stock market was up today...

#52
#52
rjd970 said:
This has nothing to do with the "But Bush" response, it has to do with the hypocrisy shown by many on the right with these issues.

And for the record, I would love for Obama to not sign this year's budget until there isn't 1 dollar earmarked for anything other than defense.
Click to expand...


How can it have nothing to do with the "but Bush" response when it was a "but Bush" response. You did not give an opinion on the matter one way or the other about how he is pushing his agenda during tough economic times because he knows his popularity is more than likely going to be short lived. All you said about the matter was "but Bush."

So do you approve of how he is pushing his agenda? Do you think it is going to help or hurt the economy in the long run? And my main question, do you think pushing his agenda this quickly (without much precedent that it will work) is putting this country in danger?

I think he is at least putting us in danger that quite possibly could take us away from being the world leader? Danger being the key word. It might work, it might not be that bad, or it might be catastrophic. At best, i tend to think the it might not be that bad is the best possible scenario.
 
Last edited:
#53
#53
vols4sure said:
How can it have nothing to do with the "but Bush" response when it was a "but Bush" response. You did not give an opinion on the matter one way or the other about how he is pushing his agenda during tough economic times because he knows his popularity is more than likely going to be short lived. All you said about the matter was "but Bush."

So do you approve of how he is pushing his agenda? Do you think it is going to help or hurt the economy in the long run? And my main question, do you think pushing his agenda this quickly (without much precedent that it will work) is putting this country in danger?

I think he is at least putting us in danger that quite possibly could take us away from being a world leader? Danger being the key word. It might work, it might not be that bad, or it might be catastrophic. At best, i tend to think the it might not be that bad is the best possible scenario.
Click to expand...


I think any president using a crisis to push an agenda is bad, right or left. Obama included. The point still remains that I haven't seen any posts like your above while Bush was running things, that is all I meant. There is a certain level of hypocrisy going on here that needs to be pointed out. All of these repubs need to look in the mirror before they start casting stones.

In the long run, I think the economy will be fine. I think in the short run, it is disasterous to run up deficits like this, and Obama may pay for it the next election. The only way to fix it is with spending cuts. Tax increases makes fiscal sense, and tax cuts promote economic growth. Without massive cuts in spending though, neither work. Obama is going to learn this the hard way, just the way Bush did.
 
#54
#54
droski said:
and what % of this was not known before obama took office? any? and why did the market rally significantly when it appeared obama would be more moderate and collapse when it was obvious he would not?
Click to expand...

I think the truth is the stock market would have continued lower, regardless of what BO did.

Other then restore confidence in banks, the wheels for what we are experiencing, were set in motion long before BO ever got in office.
 
#55
#55
oklavol said:
I think the truth is the stock market would have continued lower, regardless of what BO did.

Other then restore confidence in banks, the wheels for what we are experiencing, were set in motion long before BO ever got in office.
Click to expand...

my point is all of this was well known. every market crash of the past 100 years (including 1929) except this one has been followed at least by a bear market rally within 3 months. we started to see that rally until obama starting getting socialist. then it reversed. the expectations couldn't have been more negative in january and the economic news has been right with expectations. the banks are getting destroyed and maybe that still happens, but the rest of the market is tanking along with them and i just don't see that happening if obama wasn't going forward with his social programs.
 
#56
#56
droski said:
my point is all of this was well known. every market crash of the past 100 years (including 1929) except this one has been followed at least by a bear market rally within 3 months. we started to see that rally until obama starting getting socialist. then it reversed. the expectations couldn't have been more negative in january and the economic news has been right with expectations. the banks are getting destroyed and maybe that still happens, but the rest of the market is tanking along with them and i just don't see that happening if obama wasn't going forward with his social programs.
Click to expand...

But how much of this is legit from investors, and how much of it is unfounded fear? I'm not an expert, but it doesn't seem to me that market fundamentals are working right now. It looks like to an outsider that we are experiencing a "negative bubble" if that makes sense, and a rebound will come hard and strong sooner or later. I think if McCain is in office, things may be better, but only marginally. This cake has been cooking for some time now.
 
#57
#57
rjd970 said:
But how much of this is legit from investors, and how much of it is unfounded fear?
Click to expand...

both are factors. but investors (or at least the ones i talk to) were scared to death about obama. probably somewhat unfounded, but either way scared to death.
 
#58
#58
OWB said:
You all are unbelievable. Take some responsibility since you voted for Bush for 8 years and quit trying to pass all of these problems off on Obama and the Democratic party. Things didn't just take a turn for the worse overnight. This all has been in play for quite some time now.

Just because this forum is heavily Republican and you all agree with each other, it doesn't make you right.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100% Obama has only been in office lest than 50 days give him a chance to undo 8 years of Bush
 
#59
#59
rjd970 said:
I think any president using a crisis to push an agenda is bad, right or left. Obama included. The point still remains that I haven't seen any posts like your above while Bush was running things, that is all I meant. There is a certain level of hypocrisy going on here that needs to be pointed out. All of these repubs need to look in the mirror before they start casting stones.

In the long run, I think the economy will be fine. I think in the short run, it is disasterous to run up deficits like this, and Obama may pay for it the next election. The only way to fix it is with spending cuts. Tax increases makes fiscal sense, and tax cuts promote economic growth. Without massive cuts in spending though, neither work. Obama is going to learn this the hard way, just the way Bush did.
Click to expand...

I understand why those on the left want to point out the hypocrisy. It just gets kind of old when most Obama supporters merely attack an argument or criticism of Obama by attacking Bush. I don't mind the Bush comments when it is followed by another type of argument or comment on the merits of the issue.

To be honest, I did not really follow politics too closely until the end of Bush's presidency. I have started following it more after I went to law school and began to understand more of the issues. Also, when the economy started its downturn I started following it because it has more of a direct impact.
 
#60
#60
westtnorangeman said:
I agree with you 100% Obama has only been in office lest than 50 days give him a chance to undo 8 years of Bush
Click to expand...

But what you fail to take into account is that he is not "undoing 8 years of Bush", he is continuing down the path of out of control spending and expanding on it!
 
#61
#61
KB5252 said:
But what you fail to take into account is that he is not "undoing 8 years of Bush", he is continuing down the path of out of control spending and expanding on it!
Click to expand...

yup. they were up in arms about bush increasing spending and the national debt. now obama is doing it times 2 but since it's stuff they want they are ok with it.
 
#63
#63
I thought if one included war costs into Bush's budgets his deficits would be around the $ 1 Trillion mark. Has Obama doubled that? It's hard to imagine how the national debt would more than double under Bush and he never once ran a $Trillion deficit.
 
#64
#64
Most people know the difference between deficit spending because of a Recession, i.e. Reagan, Obama annd deficit spending to finance an unnecessary war, i.e. Vietnam (Johnson), Iraq (Bush). The former usually doesn't affect a President's popularity, the later tremendously.
 
#65
#65
UT IE 95 said:
Serious question. How much money has Obama actually spent at this point?
Click to expand...

define spent? do we included passed legislation, literally actual money spend, earmarketed money, and/or proposed legislation? it's a vague quesiton. i'm going on the premise that he will spend whatever he has proposed since he has a democratic congress.

oklavol said:
Most people know the difference between deficit spending because of a Recession, i.e. Reagan, Obama annd deficit spending to finance an unnecessary war, i.e. Vietnam (Johnson), Iraq (Bush). The former usually doesn't affect a President's popularity, the later tremendously.
Click to expand...

so because we are in a recession any spending is good spending? are the american people that stupid? maybe they are.
 
#66
#66
rjd970 said:
I thought if one included war costs into Bush's budgets his deficits would be around the $ 1 Trillion mark. Has Obama doubled that? It's hard to imagine how the national debt would more than double under Bush and he never once ran a $Trillion deficit.
Click to expand...

I think Bush peaked around 1/2 trillion but he had at least six years with big deficits. Technically, 1/2 of the next deficit is his too but the stimulus package, TARP II, various stimuli and the bloated omnibus go to Obama.
 
#69
#69
droski said:
define spent? do we included passed legislation, literally actual money spend, earmarketed money, and/or proposed legislation? it's a vague quesiton. i'm going on the premise that he will spend whatever he has proposed since he has a democratic congress.
Click to expand...

Literally actual money spent.
 
#70
#70
volinbham said:
I think Bush peaked around 1/2 trillion but he had at least six years with big deficits. Technically, 1/2 of the next deficit is his too but the stimulus package, TARP II, various stimuli and the bloated omnibus go to Obama.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that even with his 1/2 trillion deficits, they never factored war sustainment costs into the number, which would have put it in the trillion dollar neighborhood.
 
#71
#71
UT IE 95 said:
Literally actual money spent.
Click to expand...

so we are supposed to say he is fiscally responsible because the money actually hasn't been given to people yet? the money is going out, it's been made a law, it's money spent. i could care less what hte timing is.
 
#72
#72
droski said:
so we are supposed to say he is fiscally responsible because the money actually hasn't been given to people yet? the money is going out, it's been made a law, it's money spent. i could care less what hte timing is.
Click to expand...

a switch in power for 2010 can stop over half of the spending by killing the balance that has not been spent
 
#73
#73
droski said:
so we are supposed to say he is fiscally responsible because the money actually hasn't been given to people yet? the money is going out, it's been made a law, it's money spent. i could care less what hte timing is.
Click to expand...

OK. Thanks. I see lots of people on here talking about all the money that the new administration has spent and the massive debts he has caused.

Good to get the real perspective on it.
 
#74
#74
UT IE 95 said:
OK. Thanks. I see lots of people on here talking about all the money that the new administration has spent and the massive debts he has caused.

Good to get the real perspective on it.
Click to expand...

Good grief. I hope IE does not mean you were an industrial engineer major. It makes my degree look worse...So even if the money has been signed into LAW, if he has not spent it yet we shouldn't even worry about it?
 
#75
#75
vols4sure said:
Good grief. I hope IE does not mean you were an industrial engineer major. It makes my degree look worse...So even if the money has been signed into LAW, if he has not spent it yet we shouldn't even worry about it?
Click to expand...

I mean....it IS good for the people ya know
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top