Referendum on Obama policy

[iNow]

It was funny to me because it was aired a day before Jackson33s post, and was so clearly a response to the story right now being crafted by conservative and Fox news channels across the web.

 

Either way, do you think that the Dow going down when Reagan took office was also a referendum on his poilicies, or when Truman announced victory in Europe and it went down that day, too? Referendum on Truman, was that? Reagans policies being rejected by investors, were they?

 

What about when the DOW went up after the Titanic sank?

 

 

Seriously, though... policy announcements causing waves? Yes. Obama alone being responsible for the downward trend in the market (which is EXACTLY what J33 is implying)? Laughable, at best.

[ParanoiA]

So we agree then. Cool.

[jackson33]

It was funny to me because it was aired a day before Jackson33s post, and was so clearly a response to the story right now being crafted by conservative and Fox news channels across the web.

 

Either way, do you think that the Dow going down when Reagan took office was also a referendum on his policies, or when Truman announced victory in Europe and it went down that day, too? Referendum on Truman, was that? Reagan's policies being rejected by investors, were they?

 

What about when the DOW went up after the Titanic sank?

 

 

Seriously, though... policy announcements causing waves? Yes. Obama alone being responsible for the downward trend in the market (which is EXACTLY what J33 is implying)? Laughable, at best.

 

Where have I said it was Obama the person....Obama policy since shortly after election day has worried the business community IMO and a great deal of others. The idea is not mine, or in fact FNC. Economist have been projecting results if policy was enacted as presented from the start of campaigning, increasing to after the election and now to the policy itself.

 

Again, markets in general reflect what is expected from 6 months to a year in advance. Daily accounts are meaningless and your analogy to the Titanic, Victory Day or more currently quarterly reports are called trading on the news, when a peak is perceived again for a period of time out.

 

Trends; Get your facts in order...The DOW was 875 1/1/1980 when Reagan began running for President, was 962 when elected Nov. 1980 and by March Th 1981 was 1004. On 1/1/ 2008 the DOW was 12266, on election day 2008, 8829 and currently 6627. Both Reagan and Obama had distressed economies to deal with. In fact Reagan with extreme figures to deal with, offered a message quite different from Obama.

 

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?PT=8&compsyms=&CA=1&D4=1&DD=1&D5=0&DCS=2&MA0=0&MA1=0&CP=1&C5=1&C5D=1&C6=1980&C7=3&C7D=6&C8=2009&C9=2&CF=1&DB=1&DC=1&D7=&D6=&showchartbt=Redraw+chart&symbol=%24INDU&nocookie=1&SZ=0

[iNow]

Economist have been projecting results if policy was enacted as presented from the start of campaigning, increasing to after the election and now to the policy itself.

Which economists have been projecting this result from this action? When did they do so? Share some links so we can see the context of these supposed comments from these supposed economists. Shouldn't be too, hard to find. After all, you chose to base your entire argument on them.

 

 

Both Reagan and Obama had distressed economies to deal with.

This is the first coherent sentence you've typed with which I agree fully.

[jackson33]

Which economists have been projecting this result from this action? When did they do so? Share some links so we can see the context of these supposed comments from these supposed economists. Shouldn't be too, hard to find. After all, you chose to base your entire argument on them.

 

You know I don't like references or sites to confirm an opinion. I can find thousands of articles confirming my opinion or my opponents in a debate the same number of opposing viewpoints. I consider my own viewpoints based on my understanding of multiply readings, as I do yours.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article5733858.ece

 

I offer this one, but can supply any number, from either economist or more applicable market analyst dating back to the first mentioned 'Obama Policy' or if you like his voting record in the Illinois Congress. The man is simply a Socialist, with some vendetta against 'Traditional American Values', above all the the 'Capitalist/Free Market' principles that made this Country what I consider the greatest Nation ever to exist on this planet...

[iNow]

You explicity stated that economists have been predicting this since "the start of campaigning." The article you shared is from 2 weeks ago. Got anything that actually substantiates what you say, or are you going to hide behind the "I don't like sharing evidence for what I say" position?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Obama policy since shortly after election day has worried the business community IMO and a great deal of others. The idea is not mine, or in fact FNC. Economist have been projecting results if policy was enacted as presented from the start of campaigning, increasing to after the election and now to the policy itself.

Well, I suppose that's one hypothesis. Here's another.

 

The current downward trend is indicative of years of failures catching up to us, and not specifically a "referendum on Obama policy." I posit that it's not the policies themselves causing the markets to continue downward, but the concern in the business community that Washington DC lacks the political will to actually go FAR ENOUGH to do what it takes to pull us out of the proverbial nose dive in which we currently find ourselves.

 

The idea here is that we have so many people advocating Hoover-esque ideologies, suggesting that we must cut spending and take efforts immediately to decrease our deficits, all in the face of the fact that we're losing jobs at an ever increasing rate and the banks aren't lending to small business. The true concern here is not on what has been done during the short 7 weeks in which Obama has been in office, but that the legislatures will be paralyzed and won't be able to push through legislation which actually has a decent chance of doing enough. Most leaders who know their elbows from their bung holes recognize that our recent stimulus is too small, and are simply waiting to see how long it will be before we need to reach back in for more.

 

THAT, sir... is why the markets continue to stall. The business community still doesn't know where the bottom will be, and they lack confidence that our elected officials will have the testicular fortitude and strong enough spines to step forward and do what is necessary... to do ENOUGH to stop the tail spin and stop settling on half measures.

 

 

I don't disagree that there is an effect from Obama's policies on short-term market performance, nor do I feel that he is sending a consistent enough message to the business community right now to help them get visibility into our future economic state. Those are clearly issues worthy of recognition. However, to posit that the current crisis is fed from Obamas policies alone is quite silly, and you know it. This has been building for a very long time, even more than just the "past 8 years," and one of the biggest contributors to our continuing decline is the concern in the market that the government won't do enough... that they will cower to the ideological pressures drumming around them and do too little, essentially delaying a correction in the system even longer.

Edited March 8, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mokele]

he man is simply a Socialist, with some vendetta against 'Traditional American Values', above all the the 'Capitalist/Free Market' principles that made this Country what I consider the greatest Nation ever to exist on this planet...

 

Oh, for the love of all that is holy, give it a freaking *REST*!

 

Your precious "Free Market" failed. Read a damn history book. The regulations we have in place now were specifically implemented to fix the FAILURES of your vaunted 'free market'.

 

We tried a free market, and it got us monopolistic robber-barons, child labor, unsafe working conditions, the *murder* of those who attempted to unionize, fraudulent or even lethally dangerous products, a sky that the sun couldn't shine through, and a population which could work 80 hours a week and still barely put food on the table.

 

We *had* a free market, and it showed us that businessmen will rapidly become murderous, corrupt plutocrats who will happily drag us back to the feudal system.

 

Go on, you and every other conservative/libertarian can keep humping the corpse of the 'free market'. Those of us who've actually learned from history will be busy trying to make a system that *works*.

[jackson33]

Mokele; I am not going to apologize for being a Free Market Capitalist, or giving credit to this system I have enjoyed in my lifetime. In fact on the very lowest levels, I practiced the principles, owning, operating a good many and in different fields. I have watched government get involved since the late 50's, recall stories from my Dad who ran a couple GM plants and my Grandfather who worked for RJ Reynolds and grew tobacco dating back to the turn of the centuries. As both of them and my contemporaries, we joined the service and rarely questioned government decisions.

 

I just wrote a post to Dudde on another thread, admitting your generation has a distinct view opposite mine, feel it's incorrect, but the many generations that have preceded your have maintained you right to voice what you please. My concerns are for the Nation itself, not so much what you or any one person thinks and for what they will lose, if in any way I am correct on my assessments of Obama, Socialism or the trend in the US Federal Government and from BOTH current major political parties.

 

In response to iNow as well;, Many items in the 'Stimulus Bill' the SCHIP's Program proposed actions in the near future and the $3.7 Trillion Budget are signs of increased Federal Governments involvement in your daily life or the loss of State Rights in the process. If Government was some sort of realistic remedy for any problem, operated under some understandable efficiency or had the interest of all people in mind, why are their today any poor people, any pregnant teenagers, drug addicts, uneducated graduates at any level or in fact one person living on the street. Federal Government has always been it's own worst enemy, tangled in bureaucratic red tape, incapable of moving in one direction and the last place social issues concerning the hundreds of social/domestic problems which effect each person in a different ways and where no conceivable solution fits all concerned, changing only the order of who are the self perceived disenfranchised...

[Mokele]

Mokele; I am not going to apologize for being a Free Market Capitalist, or giving credit to this system I have enjoyed in my lifetime.

 

No, you didn't. You never lived under Free Market capitalism, nor did your father or grandfather. How do I know? Did they have "weekends"? Congrats, those are a product of unions. Did they have anything even remotely like workplace safety laws? Government. Child labor laws? Government. Were there laws that companies couldn't knowingly market dangerous products without any warning? Government.

 

I find the reference to your grandfather growing tobacco especially ironic, since the tobacco companies' flagrantly dishonest attempts to conceal the lethal truth about their products rank as one of the top entries on the big list of "What's Wrong With A Free Market?".

 

We live in a mixed economy, and have since the 19th century, entirely due to the egregious failures of an unregulated market.

[Sisyphus]

 

We live in a mixed economy, and have since the 19th century, entirely due to the egregious failures of an unregulated market.

 

Actually, we didn't really have free markets even in the 19th century. We had various trade laws from the very beginning (like tariffs), although not really any consumer protection or labor laws.

[jackson33]

No, you didn't. You never lived under Free Market capitalism, nor did your father or grandfather. How do I know? Did they have "weekends"? Congrats, those are a product of unions. Did they have anything even remotely like workplace safety laws? Government. Child labor laws? Government. Were there laws that companies couldn't knowingly market dangerous products without any warning? Government.

 

I find the reference to your grandfather growing tobacco especially ironic, since the tobacco companies' flagrantly dishonest attempts to conceal the lethal truth about their products rank as one of the top entries on the big list of "What's Wrong With A Free Market?".

 

We live in a mixed economy, and have since the 19th century, entirely due to the egregious failures of an unregulated market.

 

Actually, none of us had free week-ends...They and I were on 24/7 call and frankly from about 1949 to 2003, I worked at least 99% of them. As a child it was the only time I could get any hours in (work) and the obvious as management.

 

Child Labor; The 1926 Child Labor Amendment to the US Constitution and often referred to, was never ratified (currently 28 States have). However most States have enacted law...

 

http://www.law.emory.edu/law-library/research/ready-reference/us-federal-law-and-documents/historical-documents-constitution-of-the-united-states/amendments-never-ratified.html

 

My arguments are the trending of government; I suggest until the early 20th Century regulations were minimal, increasing slowly until the mid-60's and now under full blown assault on the very principles that gave individuals the potential to actually achieve. Aside from this, have you considered efforts by Corporations or small business which employs 70% of the workforce, today is subject to public opinion when offering a product or service. Wasn't it Henry Ford (1903) who paid workers a wage that allowed them to purchase the vehicles they produced or agreements by any number of small operation with workforces of 2 to 100, rarely covered that have managed to keep them operational, even today.

 

Well Granddad, sold the products as well, not only grew the raw material. He paid the consequences however, his mother in law (born 1848) and wife, consuming all that second hand smoke for most his 78 years (life expectancy in the 60's was 65) lived to 103 and 105, but the ML also smoked cigars and drank a daily shot or two on the day she died at 105. Me, well after smoking 60 years, looks like I'll go out having suffered to much sunlight...The issue to me is just another invasion of public opinion (something to blame for an inevitability), picked up by government (for taxing) and the control over human behavior, not to mentions to many trial lawers...Another thread maybe...

[Pangloss]

My arguments are the trending of government

 

And it's a reasonable concern. One of the reasons we're going to AVOID sliding into socialism is because we're still listening to the voices from fiscal conservatives and taking them into consideration. With the exception of only a handful of politicians (like my favorite pincushion Maxine Waters), most of them are openly stating that they understand that these moves are dangerous, bring us further into debt, and must be balanced out at the end of the day.

 

Whether or not that actually happens is another question -- the track record is abysmal. But we'll just have to wait and see, because the reasons for taking these actions are logical and well-considered.

[ecoli]

Your precious "Free Market" failed. Read a damn history book. The regulations we have in place now were specifically implemented to fix the FAILURES of your vaunted 'free market'.

 

There are plenty of history books written from the free market perspective.

 

One of the most annoying (and obviously incorrect claims) I hear coming from you (and I mean no disrespect - its a common misconception) is confusing capatilism for mercantilism.

 

Most of the exploitations that people accuse 'capitilism' of being is, in reality, the cronyism from government-industrial complex produced by mercantilism.

 

Go on, you and every other conservative/libertarian can keep humping the corpse of the 'free market'. Those of us who've actually learned from history will be busy trying to make a system that *works*.

Yeah... our mixed economy worked really well at NOT producing a housing bubble and credit crunch.

 

And PS - the necrophilia imagery was unnecessary. ew.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yeah... the part about CNBC being accurate had me laughing heartily.

 

yeah, but you know who really was (basically) right?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

[jackson33]

And it's a reasonable concern. One of the reasons we're going to AVOID sliding into socialism is because we're still listening to the voices from fiscal conservatives and taking them into consideration. With the exception of only a handful of politicians (like my favorite pincushion Maxine Waters), most of them are openly stating that they understand that these moves are dangerous, bring us further into debt, and must be balanced out at the end of the day.

 

Whether or not that actually happens is another question -- the track record is abysmal. But we'll just have to wait and see, because the reasons for taking these actions are logical and well-considered.

 

Separating Fiscal and Social Conservatism are non negotiable. I would say, Religious Conservatism is, but meaningless in the US, where 50% on of either the first two are connected to the last.

 

Socialism is the ownership of part to the entire National Business structure and very much anti-American tradition. Again in the US, all State Constitutions and the Federal currently do NOT allow ownership of business or regulation beyond State/Federal National Interest. This is where the trouble will come from...the interpretation of National Security.

 

"Wait and see", is fine, until what you see has gone beyond the point of no return and not very far from what now is considered acceptable. The US by nature is based on State/Federal Rights with regards to Social Issues, which originally was 99% State rights for any meaningful legislation or enforcement.

 

If you have followed my points, our governments (State/Federal) have a combination of effects on Social/Fiscal policy, that should remain separate, you will see how close we are already to having NO CHOICE, but allowing the Federal to gain and maintain authority over an ever increasing number of social issues....

 

Cuba is the accepted 'most socialized' Society on the planet today and the US one of if not most democratic (understanding Union) Capitalist (non socialistic) Nations.

 

In Cuba tax rates on individuals range 10-50%, with a corporate tax rate of 30% on anything not already owned by their Federal. In the US, we have to consider both State/Federal Tax, in this cases not even counting the numerous secondary taxes. In the US Individuals are Taxed 15-51% and Corporations 35-45.3%, based on profits and/or adjusted gross incomes, many cases a person is involved with both. The only thing different, at this time, is ownership of some to all business by sector or what the Cuban or potentially the US Federal consider in the National Interest and my opinion we are closing in on many sectors (energy/certain manufacturing/utilities/anything seen as environmental, plus others as being in that perceived National Interest.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

 

As I have indicated, it is my hope is for the people of this Nation to enjoy what I and many generations of American's have, however conceived by todays youth, in the near and far future. What is being accepted by both Conservatives and/or liberals or any other group in the middle is being muddied by personal interest and a lack of understanding of how we have achieved the near impossible from the Nations founding...

[Pangloss]

The problem, of course, being that you have no idea what the "point of no return" may be. Your opinion is as modified by your ideology as everyone else's here, so I think you know that nobody's taking your posts as objective evidence. Economics is an inexact science.

 

I don't know what you mean by "Separating Fiscal and Social Conservatism are non negotiable." If you mean "can't be done", that seems quite silly. You don't get to determine other people's ideologies.

 

Also you should consider stopping your equating of governmental systems with economic ones. We've known for many years now that the two are not the same.

[jackson33]

IMO; Any person who claims 'Fiscal Responsibility Policy', then proclaims a liberal social agenda, cannot be a conservative. Case in hand would be Mr. Obama, with Mr. Bush 43 not far behind.

 

I don't have the time to explain 'incremental application' and feel you already understand the process. From SS to Welfare and the Accessible Housing Policy of today, or the dozens of issues started by the Federal for some noble or feel good reason or some temporary relief, the programs have continuously expanded, in nearly ALL cases.

 

Socialism, is the intrusion of government into the economical system, whether business itself or in the interest of something else. State Government have always had the choice to control business with in their State. Today we have executive orders and Congressional Mandates, with an occasional activist judge over riding the intend of the founders for State Rights.

 

Having shown the relationship between Cuba or any other Country to that of the US Taxing System (Federal/State) and the high percentages, not including local, sales, gas, or the many secondary taxes, it doesn't take much imagination to determine where that point of no return lays. I am NOT predicting an end to the Country, but an end to what made it great, IMO is in sight...

[iNow]

Do you always rely on calls to nationalism to make a point? Why not stick to the facts? Do you realize how arrogant and single-minded you appear when you make comments like "we're the greatest nation on earth," especially when the membership here is international? Those calls to nationalistic pride are part of what's wrong with our system. We focus too much on emotion and not enough on reason.

[jackson33]

Do you always rely on calls to nationalism to make a point? Why not stick to the facts? Do you realize how arrogant and single-minded you appear when you make comments like "we're the greatest nation on earth," especially when the membership here is international? Those calls to nationalistic pride are part of what's wrong with our system. We focus too much on emotion and not enough on reason.

 

In all honesty, I have never heard a Texan make such a comment. I have been asked by some folks from other Countries and have a standard reply, basically I would expect no less from her/him in regards to their country, nor would I condemn their opinions. I have also written a good many post of admirations for other society, including India, China, Europe itself and in particular the 'British Empire', in their periods of greatness, based on what was when the greatest...

 

Assessment of History is based on times it has occurred in. The US from it's founding to at least the 1990's, was a leading force in bringing the World out of the mid evil period of ideology, an idea of tolerance, freedoms to mankind, a sense of personal participation in governing, achievement for just a few examples. Most every person in this Nation has a direct relation to some other Nation, many in their 1st to 3rd generation back, and I would bet not many, if any would deny our system offers more potential than they expected, thought possible or in many cases actually experienced.

 

Millions seek refuse from tyranny or the opportunity to visit, study in, migrate or in some manner learn the culture. Just as many do it illegally, knowing it may be short lived but never in fear of danger. Most these and million more in my opinion that have been here many generation, ARE proud American's and would gladly admit it to any other person.

 

It's the pride I see in others, especially from the past when the US has assisted others in time of war, need or distress and the continuous flow of American's traveling around the world helping other society in the name of their country. My cry for Nationalism, as you put it, is done with the desire my kids and yours will experience no less of that pride and NO I don't thinks it's excessive, but lacking in the ones that should be showing it the most...

[Mokele]

IMO; Any person who claims 'Fiscal Responsibility Policy', then proclaims a liberal social agenda, cannot be a conservative.

 

What the hell are you gibbering about? What do issues like abortion, stem cells, and gay marriage have to do with economics?

 

Seriously, if you try to define other people's terms to mean things that strengthen your arguments again, you're getting a strawman warning.

[waitforufo]

Regardless of how we got here, investors are not willing to risk their money on the American economy. This should be of great concern to everyone but of particular importance to the President of the United States. Investors don't care about how we got here. How we got here is a sunk cost. The person responsible for getting us out if this mess is the President. If he does not succeed, he will be remembered for his lack of success. His predecessor will only be a footnote in describing his failure to succeed. This is as it should be. He asked for the job.

[bascule]

The person responsible for getting us out if this mess is the President. If he does not succeed, he will be remembered for his lack of success. His predecessor will only be a footnote in describing his failure to succeed.

 

While I agree with your former point, I don't agree with the latter. If Obama doesn't get us out of this mess he will be remembered for his lack of success. However, Bush will certainly be remembered as the guy in charge when the financial crisis began and the Dow took its multi-thousand point plunge.

[waitforufo]

While I agree with your former point, I don't agree with the latter. If Obama doesn't get us out of this mess he will be remembered for his lack of success. However, Bush will certainly be remembered as the guy in charge when the financial crisis began and the Dow took its multi-thousand point plunge.

 

Okay, Bush is the orgin of all things bad.

 

Is Obama the orgin of anything good? Right now wall street doesn't think so. Perhaps his plans will gain traction with time but investors are currently betting against him. He doesn't seem as concerned about this as he is about Rush Limbaugh.

[bascule]

Bush will certainly be remembered as the guy in charge when the financial crisis began and the Dow took its multi-thousand point plunge.

 

Okay, Bush is the orgin of all things bad.

 

[Pangloss]

Nice pic.

[jackson33]

What the hell are you gibbering about? What do issues like abortion, stem cells, and gay marriage have to do with economics?

 

Seriously, if you try to define other people's terms to mean things that strengthen your arguments again, you're getting a strawman warning.

 

A 'Fiscal Conservative' believes today in an operation of government with the idea of smaller government, less taxes, less regulation, more efficient and under the limits of the Constitution. Liberal Agenda is defined as involvement in as many aspects of human behavior under Federal Control. Health Care, Welfare, SS and so on...IMO, you cannot be a Fiscal Conservative and simultaneously support a Liberal Agenda.

 

On your abortion, stem cells and GM issues, these are opposed by Religious conservatives, which I have said are 'unfortunately connected'. The reality however, is it's the Liberal Blocks (Latino/Black) that in recent times have blocked these issues, or where acceptance has been slow...Religious viewpoints are not bound to Conservative or Liberal operation of Government...

 

I DO NOT consider Pangloss an advocate for liberalism or disagree with most any of his post. I believe my explanation will be plausible to him, with in the context offered and stand by these views...