http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html

I've heard a lot of people on this board, Republican and Democrat, tell us that the economy is cyclical, the President can't do much about it, Clinton wasn't responsible for the 90's heyday times, Bush wasn't responsible for the recession during his term, etc.

 

So... which is it?

 

I will reply to this for the rest of the filibusterites - as I said, it's not personal, I said that in my post. I'm honestly just tired. A lot of that probably has to do with what all is going on in my life. I may disagree with people here, but as you said, I would always welcome them around me (I'd certainly buy a beer, hang out, whatever - when I get a job, that is... hehe) because I know they do care about what goes on in our country, and our baseball team.

 

*cough*

I've heard a lot of people on this board, Republican and Democrat, tell us that the economy is cyclical, the President can't do much about it, Clinton wasn't responsible for the 90's heyday times, Bush wasn't responsible for the recession during his term, etc.

 

So... which is it?

That's easy. If you're party is in office it's a cyclical thing when times are bad. It's the President's fault when your party lost and the economy is down. That's how a majority of people feel regardless of which party they're affiliated with.

It's really kind of a stretch to say the falling oil prices have had the effect of a major tax cut. That is based on the assumption that the sudden spike and historic high of prices in 2008 wasn't hurting people.

I've heard a lot of people on this board, Republican and Democrat, tell us that the economy is cyclical, the President can't do much about it, Clinton wasn't responsible for the 90's heyday times, Bush wasn't responsible for the recession during his term, etc.

 

So... which is it?

 

Its both, because its not as narrow as you (and others) are making it out to be.

 

Bush wasn't responsible for the first recession, as well as Obama isn't responsible for this one.

 

Now the recovery is a different story, and this is exactly what the article is talking about. In general, the Presidents don't have a lot of effect on day to day economy. BUT when they go out of their way to craft a trillion dollar law that does fundamentally change the way business is done in the country then they do, by definition, have a very large effect on things. W passed a very large package which affected the economy. If he had stayed out of it and let the Federal Reserve do its thing, he wouldn't be a part of the solution or responsibility. Obama is doing the same thing today. What big action did Bill Clinton take that changed things?

 

Its pretty easy to go back and apply individual looks at each situation and understand what the Presidents' did or didn't do to be, or not be, responsible for what happened under their respective watches.

Its both, because its not as narrow as you (and others) are making it out to be.

 

Bush wasn't responsible for the first recession, as well as Obama isn't responsible for this one.

 

Now the recovery is a different story, and this is exactly what the article is talking about. In general, the Presidents don't have a lot of effect on day to day economy. BUT when they go out of their way to craft a trillion dollar law that does fundamentally change the way business is done in the country then they do, by definition, have a very large effect on things. W passed a very large package which affected the economy. If he had stayed out of it and let the Federal Reserve do its thing, he wouldn't be a part of the solution or responsibility. Obama is doing the same thing today. What big action did Bill Clinton take that changed things?

 

Its pretty easy to go back and apply individual looks at each situation and understand what the Presidents' did or didn't do to be, or not be, responsible for what happened under their respective watches.

I agree with some of the individual points made in the article. I do think the system needs to work through some things naturally. However, the overall implication that Obama "is running out of people to blame", or the idea that we can now say for sure that some of these things are failures, are incorrect and way too early IMO.

 

I agree with some of the individual points made in the article. I do think the system needs to work through some things naturally. However, the overall implication that Obama "is running out of people to blame", or the idea that we can now say for sure that some of these things are failures, are incorrect and way too early IMO.

 

That's the funny thing about market mentality. Common sense can tell you one thing, but mob mentality ends up being right in the end. If the system doesn't believe, it is probably going to be a failure. The author is probably getting ahead of himself in already declaring failure, but I understand where he is going.

I agree with some of the individual points made in the article. I do think the system needs to work through some things naturally. However, the overall implication that Obama "is running out of people to blame", or the idea that we can now say for sure that some of these things are failures, are incorrect and way too early IMO.

 

How many of his policies have even taken effect yet?

That's the funny thing about market mentality. Common sense can tell you one thing, but mob mentality ends up being right in the end. If the system doesn't believe, it is probably going to be a failure. The author is probably getting ahead of himself in already declaring failure, but I understand where he is going.

Sometimes its right in the end, not always.

 

I don't like that we spent as much money as we did on this "stimulus", and I don't like how it was done. I liked TARP even less, even though we did need to do something to soften the fall a bit for some banks.

 

I just think that this stuff is all very, very complex in its effect, in so many ways. So I love discussing individual elements of it, but, I just can't see coming to an overall judgement of Obama's economic plans yet.

 

Why is confidence important? Because without confidence you keep having highly respected people in the trading realm telling people not to invest anymore.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/200...-darkest-moment

 

Cramer on Obama: 'It's Amateur Hour at Our Darkest Moment'

Photo of Jeff Poor.

By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)

March 3, 2009 - 10:23 ET

 

It was news media conventional wisdom during the 2008 presidential campaign: the worse the economy, the better it was for Democrat candidate prospects. But now that they have the legislative and executive branches and the burden of actually governing, that advantage is slowly being chipped away.

 

CNBC "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer, who first starting connecting that perhaps a Democrat-controlled federal government might not be the best thing for the United States earlier this year, gave something of a downbeat rant on Feb. 2 about Obama's handling of the economy so far.

 

"Until the Obama administration starts listening, until they start paying attention to what you're watching - to the stock market, until they realize that their agenda is destroying the life savings of millions of Americans - then all I can give you is caution," Cramer said on his March 2 broadcast.

 

Since Obama took office on Jan. 20, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) has lost over 1,000 points, including a nearly 400-point drop on Feb. 10 after a disappointing speech by Obama's Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on sorting out troubled assets. Cramer pleaded with the administration to take note of the possibility it might have something to do with that.

 

"I'm not asking for the Feds to give us a plunge protection team, to stop declines - as we always thought to be the case under Greenspan," he continued. "I'm not saying, ‘Mr. President, stare at the Bloomberg quote machine and come to your senses. I just want some sign that Obama realizes the market is totally falling apart and his agenda has a big hand in that happening."

 

Cramer was highly critical of the Obama administration for not catching on thus far. He questioned the merits of their abilities to contain the market turmoil and wondered if they were even bothered by it.

 

"I thought the prices, the screen, the action, the sense of a vortex down that cannot be stopped, of equities becoming worthless, of savings becoming tattered, of a stock market without bottom," Cramer said. "But this time in slow motion, I felt the total lack of control that we all feel right now - the ‘it's out of my hands,' the ‘where's the authority,' the, ‘Hey, it's amateur hour at our darkest moment.' It's the feeling of capitalism vanishing, businesses capsizing under their own weight - thanks to an administration that doesn't seem to know or maybe doesn't care."

 

The "Mad Money" host observed that the "change" mantra that Obama campaigned on was actually coming to fruition, but he said it was coming to the detriment of the American economy.

"Hey - I get it," Cramer said. "Young president, big landslide, vigorous agenda, Congress that smells Republican blood - might find changing the world simply irresistible. We all want to change the world. I know I'd like to change the world, but when you talk about wealth destruction, don't you know that you can count me out?"

Why is confidence important? Because without confidence you keep having highly respected people in the trading realm telling people not to invest anymore.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/200...-darkest-moment

Oh, and you shouldn't sell Bear Stearns stock. There's no problem with Bear.

Why is confidence important? Because without confidence you keep having highly respected people in the trading realm telling people not to invest anymore.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/200...-darkest-moment

 

And their response is that they aren't interested in what the stock market is telling them...

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama is comparing the stock market to the daily tracking polls used during campaigns, saying that paying too close attention to Wall Street's "fits and starts" could lead to bad long-term policy.

 

Obama spoke to reporters Tuesday after meeting in the Oval Office with visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Obama said he is not measuring policies against "the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market," but by whether lending is flowing more freely, businesses are investing and the unemployed are going back to work.

 

He said he is "absolutely confident" that those things will happen. But the president also said it will take time for the mistakes of the past to work their way through the system.

We aren't really calling Jim Cramer "respected" are we?

 

We aren't really calling Jim Cramer "respected" are we?

 

Look at his ratings and tell me exactly how "respected" he is. Whether you like him or not, a LOT of people follow the guy and heed his advice. If you'd rather I could big up Warren Buffet's statement to his Berkshire shareholder instead.

Look at his ratings and tell me exactly how "respected" he is. Whether you like him or not, a LOT of people follow the guy and heed his advice. If you'd rather I could big up Warren Buffet's statement to his Berkshire shareholder instead.

 

to be honest, yeah, it just kind of reinforces that people SHOULD follow jim cramer because he screams and blows whistles and gives out bad info.

 

I'd find WB's much more interesting.

to be honest, yeah, it just kind of reinforces that people SHOULD follow jim cramer because he screams and blows whistles and gives out bad info.

 

I'd find WB's much more interesting.

 

There is no doubt that Buffett runs circles around Cramer. Personally I can't stand the theatrics, and I can't sit through an episode of his because of it. But you really can't deny the guy's following. Anyway, here is the BRK letter.

 

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2008ltr.pdf

I've said before I disagree with Obama raising taxes on dividends and capital gains, and I disagree with other tactics he is proposing that will effect the markets.

 

But, I have to say, I am starting to get the impression that a lot of big time financial market players (and small time ones) are deciding to revolt against these policies they don't like for selfish reasons. Unlike the futures markets, the stock markets aren't tied enough to real value to be held as quick to true valuation. The ratios and value numbers are just way, way under what the should be. I think we are seeing something I have said for a while was rare, beginning to appear in the equities markets - human bias having such a large factor as to put the markets far, far out of whack with fundamental financial reality.

 

I think the next couple months will be ugly, we're going down a bunch more probably, and its not for any good reason anymore. We've gone past that. Fortunately, I think that eventually, the masses are going to key into this, it will be reported enough, and the markets will suddenly correct themselves in a big way. They'll say it is because of the first hints of recovery showing up, which will be partially true, but it will also be that they are covering their own asses for what they have created.

 

I've said before I disagree with Obama raising taxes on dividends and capital gains, and I disagree with other tactics he is proposing that will effect the markets.

 

But, I have to say, I am starting to get the impression that a lot of big time financial market players (and small time ones) are deciding to revolt against these policies they don't like for selfish reasons. Unlike the futures markets, the stock markets aren't tied enough to real value to be held as quick to true valuation. The ratios and value numbers are just way, way under what the should be. I think we are seeing something I have said for a while was rare, beginning to appear in the equities markets - human bias having such a large factor as to put the markets far, far out of whack with fundamental financial reality.

 

I think the next couple months will be ugly, we're going down a bunch more probably, and its not for any good reason anymore. We've gone past that. Fortunately, I think that eventually, the masses are going to key into this, it will be reported enough, and the markets will suddenly correct themselves in a big way. They'll say it is because of the first hints of recovery showing up, which will be partially true, but it will also be that they are covering their own asses for what they have created.

 

I have a sinking feeling 2009 is going to be a disaster. Not only the stock market, but unemployment is going to go up substantially.

 

I have a sinking feeling 2009 is going to be a disaster. Not only the stock market, but unemployment is going to go up substantially.

Really? What gave it away? We were so hoping to keep it a surprise.

I have a sinking feeling 2009 is going to be a disaster. Not only the stock market, but unemployment is going to go up substantially.

I think you are right, though I think the equity markets, and commodities as well, will go up noticeably sometime in the 2nd half of the year. Unemployment, though, is a trailing indicator, and will continue to dive, probably. Will be an ugly mess.

 

Really? What gave it away? We were so hoping to keep it a surprise.

 

DISASTER

 

i have no hope, but some change (in the cup holder thing in my car)

 

DISASTER

 

i have no hope, but some change (in the cup holder thing in my car)

LOL, I liked this post.

 

I have a sinking feeling 2009 is going to be a disaster. Not only the stock market, but unemployment is going to go up substantially.

 

 

We will sell off dramatically within 14 days..

We will sell off dramatically within 14 days..

What happens March 17th?

 

(Not that I'm going to disagree with you. I think we're still looking at a bottom in the 6000 area for the DJIA unless earnings fall off even more, and we've got terrible Feb. job numbers coming in about a week or so, just wondering why you picked 14 days)

What happens March 17th?

 

(Not that I'm going to disagree with you. I think we're still looking at a bottom in the 6000 area for the DJIA unless earnings fall off even more, and we've got terrible Feb. job numbers coming in about a week or so, just wondering why you picked 14 days)

 

 

Technical reasons. Mar 11th squares out with the Sept 2008 decline in stocks, which was 7 years in time from 9/11. Also, there is a full moon on Mar. 8th.

 

 

Actually I should have said Mar.11th not 14 days.