The consolation prize of an Obama victory: netrooters enraged at the sight of compromise.
This before Obama's Cabinet is filled out or Congress has begun the festive process of cutting deals on major, controversial issues.
Awesome.
P.S. Given that people with "Clinton" on their resume are among the only Democrats with actual experience in the Executive Branch, the odds of further angst from doe-eyed "change" devotees as such old hands are brought back into the fold is very, very high.
Again, awesome.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 19, 2008 08:07 PM | Email ThisNow the republican party is an orphan - no one wants to take credit for the economic and moral sewer of the Bush administration.
The worst economic performance since Hoover. The largest budget deficit in history and corruption and incomptence at all levels. Yup, defeat is an orphan.
I think it is a much better time to be in the majority after the huge whipping the GOP just took. Oh, and the margin of the election continues to grow. Now there is over an 8.5 million vote difference between loser McCain and the winner Obama. Obama now has over 67 million votes and more than double the electoral college numbers of the loser McCain.
Democrats control the senate and may be at 60 votes if they win MN and GA. the margin in the house is back to the numbers before Gingrich and the fake "contract with america".
Yup, I sure am glad I am not in the republican party anymore. What a bunch of crooks and losers.
Posted by: correctnotright on November 19, 2008 09:32 PMThe only change I see is liberals are preparing to start approving the wars now that obama will be running them and conservatives are now starting to talk more like capitalists and less like mercantilist now that they know they will not have to actual re-implement capitalism since they have no power.
Posted by: Lysander on November 19, 2008 09:45 PM
NOW: I expect Eric has picked up just the earliest tremors of what could turn into a major tsunami of widespread and deep discontent and disappointment among not just the deep-space moonbats, but also by a wide swath of the (D) party that self-identifies as ''progressive''.
Just a few things that will likely drive them nuts:
1. 2009 and maybe 2010 deficit soaring above 1 TRILLION; and the huge limitations that will place on the Obama Administration.
2. Obama's stated intent to reinforce Afghanistan (he's gonna have to do at least a little, and even that will trive the netroots crazy). While in the real world Iraq and Afghanistan are very different, I'm thinking that many if not most true-believer netroots consider them both part and parcel of the same thing that they hate.
3. Obama's stated intent to ''get'' OBL. Again: He will have to do at least a little; and remember that OBL is most likely in the Pakistan tribal areas.
4. If there is not a major break-thru within 12-18 months (2 years or so at the outside) that can provide independent and reliable verification that Iran has stopped mass-producing HEU, Israel will probably try and take out Iran's nuke production facilities. At best they will probably only be partially successful. Where all that will lead, both militarily in the Middle East and with the global economy is anybody's guess.
5. The current economic crises / bailout / Wall Street mess may well still get worse before it gets better (sounds like auto bailout bill may wait until next year, and GM may run out of cash before end of 2008).
There's more, but no time to complete list tonight.
Posted by: Methow Ken on November 19, 2008 09:59 PMAll these corruption loving vermin fighting for votes from the half dozen brain dead cave dwellers that are still not too embarassed to call themselves Republicons.
I got my cupboard full of microwave popcorn.
By the way, since the jury is now in.
What do you righties think Bush's punishment should be for the damage he has done to our country, and "his" party? I really want to know how you "really" feel. Go ahead. Let it out.
By the way. How is that regulation free capitalism thing working out?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 19, 2008 10:22 PMLike you would have a clue about any of those characteristics, eh, Comrade?
So, factless, you clowns are STILL celebrating how badly used you idiots were? How much you nutters got hosed again, just like in 06?
Clearly, to be a leftist is not only to be a hypocrite, but to be delusional as well.
See, you morons bought off on the "change" mantra. So now, you're gonna get it.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Hinton on November 19, 2008 11:07 PMBTW-- someone wrote 'Clinton'. We expect to see plenty mouth-foam, torn-out hair, and gibbering hatred, and we expect them from you now. We have long experience with you, you know.
Posted by: tensor on November 19, 2008 11:11 PMRep. Reichert never will...
Posted by: tensor on November 20, 2008 12:44 AMKIRO found out 'hate' doesn't sell, even in liberal Seattle.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 20, 2008 06:23 AMPlus the best one of all. The debt must be stopped, but what is he saying now.. To hell with the debt.
So just maybe, Mr I know it all smart guy isn't so sure of himself after all and has to bring in the second string.
Yep I'll just keep singng Change, change, change.
Hey Duffie, wish to join in my song. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 20, 2008 06:48 AMI'm just askin.....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 20, 2008 06:49 AMObama Reality:
...at least nine members of President-elect Obama's fast-growing transition team have worked as federally registered lobbyists within the past four years. They include former lobbyists for the nation's trial lawyers association, mortgage giant Fannie Mae, drug companies such as Amgen, high-tech firms such as Microsoft, labor unions and the liberal advocacy group Center for American Progress. ~ Washington Post- November 15,2008
With Obama, it seems the more things 'change', the more they stay the same. Only an imbecile would have thought this guy was a change agent having been the polluted byproduct of the Corrupt Chicago political machine.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 20, 2008 06:58 AMI want my change, change, change..... LOL
You take it from there Pudge. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 20, 2008 07:08 AM...as for who is holding the soiled diaper baby(CG) now? well, that would be us taxpaying citizens...and She'll be pretty ripe by the time it's your turn to hold her, hope you got a clothespin handy. :)
Posted by: Rick D. on November 20, 2008 07:18 AM[royalties to AM/V, of course]
Posted by: Duffman on November 20, 2008 07:22 AMI mean GOOD GOD-Tom Daschle-the pit yorkie? Should have left him to rot in South Dakota.
EVERYONE he is appointing is some old burned out left over-starting with Joe Biden.
I am not so sure this is the "change" people had in mind...
Posted by: Enigmafan420 on November 20, 2008 07:39 AMMaybe they have room for Chelsea Clinton over at the White House now that the Hedge Fund thing isn't working out so well. She could be an Intern for Obama's Office.
Posted by: Smokie on November 20, 2008 07:48 AMOr how about...
"(hey buddy can you spare some) Change, change, change?"
Or perhaps a remake of that old Aretha hit "Chain of Fools" as "Change for Fools"?
Yeah... this is "change" all right. Of course, it bears no resemblance to the "change" that Empty Suited, lying, anti-American racist bigot promised, does it?
Posted by: Hinton on November 20, 2008 08:22 AMNow Clinton has his 3rd term. Talk about rope-a-dope. Brilliant. Michaele Corleone would me impressed !
Posted by: Dave on November 20, 2008 08:23 AMNow that they have power, nothing else matters...
To point out the any of these details just gives them the opportunity to call you a sore loser. witness above.
..you mean YOUR President?? [and quit acting 'Holier Than Thou'...you ain't so muckin futch] :)
"but Rick D, as you pointed out in his 'original' statement, he was referring to 'lobbyists' not 'former' lobbyists."
Duffman, why the quotes around original? Those were his original words. BTW, the only reason those lobbyists are former lobbyists is because they're now working inside the white house and no longer need to stand outside the gate. Isn't that the ultimate goal of all lobbyists? It's like being called up from the minor leagues and asked to start in a world series game.
Posted by: blindman on November 20, 2008 08:45 AMYes, and we're simply pointing out the rhetoric from the reality of Mr. Obama. When will you Obamabots simply just open your eyes that he doesn't represent the 'change' that he himself said he would bring to Washington (quite literally with his transition staff). The youth believing in this mans rhetoric I can somewhat understand, they haven't been around long enough to know, but anyone over 30 y.o. is simply gullible to think this leopard can change his spots.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 20, 2008 09:42 AMCan't really relate (since I voted for Mrs Clinton as a 'write-in'), but pardon me if I give him the benefit of the doubt a LITTLE while longer...say at least past 'inauguration'. :)
Posted by: Duffman on November 20, 2008 09:52 AMIt is widely seen that his first appointment should have been Treasury Secretary. The markets are so jumpy right now that these appointments carry more importance and Obama blew his first chance. The dive to below 8000 yesterday could be attributed to picking Dachle instead of a Treasury chief that investors could hang their hat on.
The markets are reacting to to this and giving a general no confidence vote for Democrat congressional actions. Oops.
The next four years will be a fun ride to say the least. Anybody who says that Democrats can govern is whistling past the graveyard.
Oh Yeah, I was going to comment on All Facts' posts (#8 Partic). The guy is obviously a product of the government run maddrassas and it would take years to straighten out that kind of economic stupidity.
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 20, 2008 10:03 AMI think daveo nailed it on the head. Now that they have power, nothing else matters.
Sadly, that pretty much describes the Republican party since 1994. I can't tell you how pissed I am that the Republicans have had no less than 6 solid years of near total control and all they did was act like fucking Democrats.
I see that as proof that the federal government is too big. Its power has grown so far beyond its constitutional bounds that the power is corrupting everybody, in both parties. In those 6 years, NOT ONE small government, liberty-minded policy was enacted by the Republicans.
Private social security? Nope, we're going to pass the buck to the next president and just hope it doesn't go bankrupt. Meanwhile, the Chileans, who typically earn only 1/5th of what Americans earn, are receiving returns from their private social security system that is on par with our social security pyramid scheme. Their system isn't going bankrupt either and because it is no longer controlled by their politicians, they aren't continually subjected to the demagoguing and fear mongering in every election. They're retirements aren't subject on the whims of crooked politicians.
Restoring federalism? Nope, let's pass shit like the NCLBA and completely fuck everybody.
They couldn't even repeal the CAFE standards and reduce the government safety regulations on cars, further contributing to the situation the big three are in today. (CAFE created the SUV fad by killing the full-size car that could also do light utility duty. Remember when you could put a full sheet of plywood in the back of your station wagon?)
When was the last time you heard of a car start-up company going big? When was the last time you heard of a tech start-up company going big? The reason there is a difference is because the tech industry isn't regulated at all. Software controls just about everything these days from braking systems in cars (!) to landing systems on airplanes (!) to fire suppression systems in buildings (!) and cooling systems in nuclear power plants (!) Are programmers that write the fire extinguishing system software required to be certified PE's like the mechanical engineers who designed the building? Nope. Are there any government safety regulations on software. Nope. Programmers, regardless of education, can get jobs working on safety critical software systems in any industry. Does this mean we need regulation? FUCK NO! Regulation would only kill the frothing prosperity we see today. Look at how successful the tech industry and software in general has become. There are literally billions of computers that successfully execute their software endlessly without failure. All without regulation. AND tech workers are some of the highest paid, non-management workers in America...all without a single union.
Why can't we do that with the auto industry? The Republicans could have removed all of the federal regulations that started in the 1970's and caused the downfall of the American auto industry. If CAFE were repealed tomorrow and the rest of the regulations were removed, it would create a massive (green) car boom like we haven't seen since Ford figured out how to make cars cheap enough that the average American could own one. We'd see the development of alternative business models like the one Project Better Place is trying. We'd see small auto companies trying every kind of propulsion system imaginable. We'd have a market of every possible electric car, hydrogen car, gas car, diesel car, diesel-electric car...you name it. Cars would come in as many varieties as cell phones do.
Back to the Republicans...Did they get the government out of the business of molesting market economics? Nope! They "deregulate" the financial sector but keep the treasury backing of the financial institutions, thus creating a free lunch with no strings attached. There were no consequences of failure so the financial companies were able to act irresponsibility without crossing the threshold of acting against the interests of the shareholders.
The government also continues to have high tariffs on agricultural goods while at the same time giving billions to massive agribusiness corporations to not grow anything on their millions of acres in land holdings. Isn't it about fucking time we stopped paying people to not use their land? Let the market settle this one. The price of grain would stabilize the land utilization rate would be dictated by the market.
Everything is getting so fucking ridiculous. The whole system is going to implode. The federal government is too big and in too many pockets for anybody to make sense of it. If we don't start dismantling large pieces (e.g. IRS, Dept of Edu, Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Indian Affairs, Dept of Energy, FCC, etc) we're completely fucked. The only way we can continue to prop up such a massive, unstable system of regulation is by progressing towards totalitarianism until all of our assets are owned and controlled by the government. Eliminating the competition and free market is the only way the government will be to able to protect itself from market forces.
If they don't begin completely controlling the largest markets in the U.S. (e.g. healthcare, financial, real estate, military/industrial) there will be such a huge market correction that our government will nearly cease to function. Any one of the following, if not all, are about to happen if they aren't already: deflation, U.S. dollar collapse, bankruptcy of entire industries (e.g. auto, real-estate, credit cards, banks). I guarantee the politicians will think the only thing to do is to expand federal control. Because, like I said, if there any free-market players still able to operate, they'll eat the government's lunch and the system will continue to collapse.
For instance, if the government bails out GM and politicians force GM to build cars designed by congressman and lobbyist, the outcome will be cars that are even less responsive to consumer desires than the Hummer. Nobody will buy them and GM will absolutely go bankrupt. The government is just delaying the inevitable under the current regulatory regime. GM needs to enter into Chapter 11 so they can cancel the UAW contract, hire everybody back as non-union at wages on par with Toyota/Honda, shut down half their dealer network, spin off some pieces to dump their pension burden, and focus on reviving their solid gold brands: Chevy, Corvette, Cadillac. If the government relaxed regulations, they'd be giving GM far more help than any bailout would do.
Contrary to what AFSMP thinks, the current crises isn't the result of unregulated capitalism. It's is just the opposite. The market is forcing a correction caused by the distortion of markets by government influence. We have the largest regulatory and tax burden of any country in the world. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates. We have one of the tightest environmental regulation regimes. We have so many safety and consumer "protection" regulations that it is now so expensive to make durable goods in this country that companies don't anymore. The overhead costs of the regulation forced them to seek cheaper labor. The development of the Mexican, Indian, and Asian labor markets was actually paid for and pushed for by American companies looking for cheap labor. The government, through regulation, forced American companies to move jobs overseas. Was it any surprise that we've had such a push to set up "free trade" agreements with all of these countries? Who do you think lobbies for those? The other country? Nope. It's American corporations with manufacturing facilities in those countries.
AFSMP, if you want to see what true free market capitalism looks like, you only have to go to Estonia or the Check Republic. Both countries have libertarian-minded governments that stay out of the way and a flat tax system that is applied equally to everybody. Both countries are posting double digit growth in jobs and economic development in spite of the rest of the world taking a nose dive. Their governments understand that infrastructure investments and the rule of law are important. They aren't wasting their time on unnecessary culture wars simply because their governments don't have the reach and power to regulate social behavior. They aren't talking about free trade stealing jobs...why is that? It's because they have the most favorable environments for workers and businesses in all of the EU and companies are scrambling to move operations, and jobs, there.
Global trade agreements and free market capitalism benefits countries with business, consumer, and worker friendly regulatory and tax systems. The fact that free trade agreements has cost America jobs is a sign that our government is an unhealthy pressure on our market.
The government is the problem. It isn't the financial sector doing irresponsible lending. It isn't the people who borrowed irresponsibly. It isn't the auto companies making SUV's that nobody will buy. It isn't any of that. It is the federal government that is to blame. They created the environment where irresponsibility was the most profitable thing to do in a market so perverted by regulation and lack of consequences.
As long as the federal government maintains its massive, unconstitutional powers to pick winners and losers in our markets, the dominant players in those markets will abuse the government regulatory machine to maintain their market dominance. That ultimately means that the free markets are destroyed by the capitalists themselves aided by power-hungry politicians. The only solution is to drastically shrink the federal government back to within it's constitutional boundaries. We have to eliminate the power to abuse and manipulate markets, starting at the top. If we don't, no matter how much "change" a presidential candidate or party promises, we'll continue down the path to totalitarianism.
Big government is destroying America and The American Dream. I guess we should concede to the ghost of Ben Franklin that we were unable to keep our free country. I'm sorry Ben, we failed.
Posted by: blindman on November 20, 2008 10:15 AMAll people like factless have to do is spend sometime in the EU and see just how bad gov running everything has broken their system.
We cry at 6.5% unemployment. Hell EU would love to seen them numbers... 10% is their average.
Plus how often do you see a start up company in EU????????? LOL almost never.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 20, 2008 10:36 AMI don't tolerate record deficits and unlimited spending on worthless defense items.
I don't tolerate lies and unnecessary wars.
I don't tolerate the corruption of Abramoff and the K street project led by Delay and Rove.
Yup, Obama has a hell of a mess to clean up from the republican incompetents - it is very insightful that you are gloating over how big a mess the republicans left:
Huge budget deficit and economy in crisis
the worst economic performance since Hoover
Failing war in Afghanistan
Failure for 7 years to get bin Laden
So these republican failures are going to undo Obama - hahahaha
There is NO way Obama can do worse, Bush and the republicans have already solidified the absolute bottom.
Posted by: correctnotright on November 20, 2008 10:54 AMYet the republican kool-aid drinkers carry on as if their opinions and lies are in any way relevant to the majority of americans who have soundly rejected the "free market", "trickle down", right wing religious indoctrination. Yup, those hwo refuse to recognize reality or accept repsonsibility for the mess are rejoicing that the adults (read democrats) have to clean up the mess. There, in anutshell, is the lack of personal repsonsibility that is at the core of the republican party. Blame democrats for the republican errors.
Obama is selecting a team that can get things done and has learned from Clintons mistakes. Out of a transition team of how many thousand now, there are 9 lobbyists?
Tom Daschle is a lobbyist - big deal. He is lobbying for health care reform.
McCains entire campaign was run by lobbyists and Obama took NO lobbyist money and is not beholden to ANY lobbyists of 527 groups (unlike McCain).
You guys are so funny - you twist the very few facts into a warped stroy that supports your view and refuse to look at the big picture. No wonder you idiots lost so big.
According to you guys, Obama supporters are stupid. I guess you are calling the large majority of Americans stupid? Oh, and the more educated also voted for Obama. I guess that leaves you guys as the morons and the rqacists - and I see from the comments that those are well represented.
And vet: Get a clue. The real uneployment rate in the US is MUCH higher than 6.5% - that is the tip of the iceberg and if someone has been looking for a job for longer or given up - they are not even counted.
It looks like the European economy is in better shape and is not having major company collpases every other day - like we are. They also did not deregulate their banks as much and were not hit as hard by the banking fiasco of selling and bundling lousy mortgages and the lenders not taking responsibility for bad debt.
There is NO way Obama can do worse, Bush and the republicans have already solidified the absolute bottom.
Well there's Obama's even bigger government mindset, weak international diplomacy mindset, a massive federal debt and deficit, credit crisis caused by Dem home lending gone wild, a couple of wars, Iran's growing nuclear ambitions, domestic unions choking major industry, environmentalist overreach threatening energy supply, rising healthcare costs met only by nationalization of healthcare, even with the British and Canadian failures as evidence, etc.
In short, there's a hell of a lot that can and will go wrong with the Obama Administration.
It's your ball now. One likes to think that every new administration is a panacea, but history proves otherwise.
Good luck.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 20, 2008 11:39 AMI got one for Never right.... See you guys in 2 years when Obama's plans produce zip!
Bet the woman who said over and over that Obama would pay her bills will be pissed when it doesn't happen... and put gas in her car too.
Just like the Clinton days. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 20, 2008 12:06 PMSweet.
Nothing to see here. I'm moving on.
Posted by: YLB on November 20, 2008 12:20 PM...if it's not okay to criticize his cabinet appointments, then why is it not equally wrong to exalt him with praises such as "the next Lincoln or Kennedy", or " this reminds of Camelot"; or Dollar bills with his picture and name on them in ads?
As you pointed out,he hasn't even had his inauguration, only his media created coronation. Therefore, let's hold off on chiseling his granite sculpture up on Mt.Rushmore until he's actually done something shall we.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 20, 2008 12:24 PMNice try.
I am not so sure this is the "change" people had in mind... -Posted by Enigmafan420 at November 20, 2008 07:39 AM
As evidenced by that poll of baby bear-y the toddle president's supporters, their minds were quite empty.
can't we give this fellow a chance...he hasn't even taken office yet. :) -Posted by Duffman at November 20, 2008 08:52 AM
Sure. But that doesn't mean we abandon all reason or skepticism. GIVING him a chance doesn't preclude the feeling that he'll royally screw it (and us) up.
but pardon me if I give him the benefit of the doubt a LITTLE while longer...say at least past 'inauguration'. :)Posted by Duffman at November 20, 2008 09:52 AM
No sale duffie. He went out of his way to advertise himself as the "President elect". Fine. He's making decisions NOW and we get to judge them NOW.
Nothing to see here. I'm moving on. -Posted by YLB at November 20, 2008 12:20 PM
Soon? For good?
Churchill showed us how to survive defeat and come back stronger.
"... never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never --- in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."
So, who has noticed that the stock market (which bets on the future) has been dropping like rock since the democraps claimed all power? The one bright note was last Friday when GWB gave a speech about too much government in business.
It's going to be a financial winter for the next 2 years.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 20, 2008 12:29 PMObama's economic plan will push our already recessionary economy into depression. God only knows how many years it will take us to recover, if we ever do. High taxes and oppressive eco-regulations will strangle us for many years to come.
Just remember, the Democrat Party was left for Dead after 2004, when Bush was re-elected and the GOP expanded it's majorities in the house and senate. Remember that?
Things can, and will, change very quickly.
Posted by: Kato on November 20, 2008 12:54 PMRagnut, I seems to recall it was you who was posting the "What Recession?" articles just a month ago, my how your tune has changed. Why is the stock market falling? Hmmm, could it be due to all the bank failures? Maybe it's due to all the supply-side economic bubbles created in the last eight years are popping all at once as people on Wall St. realize the lame-duck Pres. doesn't have a leg to stand on. I'd bet the market will keep falling until post-Jan. 20th when Pres. Obama is sworn in and gets to work. The markets in NYC hate the fact they don't know what's coming down the pipe in DC.
Meanwhile I'm making a killing off of shorting auto, bank, and housing stocks. Thank you President Bush for screwing up so badly. =)
Could Bush, and the GOP done a worse job? Could they have created more destruction, or piled more debt on our children? Could they have outsourced more jobs, or lowered tariffs on imports any more? Busted more unions, or helped more oil companies? I think not.
Good job Bush, and your buddies. Now twist that knife you stuck in America's back some more. Vampires.
I know. I know. It's all Clinton's fault.....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 20, 2008 01:04 PMAs for this one 'Could Bush, and the GOP done a worse job?' I say just watch Obama...he'll easily top Bush's record of economic destruction, as you put it.
And as for helping oil companies, if that is the case then why have prices fallen by over half in the last few months? I remember back in July many of us thought we'd never see gas below $3/gal again, let alone below $2/gal, which is what I paid yesterday ($1.979/gal @ Fed Way Costco).
Posted by: Kato on November 20, 2008 01:20 PMBTW, I didn't say Clinton did anything. You are making that up in your own mind for some reason.
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 20, 2008 01:30 PMWhy?
The promise of capital gains tax increases.
The promise of tax increases ong small businesses.
The promise to punish big business.
The promise to not renew Bush tax cuts. When the toddler president allows President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a de facto tax increase, another tax increase.
The FACT that the toddler president said on 60 Minutes that "deficits don't matter".
Investors bet on the FUTURE. And the economic future under Baby bear-y the toddler president is as bleak as it looks to we investors.
And as far as bank failures, YEP. And we KNOW at whose feet that blame can be laid.
You must have been one of the toddler pres voters that had no clue who ran congress the last few years; who had no clue who demanded banks lower their rules for loans; who has no clue, period.
Deficits under the toddler president's CURRENT plans to punish the American people are projected to be well OVER one trillion dollars... and that's after he cuts defense (where Bush's big spending was).
You kiddies got exactly what you fell for.
We'll be back to bail you out.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 20, 2008 01:34 PMCato, in the deepest recesses of my heart, I truly believe your side wanted the economy to tank so your guy would be elected president. And rags was right about the 'recession', there was none as the economy kept growing.
Your side kept crowing about how bad the economy was (when it wasn't). I personally am upset the Rs let your side get away with the distortions, but it was your side that caused this collapse.
I mean, there is basic peace in Iraq and your side was claiming the surge wasn't working when the evidence was out there that it was.
As far as your side governing now, all I gotta say is I am thankful John Kerry is not SOS and Bill Ayres is not Secretary of Defense.
Posted by: swatter on November 20, 2008 01:34 PMOil prices rise and fall all the time, they have little mini-bubbles at least once a decade like the one we just experienced. Oil companies bank on this and stash away profits made in the good times for continued operations in the lean times.
Pres. Bush found this out the hard way in the 80's when he bankrupted his two oil ventures during the lean end of the 80's bubble.
Half the '00 bubble was caused by our falling currency price, the other was driven by demand from expanding nations like China/India which are building like crazy (remember the cement shortage?). Now that growth has been slowed, people are using less oil (and driving less), the US Dollar is also gainging strength, we see a significant price drop in the price of gas. It's simple case of supply and demand combined with Econ 101.
Sadly, we and the "market" know EXACTLY what's coming. We have the toddler president's words to guide us: his promises to raise taxes.
Of course, the toddler president CAN'T change his mind about all those tax increases...his puppeteers and the salivating spending congressional and senatorial democraps won't allow it.
***
ExxonMobil's record profit... or record taxes?
Oct 30 2008
Headlines abounded this week trumpeting that ExxonMobil, that most evil member of the Big Oil coalition, recorded a record profit in the third quarter of $14.8 billion. Left unsaid was how much of Exxon's revenue was confiscated by Big Government. The number will astonish even the hardest socialist--Exxon's third quarter taxes were $11.3 billion. Talk about windfall profits.
***
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 20, 2008 01:42 PMWhat a laugh...or a joke.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 20, 2008 01:44 PMTo paraphrase President Reagan, the problem with guys like 'No Facts' isn't that they are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
Posted by: Kato on November 20, 2008 01:46 PM"The next president should act immediately to capitalize on the goodwill that greets any incoming administration. If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it," Daschle wrote in a book he released this year, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis." "This issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol."
See: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94IIPN00&show_article=1
Posted by: Enigmafan420 on November 20, 2008 01:47 PMWhat cato & factless do not understand is that Wall street doesn't trust the dem's.
The market is crashing because the dem controlled house can't even pass a car bail out deal.
Obama is picking the old Clinton hacks which means no-change.
So why should they trust any of them.
Posted by: Army Medic/vVet on November 20, 2008 01:48 PM...Gets to work doing what? Raising taxes in a recession? Herbert Hoover's 2nd administration starts 1/20/2009.
"The markets in NYC hate the fact they don't know what's coming down the pipe in DC."
..which is why Obama would be a patriot if he assuaged their fears and said he would not increase spending and taxation until after the current crisis has abated. How many jobs could be saved by years end if he just sputtered those words? This will not happen however, because A) he is not a patriot and B) his ego will demand that he begin pushing his own agenda, the country be damned.
Enjoy the economic nuclear winter Obamaphiles, history will show you helped usher it in.
Bunch of dummies.
You had to bring back Billary didn't you... LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 20, 2008 01:54 PMBoy old Reid and Nancy P can sure get things done.
NOT!!!!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 20, 2008 02:01 PMA. Sarah Palin. Reportedly many publishers are after her mamoires...may get up to $7-Mil.
That'll buy a lot of Caribo and/or Moose meat.
:)
"That'll buy a lot of Caribo and/or Moose meat."
Last time I checked, she didn't pay off the Moose before she shot it :)
Posted by: Rick D. on November 20, 2008 02:11 PMA promise or a statement? I'll believe it when I see it....even if does happen it goes back up to what it was under Clinton. Markets fared pretty well in the Clinton-Era.
The promise of tax increases on small businesses.
Ummm yeah, clearly you didn't read the proposed tax changes.
The promise to punish big business.
See small biz answer above.
The promise to not renew Bush tax cuts.
You mean the ones that got us into this current fiscal mess? Bush tax philosophy: Cut taxes and spend lots of money we predict will come in from all the generated revenue. Guess what, the revenue didn't appear, and now the taxpayer is left holding the bill for this reckless fiscal policy.
The FACT that the toddler president said on 60 Minutes that "deficits don't matter".
Actually it was Dick Cheney who allegedly said that to Paul O'Niel, get a clue.
And as far as bank failures, YEP. And we KNOW at whose feet that blame can be laid.
Yup, the idiots who ran held the majority in Congress from 1998 - 2006. Good thing we voted those bums out.
who had no clue who demanded banks lower their rules for loans; who has no clue, period.
Who appointed the regulators who we're supposed to be overseeing these loans and telling the Banks to say "NO WAY IN HELL". People were saying it and no one was listening. See poor Peter Schiff being called a fool over and over again by the Fox News people for his accurate economic predictions.
I promise you the pendulum will swing the other way again soon. And then you'll really wish Obama hadn't expanded the government even more into our lives because you'll see religious zealotry and social regulation that you wouldn't believe.
Big government is an enemy to all. It is a blade that cuts both ways. So if you're ever tempted to support your party in expanding the government's power, just think of what your political enemies will do with that power when they get their turn in the driver's seat.
Posted by: blindman on November 20, 2008 02:39 PMwho had no clue who demanded banks lower their rules for loans; who has no clue, period.
Really?
Do we have to go over this again, obfusCATOr?
It goes all the way back to the CARTER adminsitration and his demand that lenders make it easier for those who could not qualify. It was strengthened and expanded under Clinton.
"The sub-prime mortgage collapse is another tale of unintended consequences. The crisis has its roots in the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, a Carter-era law that purported to prevent 'redlining' --denying mortgages to black borrowers--by pressuring banks to make home loans in 'low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.' Under the act, banks were to be graded on their attentiveness to the 'credit needs' of 'predominantly minority neighborhoods.'...[T]o earn high ratings, banks were forced to make increasingly risky loans to borrowers who wouldn't qualify for a mortgage under normal standards of creditworthiness. The CRA, made even more stringent during the Clinton administration, trapped lenders in a Catch-22. 'If they comply,' wrote Loyola College economist Thomas DiLorenzo, 'they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties... which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars.' Banks nationwide thus ended up making more and more 'sub-prime' loans and agreeing to dangerously lax underwriting standards--no down payment, no verification of income, interest-only payment plans, weak credit history. If they tried to compensate for the higher risks they were taking by charging higher interest rates, they were accused of unfairly steering borrowers into 'predatory' loans they couldn't afford. Trapped in a no-win situation entirely of the government's making, lenders could only hope that home prices would continue to rise, staving off the inevitable collapse. But once the housing bubble burst, there was no escape. Mortgage lenders have been bankrupted, thousands of sub-prime homeowners have been foreclosed on, and countless would-be borrowers can no longer get credit. The financial fallout has hurt investors around the world. And all of it thanks to the government, which was sure it understood the credit industry better than the free market did, and confidently created the conditions that made disaster unavoidable." --Jeff Jacoby
You may not like the messenger obfusCATOr, but it doesn't change the FACTS.
The Tax Policy Center figures, over 10 years, Obama's tax package would reduce federal revenues -- read: increase the federal deficit -- by $2.8 trillion. And that doesn't include the cost of his spending proposals.
Regarding taxes, Obama says "we don't want to return to marginal rates of 60 or 70 percent." The top federal rate was 70 percent until the Reagan cuts of 1981. It has since ranged between 50 in 1982 and today's 35. Obama promises that expiration of the Bush tax cuts will restore the 39.6 rate. He also favors a payroll tax of up to 4 percent on earnings above $250,000 (today, only the first $102,000 is taxed), most of which also are subject to the highest state income tax rates. When the top federal rate was set at 28 under Reagan, payroll taxes were not levied on income over $42,000, so the top effective rate of combined taxes was under 35. Obama's policies would bring it to the mid-50s for many Americans, close to the 60 percent Obama considers excessive.
In terms that even the average modern liberal can comprehend, according to the Census Bureau, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 in 2007. American households making below this figure will pay less than 3% of all federal taxes collected, while those making above this figure will pay 97%, with the top 5% paying over 60%.
If 2% of the nation's population paying more than 60% of the nation's federal taxes is not enough, what is enough?
Would 2% of Americans paying 70% of the federal tab be enough? Would 80% be enough? Or are we simply working our way towards the top 2-5% paying 100% of the federal tab?
Corporate Tax 101... watch it and attempt to learn something. Like with the toddler president, I have hope but low expectations.
Top 10 Poorest Cities
What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't electeda Republican mayor since 1961;
Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954;
Cincinnati, OH (3rd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984;
Cleveland, OH (4th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989;
Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;
St. Louis, MO (6th) hasn 't elected a Republican mayor since 1949;
El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
Milwaukee, WI (8th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908;
Philadelphia, PA (9th) hasn't elected a Republican mayorsince 1952;
Newark, NJ (10th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907.
Pittsburgh, PA (11) ... No Republican held ANY office in Pittsburgh for 65 years until two were elected in 1995.
It is the disadvantaged (define that however you will) who habitually elect Democrats --- yet they are still disadvantaged after all these years!
Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
And now YOU'VE done it on a national scale with a power hungry unchecked government and a toddler president.
Financial winter.
VDH, Victor David Hanson had a humorous/ironic post this afternoon regarding Obama. You know the emperor has no clothes, er, campaign promises he has to keep. The King is Dead is how it is titled and can be found here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTllZjQ5ZTBlZGRjM2FlNWNkYWUxYmY0MTFlNWU2ZGU=
(Courtesy of Hot Air)
Posted by: swatter on November 20, 2008 02:54 PM"McCains entire campaign was run by lobbyists and Obama took NO lobbyist money and is not beholden to ANY lobbyists of 527 groups (unlike McCain)."
Nobody can say that Obama to NO lobbyist money for sure. Obama never disclosed the donors under $250. Plus his website didn't do any validity checks to make sure that all electronic donations where from American citizens and therefore legal.
If I was a lobbyist and wanted to give Obama $200,000, it would be trivial for me to automate the creation of 1,000 pre-paid visa cash card accounts, each with $200 in them and then automate the donation of all of that money through Obama's web site. There was nothing to spoof, his website didn't do any checking. If it was a valid Visa account with money available, they'd take it. I could probably write that script in an afternoon.
Now, combine that with the fact that there were literally millions of donations under $250 that have not been verified or disclosed by his campaign. Nobody can say for sure that Obama took NO money from lobbyists; probably not even Obama himself.
Posted by: blindman on November 20, 2008 03:08 PMHard for you to say you have the facts when President Bush has been in office for the last 8 years. Liar Loans were a product of the Bush Administration.
Maybe you missed this article way back in 2002 saying that Bush's Fannie/Freddie policy's would lead to a bubble.
It is the disadvantaged (define that however you will) who habitually elect Democrats
Funny, Seattle hasn't elected a Republican Mayor or a Republican Governor in well over 20 years...yet we don't seem to be on that list. San Francisco doesn't seem to be on that list either. Wonder why?
How about we look at it this way:
Top 10 Poorest States in the US
1) Mississippi - GOP Gov. for 12 of the last 16 years
2) Arkansas - GOP Gov. from 1996 - 2007
3) Utah - GOP Gov. since 1995
4) New Mexico - GOP Gov. for 11 of the last 13 years
5) West Virginia - GOP Gov. for 12 of the last 20 years.
6) Lousiana - Dem. Gov. for 14 of last 20 years
7) South Carolina - GOP Gov. for 16 of last 20 years
8) Oklahoma - GOP Gov. for 12 of the last 20 years
9) Kentucky - Dem. Gov. for 16 of the last 20 years
10) Alabama - GOP Gov. for 12 of the last 20 years
Starting to see a trend here...Electing GOP Governors will drive your state into poverty. Thank goodness the voters were wise and kept Gregoire around, electing Rossi would have driven Washington State right to the top of the list.
I believe this is called the 'Art Bell the military in their unmarked black helicopters are coming to take my guns away monetary donation theory'. It's complete crap put out by people who chase UFO's and Bigfoot and think the world ends when the Aztec Calendar resets.
GOP only disclosed the under $250 to shame Obama into doing so. The FEC oversaw all donations for both parties and found a few individuals illegally donating to Obama but not a major trend like Hillary Clinton's mystery Chinese donors early in the primary campaign. I know several people who donated less than $100 to Obama, most had never donated in their life, and all we're US citizens.
Gregoire Was Right All Along!
Washington State News
by pudge, 01:31 PM
We are now facing a $5 billion deficit.
Liar Loans were a product of the Bush Administration.
Community Reinvestment Act of 1977
Whatcha' wanna' bet he opts for the latter?
Posted by: JDH on November 20, 2008 05:58 PMMust be, because if it was known sooner, there was another party recently in power in Congress that had ample time, and no threat of presidential veto, to correct the problem.
Seems there is plenty of blame to go around. Starting with those that lent, those that borrowed, and those that facilitated the frenzy.
Posted by: BA on November 20, 2008 06:00 PMIt really is pretty unfortunate that these morons had no concept of where the "government's" money comes from. And how the "rich" are the sow that actually owns the tit they have been sucking on was those they hate so much. The gubmnt that they look to is nothing more than an arbiter. The gubmnt can hook the little piggies up to a dry sow all day and night and the milk they think they are entitled to won't be forthcoming. At best what the gubmnt can do is hook them up to a bottle that gives skimmed milk by printing money for a while.
oh so sad.
Posted by: JDH on November 20, 2008 06:17 PMYou need to check your facts.
The very first thing that hit me was the New Mexico stat:
4) New Mexico - GOP Gov. for 11 of the last 13 years
Since Bill Richardson has been governor for the last 6 years, this 11 of last 13 is incorrect which makes all the rest of your data suspect.
And since your data is inconsistent, it is hard to do a real comparison. If it were the case that there were ONLY GOP governors over the past 10-20 years you might have a stronger case, but it is not true. In fact, you cherry pick the time frames to make it look as bad as you can.
You get an 'F' on your research.
Walmart has been their whipping boy / girl for years, but which comapny has proved to have the right model for this time in history.
So maybe Gregoire and Obam can start trimming the crap out of the heaping governemnt insitutions so they are not such a rollor coaster ride.
Sam Walton had it right!
Posted by: gs on November 20, 2008 06:38 PMAre you sure you're talking about the same Eric that made this post?
And by the way, Earling, the infighting among Democrats is a good thing. If Democrats start enforcing rigid doctrines, they'll fail just like the Republicans did. And despite your view from the bubble, there's no one "netroots" viewpoint. There are thousands, and I'm looking forward to the debates and disagreements we'll have over the next four years now that the adults are back in charge.
Posted by: thehim on November 20, 2008 06:55 PM(1) I didn't make comment #19;
(2) Your citation of unnamed exit polls means nothing, because:
(3) After the 2004 election, we had a Republican President and Congress; after the 2008 election, we have a liberal Democratic President and Democratic Congress; therefore, whatever exit polls you cited were garbage.
Congratulations! You met your usual standard.
There's some rich irony in those words coming from one of the frequent contributors to David Goldstain's waste treatment plant...errrr H.A. Blog where every other post consists of goat/human copulation methods experienced by its 30-35 regular commenters. If the poster would like to see the definition of 'juvenile', he need only steer his browser their way.
"The stock market has fallen 21% since November 4th
Why?
The promise of capital gains tax increases.
The promise of tax increases ong small businesses.
The promise to punish big business."
I want to thank Dagnar for proving my point that she knows NOTHING about economics. Even a third grader would realize that:
The promise of capital gain increases won't do a damn thing if there are NO capital gains. What stock is up so much that someone will sell now to get rid of it? IDIOT!
In fact, the market is back to 1998 - over 10 years with no gains. You would have been better to invest in a money market at 3-4% over all this time.
There ain't no small business increases - unless it is privately owned and they make over 250K - then they should be paying more.
The reason the market is tanking, little no-brain, is that unemployment is up and jobs are down and we are in the Bush recession. Wrap your small mind around that one.
Your free market economy has not worked - in fact, it has given us a Hoover economy. And for all you liars out there, just one reminder. The major push for deregulation for banks and the bill came from the free maket deregulation republicans and Phil Gramm wrote the bill - the author and the push for the deregulation came from republicans who controlled the Senate and House in 2000.
Those are the real facts that your idiot talk radio bigots forgot to tell you.
"The "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000" (H.R. 5660) was introduced in the House on Dec. 14, 2000 by Rep. Thomas W. Ewing (R-IL) and cosponsored by Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-VA) Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX) Rep. John J. LaFalce (D-NY) Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) and never debated in the House.[2]
The companion bill (S.3283) was introduced in the Senate on Dec. 15th, 2000 (The last day before Christmas holiday) by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and cosponsored by Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA) Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) and never debated in the Senate.
Given the above-stated chronology, it would appear that the House and Senate versions of the bill were introduced just prior to the Christmas holiday in December of 2000, following George W Bush's (first) election (in November of 2000), while then-President Clinton was serving out his final days as President. The bill was never debated by the House or Senate. The bill by-passed the substantive policy committees in both the House and the Senate so that there were neither hearings nor opportunities for recorded committee votes. In substance, it appears that the leadership of the Republican-controlled Senate and House incorporated the deregulation of credit default swaps into an omnibus budget bill (without hearings or recorded votes)at a time when the outgoing president was in no position to veto anything."
This act also contained the Enron lophole that Phil Gram and Enron lobbyists inserted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
Posted by: correctnotright on November 20, 2008 08:15 PM"The stock market has fallen 21% since November 4th
Why?
The promise of capital gains tax increases.
The promise of tax increases ong small businesses.
The promise to punish big business."
I want to thank Dagnar for proving my point that she knows NOTHING about economics. Even a third grader would realize that:
The promise of capital gain increases won't do a damn thing if there are NO capital gains. What stock is up so much that someone will sell now to get rid of it? IDIOT!
In fact, the market is back to 1998 - over 10 years with no gains. You would have been better to invest in a money market at 3-4% over all this time.
There ain't no small business increases - unless it is privately owned and they make over 250K - then they should be paying more.
The reason the market is tanking, little no-brain, is that unemployment is up and jobs are down and we are in the Bush recession. Wrap your small mind around that one.
Your free market economy has not worked - in fact, it has given us a Hoover economy. And for all you liars out there, just one reminder. The major push for deregulation for banks and the bill came from the free maket deregulation republicans and Phil Gramm wrote the bill - the author and the push for the deregulation came from republicans who controlled the Senate and House in 2000.
Those are the real facts that your idiot talk radio bigots forgot to tell you.
"The "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000" (H.R. 5660) was introduced in the House on Dec. 14, 2000 by Rep. Thomas W. Ewing (R-IL) and cosponsored by Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-VA) Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX) Rep. John J. LaFalce (D-NY) Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) and never debated in the House.[2]
The companion bill (S.3283) was introduced in the Senate on Dec. 15th, 2000 (The last day before Christmas holiday) by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and cosponsored by Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA) Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) and never debated in the Senate.
Given the above-stated chronology, it would appear that the House and Senate versions of the bill were introduced just prior to the Christmas holiday in December of 2000, following George W Bush's (first) election (in November of 2000), while then-President Clinton was serving out his final days as President. The bill was never debated by the House or Senate. The bill by-passed the substantive policy committees in both the House and the Senate so that there were neither hearings nor opportunities for recorded committee votes. In substance, it appears that the leadership of the Republican-controlled Senate and House incorporated the deregulation of credit default swaps into an omnibus budget bill (without hearings or recorded votes)at a time when the outgoing president was in no position to veto anything."
This act also contained the Enron loophole that Phil Gram and Enron lobbyists inserted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
Posted by: correctnotright on November 20, 2008 08:16 PMI have to admit that you are so full of bullshit. I think that your stupidity shows in your simplistic evaluation on such a short time line. To refute what you are talking about here would take a mojor effort that wouldn't change your mind anyway. So Pfft on that.
But . . .
So if "our" capitalism is so bad, what would you suggest? And please, get into detail.
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 20, 2008 08:55 PMThe promise of capital gain increases won't do a damn thing if there are NO capital gains. What stock is up so much that someone will sell now to get rid of it? IDIOT!
Careful of name calling.
Even the NYTimes says:
“This is a response to real fear,” said Marc D. Stern, chief investment officer at Bessemer Trust, an investment firm in New York. “We each have to look inside and say, is the fear warranted?”
The fear was reflected in a stampede for the safety of government securities. The Treasury’s benchmark 10-year bill rose 2- 22/32, to 106- 10/32 and the yield, which moves in the opposite direction from the price, was at 3.01 percent, down from 3.32 percent late Wednesday.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/21markets.html?hp
Ever heard of "cut your losses"? People will and HAVE sold stocks for a loss if they believe that the future gains in those stocks as they stand today are less than the future gains of something else. Any stock adviser worth his salt will tell you that. As investors you cannot look at what you paid for a financial instrument nor what it once was worth. You should always look at it with the eye of "will this equity gain me more or less than another over x time period?" Then you make your decision on where to place your money.
No third grader would understand this, and apparently no liberal troll on SP would either, but an educated investor would.
Posted by: Eyago on November 20, 2008 09:39 PMI don't know what at school you learned ECON, but based on your diatribe its evident it wasn't what is commonly taught in the US. Was the old Soviet Union perhaps?
Small businesses that gross net over $250,000 in income SHOULD pay more taxes? According to whom? Nevertheless, no economics class taught anywhere here in the US would say that was an recipe for growth or economic success of the business owner. Oh! That's right. Lib don't give one wit about individual success. They abhor it, because it means someone else might be missing out.
Posted by: Dave on November 20, 2008 09:42 PMAccording to our liberals we are.
How sad.
Economic winter.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 20, 2008 10:01 PMInteresting, but not all that relevant, since Carter (Sedition Party - GA) sent the wheels in motion in 1997 with the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) becoming law to battle "red-lining".Up until then banks acted like private businesses in that they strove to only write home loans to the best credit risks buying properties in the best neighborhoods. CRA said, "No, No, No!" if you want to stay a bank you must provide financial services to everyone in your service area."
Then Clinton greased the wheels in 1995 he signed a new law that changed the CRA to facilitate lending to less creditworthy customers. Some contend that it was mortgages for votes, Clinton also sicked Janet Reno on non-complying banks.
I happy to send you a copy of SchoolHouse Rocks as a refresher on how a bill becomes law. Congress can't make laws with the President involved. Clinton could have easily vetoed the loosening the the CRA (which admirably he now regrets signing into law).
And less we forget, the Bush administration attempted to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 3 YEARS AGO, but Chris Dodd Barney Frank both Dems, them down, according by not letting the bill out of committee. Here's he money quote from Ms. Frank "'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.---are not facing any kind of financial crisis. 'The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Remind me again how a Republican controlled Congress was a fault?
Posted by: Dave on November 20, 2008 10:36 PMFACT: The DJIA was 3,857.99 on January 23, 1995 when the GOP took control of Congress.
FACT: The DJIA was 12,565.53 on January 22, 2007 when the Slavery Party took over Congress.
FACT: The DJIA is now at 7,552.99 after 22 months of Slaver control.
Question: Please explain how a 225% increase of the DJIA over 12 years (an annualized return of 12%) is bad, while a 40% decrease of the DJIA over 22 months (an annualized return of -3.3%) is good.
Seems to me there was a 12 year track record of positive gains and growth while the GOP was in control; once the Slavery Party took over, it's taken a serious dive.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 21, 2008 03:08 AMGot Jackboots?
Posted by: Rick D. on November 21, 2008 05:51 AMThe shock of it all! LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 21, 2008 06:41 AMI think that you are nothing but a little leftist parrot who doesn't understand very much and your posts prove it. Just because you can cut and paste somebody else's stuff doesn't make you knowledgeable, it just makes you a taxi. Comprehension, synthesis and verbalization are important parts of opinion and it seems you missing at least two of the three.
Will your respond to my simple question (25 words or less)?
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 21, 2008 09:57 AMObama proves to be stock market poison
What makes it "fun" is the fact that we can directly tie baby bear-y the toddler president to the dolts that elected him...with the proof that his supporters didn't have a clue BEFORE the election, they were equally clueless ON election day and that they, who make up that majority who elected the toddler president, can't pass a basic civics survey.
Again, we will endure, but we also hold YOU responsible... and, of course, we will be there to pick up the pieces.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 21, 2008 01:54 PMYour answer lies in post 108. DJIA was up 12% annually with a GOP Congress. It's down 3.3% (and growing) annually since the Slavery Party took over.
Explain that away... Slavers are bad, and now with the guarantee of higher taxes for EVERYONE (I've proven many times here that Obama's pledge to only add a 3% tax on the top 5% simply WILL NOT WORK), capital is fleeing the US.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 21, 2008 01:55 PMThursday was another day of carnage on Wall Street, and the stocks of many major U.S. corporations are now selling in the single digits. Big Media, of course, are continuing to bash President Bush for the declines. But what about our president in waiting?Right now Barack Obama has only one major economic "solution" on the table and it is a real stinker. He wants to raise taxes on entrepreneurs, businesses and innovators! It would be hard to come up with a worse idea at a time when people are beginning to whisper words like "depression" and "deflation."
Obama doesn't take the oath of office until January 20th. But right now he could hold a press conference and announce he is postponing all tax hikes. There would be an immediate rally in our markets. But Barack Obama is AWOL. Not a word.
Instead, he leaves a dagger hanging over panicky investors who are watching their assets shrink and who are facing the prospect of giving more of their money to Washington, D.C., next year. Why would the president-elect not take more pro-active steps to assuage growing economic anxieties? Rahm Emmanuel may have let the cat out of the bag.
Consider these two quotes: "A new revolution is possible only in consequence of a new crisis," and, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before. This is an opportunity." The first was written by Karl Marx well over one hundred years ago. The second statement was uttered this week by Rahm Emmanuel, the soon-to-be White House Chief of Staff for President-elect Obama.
While unemployment is up, while foreclosures are up, while the stock market is tanking and retirement accounts are being wiped out, while whole industries teeter on the verge of bankruptcy, Rahm Emmanuel and other leftwing activists are celebrating the "crisis" as an "opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before." What does that mean? Is he talking about socializing the auto industry? Is he talking about socializing health care? Is he talking about massive taxes for the sake of "fairness"? Is he talking about repealing the Defense of Marriage Act while you are distracted by the mortgage meltdown?
Of course, given the economic meltdown that one single post should have taken precedence over all others and been announced about 2 weeks ago.
Toddlers are just incapable of prioritizing outside their own self interest.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 21, 2008 02:20 PMEven if someone is selling out of fear - they are not going to have capital gains to worry about - so the thesis of Ragnut as to why the stocks are down is just plain dumb and wrong.
So much for his supposed expertise on the economy or on the effects of a capital gains tax rate hike.
Posted by: correctnotright on November 21, 2008 03:14 PM"FACT: The DJIA was 3,857.99 on January 23, 1995 when the GOP took control of Congress.
FACT: The DJIA was 12,565.53 on January 22, 2007 when the Slavery Party took over Congress."
Guess you missed that the dems had control for a short while in 2003.
Guess you also missed that Bush has veto control still.
Guess you forgot that congress can't pass anything over a veto without 67 votes in the senate.
Guess you are pretty damn stupid.
Posted by: correctnotright on November 21, 2008 03:19 PMThe market is down. If I sell my Microsoft today I will have lost some profit and still pay 15% capital gains on the little remaining profit.
If I sell my Microsoft after baby bear-y the toddler president totally ruins the market with his capital gains tax increase promise, I will lose the same profit but pay far more in capital gains (possibly double) on the little remaining profit.
THAT, you poor fool, is the fear that is driving the market down down down: the PROMISE of the toddler president
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 21, 2008 03:23 PMGuess you don't understand that spending and finance bills start in the House, and that the President can't force the majority party to start legislation he'd like...
I'm not absolving President Bush of his responsibility with the issue; what I am pointing out is that your precious Slavery Party has been in control the whole time this crash has happened. YOU control the purse strings, it's your fault.
Ride the short bus, much?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 21, 2008 04:15 PMI pointed my financial guy at CNR's posts and he laughed over the phone for 5 minutes. Maybe CNR's posts are comedy skits.
Yeah, that's it.
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 21, 2008 04:41 PM"The promise of capital gain increases won't do a damn thing if there are NO capital gains. What stock is up so much that someone will sell now to get rid of it? IDIOT!"
Umm, even with the market way down there are still people who bought and have held stocks since the DJIA was bellow 5,000.
Retirees with stock portfolios decades old will be hit the hardest with any increases in capital gains taxes. But maybe that's what the want. Government hates competition and private retirements compete with the shitty social security pyramid scheme and make it look bad.
Posted by: blindman on November 21, 2008 05:00 PMBold New Plan to Imitate George W. Bush -Randall Hoven
The AP reports that Barack Obama's economic plan "aims for 2.5 million new jobs by 2011." In other words, he hopes to do almost as well as President George W. Bush did.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 22, 2008 10:40 AMAccording to the Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/ces/#tables, employees on non-farm payrolls numbered 131,785,000 in 2000 and 137,623,000 in 2007 (the last year of available data). That is an average of 834,000 new jobs per year, even through the 2001 recession, 9/11 and Katrina. If we use a base year of 2003 instead, at 129,999,000 jobs, the average number of new jobs per year was 1,906,000.
By my count, 2011 is three years from now. Given Bush's rate of job creation, there would be 2,502,000 to 5,708,000 new jobs created by 2011.
According to the AP, Obama said,
"We have acted boldly, bravely, and above all, together. That is the chance our new beginning now offers us, and that is the challenge we must rise to in the days to come. It is time to act. As the next president of the United States, I will."Apparently, it is time to act boldly, bravely and together to match George W. Bush's performance through recession, the worst terrorist attacks in our history, and the worst natural disaster in our history.
For the record, George W. Bush did twice as well as that from 2003 to 2007, when both houses of Congress had Republican majorities. You didn't read that in the Times
Probably shouldn't convert these numbers into percentages of growth.
Did you account for the rate of job growth in the last year from October 2007 to October 2008 (at the bottom of the chart) as you project out what would have been using GW's numbers forward?
Since the trend underway in our country right now is losing a million jobs a year during this last year of GW's tenure, I'll take turning that trend around toward positive job growth to be a good start.
I don't care what the DJIA is right now. The only thing that matters is that our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. Our consumer "protection" laws and lack of tort reform make the United States one of the most expensive and riskiest markets to participate in on earth.
With technology bootstrapping the rest of the world out of the mud, corporations are fleeing the United States like rats off a sinking ship. The Republicans since '94 didn't do much but bail water. The Democrats before them added a few more holes in the hull. The new Democrats sound like they are planning to scuttle the ship with explosives. The American economy is being destroyed by big government, over taxation, and over regulation. The feds will have to start taking totalitarian control measure to avoid a total collapse.
The only hope we have is full mobilization of the work force brought on by technology. I love being a technology worker. It allows me to live just about anywhere with internet access and make a nice living. I work remotely from home full time now and I'm completely mobile. I know that tons of people in the past kept saying they'll leave...but, most people can't follow through because their jobs aren't mobile. Me however am actually serious because my job is completely virtual. I could work from the Moon if only I could get there.
So where am I thinking of going? Well, I *love* the Czech Republic and it now has the largest ex-pat population on earth, not to mention a nice flat tax system. Paris used to have the largest ex-pat population but ever since the Czechs became champion capitalist pig-dogs, Praha has become the place to be.
Too bad the United States is the only country on earth that requires Americans to pay American income tax on income earned abroad. What is it with our fucking government? How is it a government for the people when all I hear the politicians (from both parties) arguing over is who gets to be fucked and who gets to do the fucking. Nobody ever wonders if raping the citizenry is wrong.
When are we ever going to get a candidate who is dead serious about shutting down entire federal departments? Who's plan for balancing the budget is to actually SPEND LESS?!? I know, I know, Ron Paul, Ron Paul...I really liked him, but his problem wasn't substance, it was image. He always came off like the crazy old uncle always talking doom and gloom. It doesn't matter if he's 100% correct when nobody takes him seriously. He truly is the Cassandra of our time.
What we really need is a clean, smooth talking politician with hope in their voice. With excitement that we can turn this ship around if we just free everything up from government regulation and slash taxes and huge bureaucracies. We need another Reagan but with a much deeper libertarian streak.
Posted by: blindman on November 23, 2008 01:47 PM"The feds will have to start taking totalitarian control . . . to avoid a total collapse."
It could be argued that the Feds have made the "collapse" much worse already by not letting the market clean up its own mess. Letting the bad actors get bought out, merged or go bank-o (11 rather than 13). I don't believe that anybody is "to big to fail". If the Feds keep on this path, there is fear that we'll have a Japanese style recession that will be stuck in the mud for decades like the Japanese were. At this pont the market has no clue what the Feds will do next, that is why we have these wild swings from day to day. The Feds are not rational and the market knows it. Think about what years of irrational Fed control will do.
I was just talking to a friend the other day about where to move to and the Czech Republic was on the top of my list as the place with the most opportunity.
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 24, 2008 11:32 AMIt must be truly freightening to Republicans being led by someone with an above average college education instead of the macho gut-thinker.
Posted by: Splinter on November 24, 2008 01:23 PMIs that the CHANGE you believed in or the fulfillment of what looks to be a long line of empty promises?
Sorry dude, it appears "hope" was tied to ignorance in this election.
As a boots on the ground mainstream conservative I'm going to enjoy watching the "fun" unfold...beginning with the FACT that baby bear-y the toddler president has already begun backtracking on hiking taxes on the "rich".
We'll be here to pick up the pieces.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 24, 2008 01:55 PMBig OOPS. Mea culpa.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 24, 2008 01:57 PMThat Harvard MBA must really stick in your craw.
What bothers you liberals more, that he IS educated or that he lives his convictions without apologies to YOU?
I suspect it's the latter because one theme through most liberal rantings is the screech of anger over anyone without doubt, over anyone who knows and lives what they believe, over anyone secure in their own convictions. That nasty screeching says more about the screechers than the subject of the screeching.
Can YOU figure out what it says about you?
And I have no problem with delaying the tax increase either. That just shows he's willing to adapt to the situation, rather than doing what is politically expedient in order to be popular with the "base".
And regarding picking up the pieces, I think that's needed now after the disaster and embarrassment of the last 8 years.
Enjoy your fantasy world though... it's all your party has left. :)
Posted by: Splinter on November 24, 2008 02:40 PMRags, apology accepted.
Rags, wondering like I am why no posts from the Mainstream Contributors since last Friday? What's happening?
Stefan should bring on "the senator" or Jack LeCerveau while Eric takes a much deserved break.
Posted by: swatter on November 24, 2008 02:49 PMWHERE did baby bear-y sit at Columbia? Occidental?
Oh gee NO ONE KNOWS because like so many other thing he's HIDING it. Unless and until he stops HIDING the information no one has the right to criticize anyone else ESPECIALLY in contrast to the toddler president.
And I have no problem with delaying the tax increase either. That just shows he's willing to adapt to the situation, rather than doing what is politically expedient in order to be popular with the "base".
PUHLEASE. The guy was a magic mirror: he never took a stand, promised vague change and hope and allowed whomever looked at him to see whatever they wanted to see. Already the far left nuburgers are howling and THREATENING about his backtracking.
Perhaps the most brilliant thing about Barack Obama's successful campaign was its vagueness. In offering himself as the all-purpose Change We Can Believe In, Oba
