Worst Inauguration Day Selloff In History

[dapoes]

Now your credibility has sank to an all time low. I will quote both sources for you:

WSJ/NBC: APPROVE 60%

RAMMUSSEN: TOTAL APPROVAL 60%

And when have I ever mentioned 72% in this discussion (I actually want you to show me!!!)... another lie from you, bud.

Oh I see, your just pick and choosing the data that best supports your overtly blatant slobbering love affair leg tingling with the messiah perhaps?

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Oh I see, your just pick and choosing the data that best supports your overtly blatant slobbering love affair leg tingling with the messiah perhaps?

No. I started this part of the discussion by noting the high "very positive feelings" ratings that Obama received in the poll. It was YOU who responded with "approval ratings" and then started lying about some random 72% number and "biased" media outlets. The good news, Dapoes, is now that your credibility is so low, you can lie more without it really hurting your reputation. Nonetheless, I do not have a "love affair" with Obama; I have been quite critical of him and/or his policies at times, but yet I also will point out when I agree with him and/or his policies.

 

[freedom]

No. I started this part of the discussion by noting the high "very positive feelings" ratings that Obama received in the poll. It was YOU who responded with "approval ratings" and then started lying about some random 72% number and "biased" media outlets. The good news, Dapoes, is now that your credibility is so low, you can lie more without it really hurting your reputation. Nonetheless, I do not have a "love affair" with Obama; I have been quite critical of him and/or his policies at times, but yet I also will point out when I agree with him and/or his policies.

dapones the WSJ is not a liberal publication , they are in fact considered conserative ..

 

[dapoes]

Bush Knew How to Lift the US From Recession... Obama Doesn't

When President Bush came into office he inherited a recession, the internet bubble bust, scandal on Wall Street, and the attacks on 9-11 all in his first year. The budget surplus of $128.2 billion he inherited evaporated. In 2002 the budget deficit climbed to $157.8 billion, an increase of $286 billion.
In response to the economic recession, President Bush reduced taxes and gave money back to American workers, business owners and entrepreneurs.

From 2004 to 2007 there was a steady decline in the budget deficit from $412.7 billion in 2004 to $162 billion in 2007. The tax cuts also reduced unemployment to 5.2% during the Bush years. The Bush years saw the strongest productivity growth in 4 decades and witnessed robust GDP growth.

Then America was hit by the mortgage crisis that President Bush warned the Democratic Congress about 17 times in 2008 alone. The budget deficit rose to $459 billion at the close of 2008.

But, there's a new administration in town today.
Rather than reduce taxes and help small business (only 1% of the "stimulus" plan assists small business) the Obama Administration has decided to spend their way out of this recession:

The Obama Administration predicts that their budget deficit will surge to $1.75 trillion dollars this year. He will increase the deficit by 1.29 trillion dollars his first year in office! Team Obama will quadruple the budget deficit this year-- an unbelievable feat. No wonder he wants to blame Bush.

It's not really a surprise that the markets are not responding. Maybe they were hoping Obama would be more like Bush? If only we could be so lucky.

The odds that the present economic crisis will churn into a depression is now up to 20%.

Hope and change, baby. Hope and change.

 

[tech2101]

The good news, Dapoes, is now that your credibility is so low, you can lie more without it really hurting your reputation.

The good news is you will see how few people actually respond any longer to the childish rantings of this tool.

She is nothing but flame bait.

The more she is ignored, the sooner we can get back to a real debate among adults, using scholarly sources to back up our positions.

 

[dapoes]

using scholarly sources to back up our positions.

Interesting...that hasn't stopped you before.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Check out what the Cato Institute has to say Cato Institute Web Site

Or

The Libertarian Party, Libertarian party

I have long appreciated the Cato Institute's papers on economic and monetary policy. On some other topics, I have questioned the conclusions, but that is for another day.

 

[Garfield1966]

Bush Knew How to Lift the US From Recession... Obama Doesn't

When President Bush came into office he inherited a recession, the internet bubble bust, scandal on Wall Street, and the attacks on 9-11 all in his first year.

What did Obama inherit from Bush?

How did Bush inherit 9/11 when he had over 10 months (according to you Bush was in power the day he got elected just like you say Obama has been) so I guess that gave Bush 11 months to stop the attack.

Then America was hit by the mortgage crisis that President Bush warned the Democratic Congress about 17 times in 2008 alone. The budget deficit rose to $459 billion at the close of 2008.

Why did he not warn the REPUBLICAN congress in 2007? After all, this whole fiasco was supposedly started by Clinton right? Seems down right irresponsible to me or are you actually trying to argue that Bush et al just discovered all that in 2008? McCain was trying to do something back in 2005 in a republican controlled Congress.

 

[dapoes]

Just curious,

Would yesterdays near 400 point rally be Obama's Fault too? Or is it only bad news that's his fault?

Dead Cat Bounce

 

[dapoes]

Why did he not warn the REPUBLICAN congress in 2007? After all, this whole fiasco was supposedly started by Clinton right? Seems down right irresponsible to me or are you actually trying to argue that Bush et al just discovered all that in 2008? McCain was trying to do something back in 2005 in a republican controlled Congress.

They did, if you recall the details, the House Committee on Financial Services who was headed by Barney Frank said there was no problem at all. Only to look like an arse later. Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQWk1Wp3L4

 

[dapoes]

Study: Dow's Decline Is Fastest for a New President in Nearly a Century
Bloomberg

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen faster under President Obama than under any new president in at least 90 years, according to a review conducted by Bloomberg.

Bloomberg reports that since Inauguration Day, the Dow has fallen 20 percent, leading at least one investor to dub this the "Obama bear market." The Dow has also dropped 31 percent since Election Day.

Despite a string of government bailout offers and Obama's advice earlier this week that Americans should be buying stock while shares are low, the Dow has continued to freefall.

Bloomberg reported that Obama is at risk of breaking a historical trend -- in which the Dow soars an average of close to 10 percent in the first year after a Democrat wins the presidency.

Is this the hope and change we wanted? :blink:

 

[Garfield1966]

They did, if you recall the details, the House Committee on Financial Services who was headed by Barney Frank said there was no problem at all. Only to look like an arse later. Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQWk1Wp3L4

Apparently you do not read anything you post. In 2003 Congress was in control of both houses. Frank was the ranking Dem member but he was not the Chair of the Financial services committee. Frank only became the chair when the dems took congress in 2008. So that means the Republicans in power in 2003 also did not think anythign was wrong because had they thought so, they had the power to do something about it since they had both the Congress and the WH. Both the Dems and Reps are looking like a$$es because they both had their hands in the till and they both got caught.

I know it's hard for you but god damn, try proofing some of the crap you write once in a while.

Summary: Barny Frank was NOT the chair in 2003. The Chairman of the committee was Michael Oxley. He is a REPUBLICAN.

108TH Congress

BTW, it's called sarcasm. I know the republican Congress was told about it and they chose to do nothing about it as well. They are complicit right beside the Dems. Everytime you try to hang this on the Dems, remember that the Res were right there by their side.

 

[dapoes]

Apparently you do not read anything you post. In 2003 Congress was in control of both houses. Frank was the ranking Dem member but he was not the Chair of the Financial services committee. Frank only became the chair when the dems took congress in 2008. So that means the Republicans in power in 2003 also did not think anythign was wrong because had they thought so, they had the power to do something about it since they had both the Congress and the WH. Both the Dems and Reps are looking like a$$es because they both had their hands in the till and they both got caught.

I know it's hard for you but god damn, try proofing some of the crap you write once in a while.

Summary: Barny Frank was NOT the chair in 2003. The Chairman of the committee was Michael Oxley. He is a REPUBLICAN.

108TH Congress

BTW, it's called sarcasm. I know the republican Congress was told about it and they chose to do nothing about it as well. They are complicit right beside the Dems. Everytime you try to hang this on the Dems, remember that the Res were right there by their side.

Apparently you have a habit of posting irrelevant information...again. Not sure whats your point of isolating years 2003-2004 as well. Perhaps the its the continuing guilt for the problems the dems created and failure to own up to it.

More proof:

Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess
WSJ

The strategy of presenting themselves to Congress as the champions of affordable housing appears to have worked. Fannie and Freddie retained the support of many in Congress, particularly Democrats, and they were allowed to continue unrestrained. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass), for example, now the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, openly described the "arrangement" with the GSEs at a committee hearing on GSE reform in 2003: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping to make housing more affordable . . . a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing." The hint to Fannie and Freddie was obvious: Concentrate on affordable housing and, despite your problems, your congressional support is secure.

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis
Bloomberg

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.â€￾

Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae
Video Link


Even Bill Clinton admits it as well: Link

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Back in November, when the Dow was at about 7400 for a limited time, I told our favorite poster, Freedom, that it is often prudent to invest in the face of everyone else's fear. I took my own advice, thinking the stock market was near bottom, and put significant assets back into stock. Obviously, I was wrong about the market being near bottom at that time, but I am confident that I am right that one should invest in the face of other's fear. While I am not naive enough to believe that the market will not have a down day in the near future, these past 3 days have been suprisingly exciting and my November investments are now a net gain (of course, I still play that game: "If only I waited 2 1/2 months to get back into the market).

 

[tech2101]

Just curious,

Would yesterdays near 400 point rally be Obama's Fault too? Or is it only bad news that's his fault?

The 7% increase today is Obama's fault...no wait...it is...oh never mind... :blink: