Havent they done enough to destroy american business?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Actually Chuck, the BWS theory doesn't hold that "doing nothing wouldnt pay back all the special interest groups that got me in" at all.

It holds that doing nothing is a bad idea because watching the economy tank all around you and watching people hurt and deciding that the only thing that will help is to make the rich richer (which seems to have been working really well leading us into this mess, eh?!) is....well, just a bad idea.

You're making it sound far too complicated and far too political.

But it IS complicated and it IS political. The stock market continues to plunge BECAUSE of the policies and decisions made by the new administration and his team. To say that doing nothing is a bad idea is to ignore the daily machinations of the market and the millions of people who see their life savings dwindling away. You obviously have zero economic background or understanding because you would realize that despite the propaganda it is the Rich who are losing the most and the rest of us who will ultimately pay. And believing that tax cuts have contributed much to this economic crash is to ignore the worldwide issues that we are seeing. You and many liberals continue to buy into the theory that the rich (or George Bush) are to blame for all the problems of the world. That is the class warfare that the Democrats wish to use to get votes. Actually believing that it is true is inexcusable.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

1. But it IS complicated and it IS political.

2. The stock market continues to plunge BECAUSE of the policies and decisions made by the new administration and his team.

3. That is the class warfare that the Democrats wish to use to get votes.

1. yep

2. I have a huge problem with the financial news networks "finding" reasons why the stockmarket has an up or a down day. No one ever seems to question the rather dubious claims made and very often taken as gospel. "The stock market plunged on news that..." bull you dont know this.
The stock market has been extraordinarily shaky for a while now and is in a downward spiral and it seems that the most likely reason is uncertainty. People dont know if the "cure" will work or not, or even if there is a cure...
I heard some people say the only cure is 2 years of pain. This is as good as any I have ever heard.
The stock market looks backwards (monthly/weekly etc... reports that come in 1 month after the fact) and forwards. It seems to me it is much more complicated than "the stock market reacted to Iran's bellicose statements towards Israel"

3. The thing I hate most about the Democratic party.
Its way too easy and dangerous- setting people against each other.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

1. yep

2. I have a huge problem with the financial news networks "finding" reasons why the stockmarket has an up or a down day. No one ever seems to question the rather dubious claims made and very often taken as gospel. "The stock market plunged on news that..." bull you dont know this.
The stock market has been extraordinarily shaky for a while now and is in a downward spiral and it seems that the most likely reason is uncertainty. People dont know if the "cure" will work or not, or even if there is a cure...
I heard some people say the only cure is 2 years of pain. This is as good as any I have ever heard.
The stock market looks backwards (monthly/weekly etc... reports that come in 1 month after the fact) and forwards. It seems to me it is much more complicated than "the stock market reacted to Iran's bellicose statements towards Israel"

3. The thing I hate most about the Democratic party.
Its way too easy and dangerous- setting people against each other.

The stock market is losing money rapidly despite the emergency measures that the new administration has taken. The tough guy act against banks may buy them some popularity among the common folk but the real money see it in an entirely different and negative light. One thing govt is really bad at doing an that is running business. Nationalizing banks means that they will running the financial sector. Who could possibly think that is good, hence the markets continuing plunge. The current administration may choose to ignore the market but they will eventually pay for that because the rest of us see what is happening. While they shouldnt and arent equipped to deal with it on a day to day basis the current trend should be more troubling to them then they outwardly appear to be.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The stock market is losing money rapidly despite the emergency measures that the new administration has taken. The tough guy act against banks may buy them some popularity among the common folk but the real money see it in an entirely different and negative light. One thing govt is really bad at doing an that is running business. Nationalizing banks means that they will running the financial sector. Who could possibly think that is good, hence the markets continuing plunge. The current administration may choose to ignore the market but they will eventually pay for that because the rest of us see what is happening. While they shouldnt and arent equipped to deal with it on a day to day basis the current trend should be more troubling to them then they outwardly appear to be.

Obama has already made it clear that this is what is not needed long term. This landslide started before Obama came to office. We were told by almost every reputable economist that emergency measures were needed MAINLY to keep money and credit moving. Told by Bush and Obama people.
We have also been told by conservative and liberal economists that certain "banks" (I dont know what to call some of these instituitions as the money they were lending and investing went way beyond what I see most local banks doing) cannot fail or we will see worse than what we are seeing NOW. We were told by Bush people that we WERE very close, very very close to having the financial system freeze, that we barely escaped disaster...

The stock market reacts both to what has happened, AND what it believes will happen. I am not an economics major, I never even had the class (was not required like it is now) but this seems clear to me:
When the stock market reacts to economic reports that must be built from what has already has taken place it is using events that have already occurred as an indicator of the future. Partially anyways.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

The stock market reacts both to what has happened, AND what it believes will happen. I am not an economics major, I never even had the class (was not required like it is now) but this seems clear to me:
When the stock market reacts to economic reports that must be built from what has already has taken place it is using events that have already occurred as an indicator of the future. Partially anyways.

This is clear

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This is clear

What did I say that you find absurd.
Teach please. I can read. I can understand.
What have I said about the stock market you find wrong.
Banks... What exactly?

THe DOW rose about 150 point today.
Why? Something that is your own please.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

What did I say that you find absurd.
Teach please. I can read. I can understand.
What have I said about the stock market you find wrong.
Banks... What exactly?

THe DOW rose about 150 point today.
Why? Something that is your own please.

You need to read more than my ramblings. Try the WSJ and The Economist for starters.

[ArlJim78]

of course the problem started well before Obama started calling the shots, but the problem with his 'solutions' is that they do more harm than good.
massive new spending and taxes and government programs are not going to stimulate anything except government. government is the cause of this problem, it encouraged all of the behavior that brought us to this point.
by bailing out the deadbeats and putting targets on businesses and the wealthy, he's sending exactly the wrong message.

[AeWingnut]

"you don't gear a train for the caboose you gear it for the engine"

I really don't see how taking money from the productive and giving it to the unproductive is going to stimulate my economy.

I am far from rich

when the government subsidizes bad
we get more of it

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You obviously have zero economic background or understanding because you would realize that despite the propaganda it is the Rich who are losing the most and the rest of us who will ultimately pay. And believing that tax cuts have contributed much to this economic crash is to ignore the worldwide issues that we are seeing. You and many liberals continue to buy into the theory that the rich (or George Bush) are to blame for all the problems of the world. That is the class warfare that the Democrats wish to use to get votes. Actually believing that it is true is inexcusable.

It's not that I believe that the rich are the root of all evil.

It's that when the ONLY real option that Repubs are giving is "tax cuts" & "tax cuts" & "tax cuts" while offering NOTHING of substance to the debate that could actually help, then yes, I prefer taking other chances.

There's what Obama's doing and there's just cutting taxes and crossing your fingers as our two apparent options. If nothing in the middle is offered, then I'll take an overreach rather than just cutting taxes. That certainly didn't help us steer clear of this mess in the first place.

If there's a substantive debate to be had, then the Republicans are failing pretty miserably right now, because there's an awful lot of badgering Obama on the plan he came up with to fix it, and not a whole lot other than "just cut some more taxes" as an alternate solution. That's not helpful, and it's not effective as a singular strategy.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

It's not that I believe that the rich are the root of all evil.

It's that when the ONLY real option that Repubs are giving is "tax cuts" & "tax cuts" & "tax cuts" while offering NOTHING of substance to the debate that could actually help, then yes, I prefer taking other chances.

There's what Obama's doing and there's just cutting taxes and crossing your fingers as our two apparent options. If nothing in the middle is offered, then I'll take an overreach rather than just cutting taxes. That certainly didn't help us steer clear of this mess in the first place.

If there's a substantive debate to be had, then the Republicans are failing pretty miserably right now, because there's an awful lot of badgering Obama on the plan he came up with to fix it, and not a whole lot other than "just cut some more taxes" as an alternate solution. That's not helpful, and it's not effective as a singular strategy.

However the tax cuts have very little to do with this crisis. Bush's biggest mistake and where there is no defense for him in that his deficit spending continued to rise in unrealistic levels. He simply allowed the govt to grow too large. Obama is spending like Bush on steroids. it will make things worse, not better. The spending is the problem, not the tax cuts. If spending is the answer than wouldnt the war have helped insulate the economy?

There is no debate to be had because the democrats clearly wouldnt listen anyway. I can speak as a regular citizen who has no political party to worry about offending or election to worry about winning. The reality is that a lot of really smart people are worried. The rest still love Obama. Take that as you may. You wont be any less liberal or less of a card carrying Democrat if you see what they are doing has very little chance of working. Remember dissent is patriotic! (special thanks to Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat from the last election cycle for that last quote)

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

However the tax cuts have very little to do with this crisis. Bush's biggest mistake and where there is no defense for him in that his deficit spending continued to rise in unrealistic levels. He simply allowed the govt to grow too large. Obama is spending like Bush on steroids. it will make things worse, not better. The spending is the problem, not the tax cuts. If spending is the answer than wouldnt the war have helped insulate the economy?

There is no debate to be had because the democrats clearly wouldnt listen anyway. I can speak as a regular citizen who has no political party to worry about offending or election to worry about winning. The reality is that a lot of really smart people are worried. The rest still love Obama. Take that as you may. You wont be any less liberal or less of a card carrying Democrat if you see what they are doing has very little chance of working. Remember dissent is patriotic! (special thanks to Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat from the last election cycle for that last quote)

Well, the lack of debate is cyclical I guess. When you don't agree with the party in power, you don't get a voice....that rule became loud and clear in recent years. So it shouldn't really be surprising after years of being told that not agreeing was unpatriotic, that the concept is still stuck in folks' minds 40 days later.

I think my biggest problem, and sure, maybe I'm economically naive (likely), is that at least somebody is trying. The whole Repub attitude that we take good care of the best among us, and then hope that the goodness trickles down to everyone else just doesn't work. It doesn't work with money. It doesn't work with health. It just doesn't work. Maybe I'm a total socialist, but the self-first for the fortunate, then hope for the best for rest attitude seems like a pretty gigantic failure. So I'll take my chances on things, and pay the price if I'm wrong.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Well, the lack of debate is cyclical I guess. When you don't agree with the party in power, you don't get a voice....that rule became loud and clear in recent years. So it shouldn't really be surprising after years of being told that not agreeing was unpatriotic, that the concept is still stuck in folks' minds 40 days later.

I think my biggest problem, and sure, maybe I'm economically naive (likely), is that at least somebody is trying. The whole Repub attitude that we take good care of the best among us, and then hope that the goodness trickles down to everyone else just doesn't work. It doesn't work with money. It doesn't work with health. It just doesn't work. Maybe I'm a total socialist, but the self-first for the fortunate, then hope for the best for rest attitude seems like a pretty gigantic failure. So I'll take my chances on things, and pay the price if I'm wrong.

Hey you are a writer, you arent supposed to have a clue about money

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Hey you are a writer, you arent supposed to have a clue about money

OOOOOOOOOOO