the stimulating effects of monetary policy may be delayed around six months, it seems that the inflationary effects may be delayed by as much as a year, depending in part on the condition of inventories during the transition.

Fiscal policy (e.g. tax rate changes or spending changes) has a similarly lagged effect as monetary changes. However, the lead time on implementing fiscal changes tends to be much longer. Thus, the Fed can change interest rates tomorrow.But even if Congress were to vote for tax cuts tomorrow, it takes week and months for those cuts to put money in consumer pockets. Once there, you immediately discover that consumers will either spend or save the extra money depending on how they view the future. That was a problem that undermined the effectiveness of tax rebates under Bush. A large percentage of the checks people received went to pay down credit card debt or to bolster savings because consumer confidence was low. While the money helped the consumers, it did not help stimulate the economy. Based on that experience, the Obama administration did an unusual thing when it implemented tax cuts as its first act in office. The cuts were rushed through it record time and hit paychecks within a few weeks. However, the cuts were intentionally done so that they represented only a small amount per week -- amounts so small that the money was spent immediately and provided immediate stimulus to the economy, beginning as early as April 2009. Politically, these cuts were a disaster because they went unnoticed. Few people in the country realized then or today that they had received a substantial tax cut. As RK noted in a quote from Reagan, it's amazing what good can be one when no one worries about who gets the credit.

Other economic trends take much, much longer to have an effect. Examples of these long term factors include the impacts of trade imbalances, budget deficits, loss of production base, financial strength of businesses, financial strength of consumers, and wide disparities in income distribution. Unfortunately, I believe that our biggest economic challenges today are direct results of such longer term factors.



The housing industry is one fine example. Inextricably tied to the financial mess. Right now the govt is shoring up the housing industry. Expect a tumble when the buyer incentives expire. The housing market has not yet found its own bottom. That should occur when the incentives expire. People without jobs cannot buy homes. They can't rent decent housing either!

Seems much simpler to implement such a transition by giving everyone a tax credit for health insurance payments, and for the govt to truly investigate how cost controls can be implemented on the health care system. ...
On paper, tax credits and cash grants are equivalent. The difference is that tax credits only help after the fact and consumers must finance the intiial cost in anticipation of recouping their expense later. That is an insurmountable barrier for the majority of the population tha is living pay check to pay check.



Then there is, of course, the tort reform. Those class action suits are another piece of junk. A class action suit against Verizon resulted in much bucks for the attorneys and some "coupons" for those who were part of the class. I just saw another ad for a suit against Tyson chicken products and Activia yogurt! Again, the consumer gets coupons for product ... while the attorneys get mucho buckos. When the victimized consumer gets so little in the result, I think that money should be put into a "fund" for something else that would be more useful ... like the deficit! (How many people kept their receipts for Activia yogurt from 2 years ago?)
I agree that there are a lot of issues with class action suits. They do very little for consumers injured by illegal activities, and they do a to benefit attorneys on both sides of the dispute. However, class action suits also provide some needed protection against companies that do outrageous things behind their shields of corporate immunity. Most efforts at "reform" have simply sought to cut litigation without addressing the problems that led to the litigation or to provide other, more effective means of redress. True reform needs to address both sides of the issue.

Goose
03-10-2010, 03:00 PM
The U.S. government just posted a record budget deficit of $221 billion in February.

Budget deficit year-to-date...$652 billion. What a difference a year makes!

Thanks, Barack!

We live in Cuba now.

K G
03-10-2010, 03:33 PM
What is kg's prognostication? A return to republican control of the congress?
That will change things,.... how?
The clock is ticking...indeed, but what plan do you and yours put forward?

Nothing.

JD

A return to some remote semblance of fiscal responsibility if the first thing I expect. Democratic control of the White House and Congress hasn't resulted in that, has it, JDog? Stop writing checks we can't cash...that's the first thing I'd do...but if you think Congress cares what you and I think...;-)


the original post that started this thread addressed the DJIA in March of 2009.

Jeff's post addressed the change over a period of 1 year in the DJIA. yet a bunch of you decided to take him to task over other aspects of the economy such as unemployment.

i have to ask why?

he did, indeed, make an "apples to apples" comparison.

this is a really good example of why real discussion of ANY topic on this board is so difficult.-Paul

"Why," Paul? Because the DJIA means so very little to the common man, Joe or Jane Six-Pack, the folks the Dems say they are going to "save" with health care, cap and trade, and all the additional programs they're going to start with money they don't have.

Sometimes it's hard to have REAL discussion of ANY topic on this board because some people can't HANDLE the truth. CHANGE we can LIVE with has not happened...HOPE is in short supply...REALITY seems to escape the current administration....other than that, everything is GREAT!!! :D


Keith,

I actually agree, as I noted in my earlier post where I said "The fact is, that 6% growth probably would only have been 4% without the stimulus plan and there will be some natural slowdown as stimulus funds dry up." The irony, of course, is that the right has been maintaining vociferously that no jobs have been created by the stimulus package. It will be funny (but sad) as they then begin to complain about the loss of jobs as the stimulus funds dry up. I think it's valuable to ask, as one is criticizing something, if your criticisms would be the same if the "villains" and the "friends" in the story swapped places, but the results were still the exact ones you are complaining about. There can be no solutions, compromises, or progress in a world where results are judged solely based on ideological consistency and not on their own merits.

PLEASE show me where any solutions, compromises, or progress offered by the current administration are taking us to where we need to be as a nation. I, and a ton of other folks, would LOVE to know! Jeff, for some reason, BHO and Congress believe we can SPEND our way back to prosperity. PLEASE show me where that has happened in our past. Our budget deficit/national debt are GREATER than they've been in any of our lifetimes. PLEASE show me where there's even the remotest HINT of that turning around.

I personally believe that had we let Chrysler, GM, and AIG fend for themselves, we'd be further ahead on the road to economic recovery than we are now. "Too big to fail?" BS.....and don't try to put a partisan stamp on that comment either. That's the case REGARDLESS of which party's "fault" it is. Both are equally culpable on how we got here; the onus on getting us out of it belongs to the Democrats. They wanted it, they got it...but "the plan" ain't workin'.......

What's REALLY going to be sad (and funny) is when the Democrats start crying about wanting to give more money away to keep the "artificial" (read: not based on a growing economy) job growth going. You can't polish a turd, Jeff...and that's all this is.

k g

YardleyLabs
03-10-2010, 04:20 PM
PLEASE show me where any solutions, compromises, or progress offered by the current administration are taking us to where we need to be as a nation. I, and a ton of other folks, would LOVE to know! Jeff, for some reason, BHO and Congress believe we can SPEND our way back to prosperity. PLEASE show me where that has happened in our past. Our budget deficit/national debt are GREATER than they've been in any of our lifetimes. PLEASE show me where there's even the remotest HINT of that turning around.

I personally believe that had we let Chrysler, GM, and AIG fend for themselves, we'd be further ahead on the road to economic recovery than we are now. "Too big to fail?" BS.....and don't try to put a partisan stamp on that comment either. That's the case REGARDLESS of which party's "fault" it is. Both are equally culpable on how we got here; the onus on getting us out of it belongs to the Democrats. They wanted it, they got it...but "the plan" ain't workin'.......

What's REALLY going to be sad (and funny) is when the Democrats start crying about wanting to give more money away to keep the "artificial" (read: not based on a growing economy) job growth going. You can't polish a turd, Jeff...and that's all this is.

k g
Obviously, "where we need to be as a nation" is a matter of personal perspective. And compromise requires movement on both sides. With few exceptions, I believe that Republicans have made a strategic decision that obstruction at any price offers the best road to partisan victory. That obstructionism is an end unto itself without regard to the issues under discussion.

I am not a fan of socialized business failure -- what we offered our financial institutions and our auto industry. Why should industries be permitted to take grotesque risks and then reap the full gains for themselves when successful but pass on the costs to us when they fail. The next thing you know we'll be allowing airlines to use bankruptcy to pass their pension costs off to the taxpayer financed Pension Guaranty Corporation so they can emerge unscathed and profitable, leaving their losses to us. Or we will allow crooks to loot the savings and loan industry, leaving behind trillions in broken dreams to be refinanced and rescued by taxpayers through the Resolution Trust Corporation at massive cost. Both of these crises, like the current ones, were largely the product of misdirected deregulation.

The reality is that large businesses do not like competition because it is too unpredictable. Government needs to play an active role in preventing the formation of monopolies and oligopolies that undermine competition. Thta would include, for example, prevention the creation of monopolies such as the UAW. As much as I dislike the bailouts that were done, I believe that they were better for our future economy than inaction,. However, that is certainly arguable. The lesson we need to learn is that deregulation has its place, but so does regulation.

paul young
03-11-2010, 06:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul young
the original post that started this thread addressed the DJIA in March of 2009.

Jeff's post addressed the change over a period of 1 year in the DJIA. yet a bunch of you decided to take him to task over other aspects of the economy such as unemployment.

i have to ask why?

he did, indeed, make an "apples to apples" comparison.

this is a really good example of why real discussion of ANY topic on this board is so difficult.-Paul

"Why," Paul? Because the DJIA means so very little to the common man, Joe or Jane Six-Pack, the folks the Dems say they are going to "save" with health care, cap and trade, and all the additional programs they're going to start with money they don't have.

ok Keith,

but now i have to admit that i am mystified as to why you started the thread in the first place.-Paul

YardleyLabs
03-11-2010, 07:32 AM
....
ok Keith,

but now i have to admit that i am mystified as to why you started the thread in the first place.-Paul

So is Keith.....................


Now.

But it seemed like a pretty easy target 4000 points ago.;-):)

ducknwork
03-11-2010, 09:23 AM
Come one guys. Common sense rather than kindergarted antics would help understand this point...

The stock market means a ton to the average American when it goes down and they lose their retirement and all the money they worked hard for. But when it comes back up, who has the money to invest and benefit from it? Not 'Joe and Jane Six Pack', but the big dogs that are really running the show anyway.

paul young
03-11-2010, 11:04 AM
how do you think i have re-gained nearly half of the funds i "lost" prior to march '09?

where do you think 401k funds get invested?

and i ain't a "fat cat" by anyone's standard....-Paul

ducknwork
03-11-2010, 11:34 AM
Where are the jobs that should be in existence since the economy is in such wonderful condition (according to the DJIA, of course)?

It's difficult to contribute to your 401k when you are unemployed...unless of course you are rich...

Goose
03-11-2010, 11:37 AM
The 'what a difference a year makes' stock market has nothing to do with our young and petulant President but it does has everything to do with the dollar carry trade and B52's quant easing. I guess if you're bullish on a crappy dollar have at it but you girls on the left need to quit praising Barack for some sort of a miracle turnaround. B52's simply kicking the can down the street. Dreams will eventually come due so keep your pantry stocked.

Hell, the only difference between Greece and the United States is we have a printing press and they don't.

We live in Cuba now.

paul young
03-11-2010, 12:38 PM
that's it; i must be rich......thanks for letting me know. now i can sell my 2 bedroom ranch and buy a mansion and 2 summer homes, the matched set of purdeys, and a couple FC-AFC dogs to run while my NFC sired pups are on Lardy's truck getting trained up. while i'm at it, i think i'll make plans to fish patagonia and Chile for a couple months next winter.....

thanks for the suggestion!

that's what rich people do.

what i do is get up at 4:30am to be at work for 6am, work til 4, go back to my modest little ranch house for a little R & R, and get to bed at a reasonable hour so that i can do it again the next day. that's been my routine for going on 36 years now. i have no complaints.

you claim that the "lefties" such as myself want everthing handed to them. you guys bitc# and moan because an economic disaster 10 years in the making hasn't made a complete turnaround in the past year........

negativity is not the way to good things, on a personal OR national level.-Paul

ducknwork
03-11-2010, 02:37 PM
that's it; i must be rich......thanks for letting me know. now i can sell my 2 bedroom ranch and buy a mansion and 2 summer homes, the matched set of purdeys, and a couple FC-AFC dogs to run while my NFC sired pups are on Lardy's truck getting trained up. while i'm at it, i think i'll make plans to fish patagonia and Chile for a couple months next winter.....

thanks for the suggestion!

that's what rich people do.

what i do is get up at 4:30am to be at work for 6am, work til 4, go back to my modest little ranch house for a little R & R, and get to bed at a reasonable hour so that i can do it again the next day. that's been my routine for going on 36 years now. i have no complaints.

you claim that the "lefties" such as myself want everthing handed to them. you guys bitc# and moan because an economic disaster 10 years in the making hasn't made a complete turnaround in the past year........

negativity is not the way to good things, on a personal OR national level.-Paul

Ok, so, you are not rich and your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired as well. Did you miss that little word in my post...you know the one...UNEMPLOYED...Sounds like you have a job to me, although I may be interpreting something wrong. I may be wrong, but I don't recall claiming that 'lefties' such as you want handouts. I know I have complained about handouts, but I don't remember singling out anyone.

I think you are getting all offended over nothing. If you don't think so, go back and read my post again, this time without the chip on your shoulder.:D

Marvin S
03-11-2010, 06:10 PM
Posted 3-2-2009
I disagree…I think his legacy will be a reawakening of the middle class and this will NOT be good for liberals.


Prophetic :BIG:


What a difference a year makes. Since 3/9/2009, the DOW is up 61% and NASDAQ is up 84%. Is that recovery and much a part of Obama's legacy as KG and company appeared to think the drop was after less than two months in office?

It only went a little beyond the drop in October 2008 that happened when it appeared he was going to win the POTUS.


I don't understand why you aren't trumpeting the REALLY good news, Jeff....:smile:: there were ONLY an additional 32,000 unemployed last month! I wonder if those 32,000 are happy that the DJIA is up 61% and the NASDAQ up 84%? I'm guessing NOT. Do you want to compare TOTAL unemployment numbers NOW with what they were on 3/9/09? C'mon....you're a big boy....go for an apples-to-apples comparison if you don't mind a good stomach-churning revelation....but then reality's never been of much interest to those that sit near the top....or think they do.... ;-) k g

The DOW is not a good indicator - too many weighting variables in 30 stocks - which are also changed regularly. The goal really needs to be the DOW 14K+ that was reached in 10-07 :D.


...Sounds like you have a job to me,


Paul has a very good job - he is involved with building water displacement devices, which raise the ocean's water level -


"Actually".......the recovery is due in large part to the system (that started a while before Obama was Pres) and the resiliancy of the economy and the dogged determination and entrepenuerial spirit of Americans.

Ever notice how the market rises are soon torpedoed by the POTUS or one of his minions getting on the air & saying something really stupid?

US Health Care stocks are in a sideways movement though HC costs are rising around 15-17% yearly. & I am sure the HC companies are doing better profitwise. So the culprit must be the HC bill that very few want. But we have an Indian HC stock & added to it in 3-09 that has more than tripled since that time :cool:.

In energy & alternative uses, the POTUS brought it up, threw some money at it & forgot about it, too busy on TV promoting socialism. We were going to do the smart grid, a value added initiative that would have added many jobs in the construction industry, where is that now?

This administration is clueless about the economy but I expect some changes this October & coupled with the entrepeneurs in our society things will begin the turn around. :BIG:

YardleyLabs
03-11-2010, 06:24 PM
...
It only went a little beyond the drop in October 2008 that happened when it appeared he was going to win the POTUS.

The DOW is not a good indicator - too many weighting variables in 30 stocks - which are also changed regularly. The goal really needs to be the DOW 14K+ that was reached in 10-07 :D.
...
So you remain in the school that not only blames Obama for stock losses after he became president, but also from before he was even elected. And yet, with all that blame, he gets no credit for rises a year later. Interesting logic. It must be something you can only see if you are care to only use your "right" eye.:rolleyes:

I agree that the DOW is a limited indicator of stock performance. It happened to be the least impressive of the major indicators. The S&P was up 64% and NASDAQ was up more than 80% from a year ago.

Marvin S
03-11-2010, 06:41 PM
So you remain in the school that not only blames Obama for stock losses after he became president, but also from before he was even elected. And yet, with all that blame, he gets no credit for rises a year later. Interesting logic. It must be something you can only see if you are care to only use your "right" eye.:rolleyes:

I am in the group that believe he & his minions are clueless about getting an economy revived by adding real value. & I am concerned that we will not get him out of the drivers seat before he causes a real wreck :eek:.


I agree that the DOW is a limited indicator of stock performance. It happened to be the least impressive of the major indicators. The S&P was up 64% and NASDAQ was up more than 80% from a year ago.

Those indices only mean something as a comparator if one has skin in the game. I actually judge my individual performance by comparing to the mutual fund performance of those funds that we own which are managed by what I believe to be professionals.

YardleyLabs
03-11-2010, 08:04 PM
I am in the group that believe he & his minions are clueless about getting an economy revived by adding real value. & I am concerned that we will not get him out of the drivers seat before he causes a real wreck :eek:.
And that makes him responsible for stock market losses before he was even elected?????




Those indices only mean something as a comparator if one has skin in the game. I actually judge my individual performance by comparing to the mutual fund performance of those funds that we own which are managed by what I believe to be professionals.
That is fine for measuring your own portfolio, but I'm not sure it provides a better measure of the market as a whole. I actually posted a variety of indicators of economic performance since Obama took office: the DOW, the S&P, the NASDAQ, GDP, jobs lost, etc. By virtually every indicator except debt, which I stated was a serious issue, the economy has done nothing but improve since the beginning of April 2009 when the first components of the administration's economic policy went into effect. I would love to see the numbers analysis that shows how things have gotten worse in the economy. I too would love to see the DOW back at 14000. Maybe when it gets there the next time it won't be as a result of a pure bubble financed through deficits (regardless of whether they were brought to us by Republican tax cuts or Democratic spending, or a mix of both), consumer debt, and housing prices that reflected only fantasy dreams.

K G
03-11-2010, 08:37 PM
ok Keith,

but now i have to admit that i am mystified as to why you started the thread in the first place.-Paul

I'd have to be able to think back to that day as to why, Paul. If it disappoints you that I can't do that, then I beg your forgiveness.


So is Keith.....................

Now.

But it seemed like a pretty easy target 4000 points ago.;-):)

I might be....IF....someone had not chosen to dredge it up from the depths of RTF as a reference to the "growth" in the economy. How's that worked out so far, Jeff?;-)


Come one guys. Common sense rather than kindergarted antics would help understand this point...

The stock market means a ton to the average American when it goes down and they lose their retirement and all the money they worked hard for. But when it comes back up, who has the money to invest and benefit from it? Not 'Joe and Jane Six Pack', but the big dogs that are really running the show anyway.

What's overlooked is that MILLIONS of Americans cashed out their retirement dollars when it looked like 5k was in sight and took HUGE losses on their investments just to keep food on the table.


how do you think i have re-gained nearly half of the funds i "lost" prior to march '09?

where do you think 401k funds get invested?

and i ain't a "fat cat" by anyone's standard....-Paul

Glad you were flush, Paul...TONS of folks weren't.


Where are the jobs that should be in existence since the economy is in such wonderful condition (according to the DJIA, of course)?

It's difficult to contribute to your 401k when you are unemployed...unless of course you are rich...

My point exactly....and Paul, THIS is why I chose to "expand" this post from it's original topic. I'm at a loss as to why that bothers you so, since it's only a natural progression of "net conversation."


I am in the group that believe he & his minions are clueless about getting an economy revived by adding real value. & I am concerned that we will not get him out of the drivers seat before he causes a real wreck :eek:.

Pretty much sums up in a nutshell the problem that our country has right now. A growing majority of Americans DO NOT WANT BHO's health care plan in ANY form...."start from scratch," they say....but he ain't havin' it, all while the economy trudges along at a snail's pace and we continue to lose jobs....all while the Wall Streeters collect their bonuses. "Clueless" is an understatement.

k g

Marvin S
03-11-2010, 10:37 PM
That is fine for measuring your own portfolio, but I'm not sure it provides a better measure of the market as a whole. I actually posted a variety of indicators of economic performance since Obama took office: the DOW, the S&P, the NASDAQ, GDP, jobs lost, etc. By virtually every indicator except debt, which I stated was a serious issue, the economy has done nothing but improve since the beginning of April 2009 when the first components of the administration's economic policy went into effect. I would love to see the numbers analysis that shows how things have gotten worse in the economy. I too would love to see the DOW back at 14000. Maybe when it gets there the next time it won't be as a result of a pure bubble financed through deficits (regardless of whether they were brought to us by Republican tax cuts or Democratic spending, or a mix of both), consumer debt, and housing prices that reflected only fantasy dreams.

You can post all the numbers you want, I don't see the improvement you talk about. What I do see is a lot of companies who are going to do as jobless a growth as is possible, as the various governments are making it too expensive to employ people who can only marginally pay for themselves & many are not worth the trouble they can cause. The country now has developed too large an underclass to cover for it & no variety of programs are going to alleviate that.

I to hope to see 14K+ someday, during the downturn I was a serious buyer & our portfolio is as large by the only measure that counts as it was at the 14K+ level :cool:. I missed some because their bottom time was very brief or I fished too low but overall was satisfied with the catch. I posted on this forum that it was a buying opportunity that comes along rarely, I just hope some of the RTFer's followed that path.

What I am a little disappointed in is the minimal effort the POTUS has expended on alternate energy. I really wanted to see the smart grid, the value it would add & the good jobs it would bring. Apparently there are too few opp's to get your mug on TV. But as an alternative I did invest in a battery company that has more than doubled, it's just not smart technology. I did read recently that "fracking" has released enough natural gas that we now have a 100 year supply, I hope that don't reduce the will to get our dependence on others to a minimum. I do read enough that tells me there are people out there who are doing the correct thing regarding upgrading our infrastructure, hopefully the political class will see fit to provide the policy to allow that to happen.