BO is now the official owner of a bear market on Wall St.
With yesterday’s declines, we now have an “official” Obama bear market, defined as a 20% decline. The S&P 500 index closed at 850 on the last trading day before Obama’s inauguration, and now it’s at 682. And it barely took six weeks.Redstate
Don’t let ANYONE tell you that this is Bush’s fault, or that Obama inherited the decline. The stock market by definition is a leading indicator. It predicts the future for corporate earnings, not the present or the past.
The stock market is saying that with Obama in office, the outlook for business is poor. And with his promises of higher taxes and more regulation, Obama is doing his very considerable best to reinforce the negative perception.
Next time you open your 401(k) or mutual fund statement, try not to flinch at the thought that a great big bear with Obama’s face is looking over your shoulder.
29 comments:
Eight years under Bush and 1995-2006 (House under Gingrich and others) vs. Obama and his six weeks in office?
Your math is a bad our memories? And, your partisan stripes are pretty narrow, too.
wonder where the classy piv ripped this post off from?
"Don’t let ANYONE tell you that this is Bush’s fault, or that Obama inherited the decline"
My reply
This is Bush's fault and Obama inherited the decline.
BaaaaaWHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
This was stolen from a blog called Redstate?
BaaaaWhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
PIV, blaming the Democrats for Republicans mistakes may have worked with the Iraq war and the false claims of the healthy state of the George Bush economy because you were trying to fool yourself as well as the already committed George Bush base who were already fooled.
The people who put Mr. Obama in the White House were never fooled in the first place. You can't fool them now. It ain't gonna work.
You can fool yourself once PIV, but you can't, err, ahhh, em, uhm, I mean, you CAN fool yourself again.
So tell me HT, do you critique every blogger, because most lift items from other sources, DD was famous for lifting and re posting most of TAP blog's items.
Or are you just righteous here?
p.s. baby cakes HT
when items are in italics and indented that means they are a quote. Word Press and Blogger have similar styles.
If the markets believed in any of the huge spending increases implemented by Obama, values would have at least stabilized a bit.What we're seeing is a complete lack of confidence in anything he does. The folks like spending, because the folks aren't too smart. It takes them time to learn. My friend Dan and Frog are just doing the party line on this one. It happens.
Other things concern me too. What about this "no earmarks" pledge during the campaign? O lied to us when he said the trillion dollar stimulus had no earmarks. Well, so be it. But now we have another spending bill that NOBODY denies is full of pork. And O will sign it. What about that, Frog? Dan, help me out. How come we're accepting this kind of dishonesty? This isn't about donkey and elephant. This is a straight ahead lie from what O said just weeks ago. Are you guys going to tell me this is ok? And Frog, if all you can offer is "I hate Bush" then just spare us the bs.
Sorry, I need to pull a Wiley here and say one more thing. I agree with Dan that O hasn't been in there very long. I'm willing to give him a chance. But he is not instilling confidence and he often is not telling the truth.
These are problems, folks. Unless we're beyond that. God help us if lying is ok as long as our party is the one doing it.
Hermit thrush, the answer to your question about PIV is here.
What PIV does from a legal aspect is called photocopy plagiarism. At the very least he should at least credit his sources such as michelle malkin's ultra biased blog. The problem here is that PIV's ego would never permit crediting a source, not even out of decent courtesy.
"Sorry, I need to pull a Wiley here and say one more thing"
You should have pulled a PIV, instead. He always posts more than once.
BaaaaaaWhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
I would gladly have Bush back.Remember the dow 14000+ in 06 then came the dems the dam dems.
"So tell me HT, do you critique every blogger, because most lift items from other sources,"
And most bank robbers rob banks. You are a cheat PIV and you got caught and your solution as always is to attack the person of hermit thrush.
Read any GOOD blog and you will see them bend over backward to credit sources. Yours is not a good blog. That is where you are confused.
i have no problem at all with anyone reposting things from elsewhere, provided they clearly give credit. you certainly have a habit of failing to do that, iv. but it sure seems that in this case i just plain missed the link to redstate. so please accept my apologies.
so please accept my apologies.
Don't apologise. It was not on the original post. Added later.
8:40 How about you get with reality.
In the last week of 'Little Bush's' presidency the Dow (DJIA) was already below 8,000 a few times and heading downward.
If you feel the need to damn someone. The guilty party, could only be the Republicans and their 30 year policy of borrow and spend, spend, spend. Then spend some more. In his entire Presidency Bush never, ever, vetoed a spending bill.
The ENTIRE problem is in the lap of the Repubs. How dare you blame anyone else other than them.
As I have said before, I thank God for Obama. He WILL lead us out of the desert and into the promised land.
What we need here, more than anything, is patience. We need to allow time for his vast spending bill to have an effect. It may be well into his second term before this economy is righted.
Could there be a conspiracy among those evil-doers on Wall Street to thwart his efforts? You time might be better spent investigating that instead on copying other blogs.
Obama's "no earmarks" pledge should be sustained by him ... otherwise, he is just the others.
And, to set the record straight:
I have always been against "earmarks, pork, insider deals, special or demonstration projects (the official Congressional title for these things) as well as PAC, party, lobbyist, and outside the district, or outside the state campaign money," but to no avail it would seem
e.g., Mr. McHugh takes over 70% of his money from outside this district and NYS -- but he delivers on bringing home the other "stuff" so that makes it right, right?
I thought so ... LOL
scottwatch --
i certainly didn't see any link when i left my first comment (though yes, the italics and indentation make it quite clear it was quoted from somewhere). but, unless anyone has any wizardry with tracking down cached versions of webpages, i don't see any way to definitively settle the matter one way or the other. if iv added the link after the fact, then s/he has taken her/his shamelessness and dishonesty to a new height. if it was there all along, then i most certainly stand by my apology. and i think the most reasonable thing is to give iv the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.
anon 6:39 --
i know you claim "frog" is supposed to be neutral, or maybe even some kind of strange term of endearment. but really, if you can't even pay someone the basic respect of calling them by their name, then why would you expect a reply?
just to be clear, i know you've gone on in the past about how you don't respect me anyway, and it doesn't make a lick of difference to me whether i have your respect or not. you're free to respect whomever you please! and i'm free to reply as i please! but you've got an odd way of engaging people.
"but, unless anyone has any wizardry with tracking down cached versions of webpages, i don't see any way to definitively settle the matter one way or the other."
Hermit Thrush a blogger hint.
Do a screen dump of any blogger's original post that you wnat to comment to and put it in a file. It takes two seconds.
Then when you question the original post or yourself you can refer to the SD to verify your question.
I do this for use at a later date for articles I write to check myself as well as the blogger.
"anon 6:39 --
i know you claim "frog" is supposed to be neutral,"
Anon cant you please find another term to use to describe Hermit Thrush. I was brought up in Waddington and cringe when I hear you use frog.
We share some of the some politicians. Why not share some of the same values?
How about HT or Herm or Trush or even his name, Hermit Thrush?
Hermit the Frog, kermit the frog, sheeesh. I didn't realize it was such a loaded tag.
OOOOOKKKKK, I'll think on it. But it really isn't meant to be anything but THE FROG.
Hell, I like Frogs. The green ones that croak. JUUUSSTT KIIDDDINGGG.
I guess I run with a bad crowd at work. It makes me less sensitive.
And to the guy who said Wall Street was behind this (11:14), brilliant. So you're telling us the low market is the result of a conspiracy to keep prices low to make O look bad? Clue to you. Those people get paid by folks giving them money to invest. Those funds have dried up. Ergo, they aren't getting paid. Great line of thought.
Anon. 6:02 said:
"I guess I run with a bad crowd at work. It makes me less sensitive. "
Uhmmm..Let me guess. You work in public relations!
BaaaaaWHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha
that's a great tip, scottwatch -- wish i'd thought of it myself.
as for anon 6:02: for me, the point is not that some people find "frog" offensive -- though i do think that, in this case, that's plenty reason enough not to use the term. rather, the point is simple respect. if you expect people to engage you in a serious way, then you at least owe them the respect of calling them by their name. that said, sometimes we all get fired up and use heated language, and often in these cases the point isn't to engage anyway, and that's fine! and on the other hand, as you've said yourself in the past, maybe the point is that you don't respect me -- though that would make me wonder why you seem to call me out so frequently. at any rate, you give me about zero incentive to respond to you.
This economic crisis is critical.
One must honestly ask: "How would the market(s) -- ours and worldwide -- be today if Mr. Obama did nothing? Or what if Geo. W. were still in office? Or what if McCain had won?"
These questions are only speculation, and we can speculate on all day, but it won't solve the damn problems.
Mr. Obama needs a chance to succeed.
What he's doing may not work, or then again it might work ... people are anxious and for good reason: times are uncertain.
But, one thing is for sure: the sustained political bickering and chest-pounding won't work.
The problems at Obama's feet were not caused by him or his policies.
That is clear and we have to move from that premise no matter how staunch a DEM or GOPer anyone is.
But:
* Doing nothing is not the answer.
* Pork is not the answer; and yes, Sen. Schumer, those little porkies you say we don't care about, do matter, and yes, we care about them a heluva lot.
* There is an old Chinese proverb that says "Talk doesn't cook rice."
Obama's team is applying what they believe are fixes -- they might be right, they might be wrong.
That's why we elected him ... and only after his 6 weeks in office vs. the years before him too many expect rapid change and quick fixes -- that's the American way.
We first of all need to give him a chance and at the same time, we need to keep the nasty rabid politics out.
If we do that, we might see hold a difference result.
Sadly, for many that's not possible.
That's an interesting post, Tadpole. I'll try to give you an honest response. Maybe my problem is I don't respect you, but I kind of like you in some ways. You ask for balance and reason and a lowering of the "personal" level of dialogue. Yet you chime right in when calling GW a war criminal, something I view as cowardly and inexcusable. Then, when called out on that, you run, never man enough to back off. But on the personal level you seem a likable guy. So I guess what I've done is divide the foolish with the person. I did that with Danny at first. But I've come to respect Dan for two reasons that don't apply to you. He doesn't see things along party lines and two, he will back off and concede a point now and then. I'm not saying you won't, I'm saying I just haven't seen it. And your party line thought may be just a response to people like me, or places like this. Arguments may bring out this in you.
I firmly believe we are all different people in person than we might be in a blog. The reason I sent greetings or talk birds with you is because I think you are ok, not because I don't think your politics are full of bs.
Hey, I did my best to give you an honest response. Best to you and Dan. It will be boat time soon. Maybe then I will be a more reasonable individual.
8:40 How about you get with reality.
In the last week of 'Little Bush's' presidency the Dow (DJIA) was already below 8,000 a few times and heading downward.
I said in 06 the dow was over 14000 when the dems took control of the senate it all went to hell.At that point investors got nervous.They knew what may come.And here it is REALITY,you like it? get used to it because it gets much worse.
Difference between Obama and Busch, is that Busch was not smart enough to where Erkle's suspenders. And your boy Bush authored the book dummies for president.
Don't agree, but commend you on all the edgy words. Bush has been out of the loop since the election. The financial strategy we are conducting is O's, at least since early Jan. The market has don't nothing but dive. I'm not saying more time is in order, nor am I saying he didn't inherit a mess. What I am saying is is policies make no sense. Raising taxes, huge spending increses, earmarks as never before, tackel all problems at the same time, bail out bank after bank with no end in sight, buy off the teacher unions, the list goes on. The markeys continue to slide and all we do is argue about who is responsible. Hey, we're looking at 5000 next week. What do you say we borrow another trillion from China?
Post a Comment