Dow gains 120 points, Republicans blame Obama

[Xenophon]

All of this tells me they didn't need to waste all that money on a 'stimulous' which according to the dems doesn't kick in till next year.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Uh, no. You have an excuse for posting the same old garbage over and over again because you live in Canada, but you really should stop it because it just makes you look stupid.

Here's the way it is. In the United States, the market has done worse under the Democrats. That is a fact. The reason why you want to limit the data to 20-25 years is because there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and older data is simply not valid. It is obvious by your posts that you want the Democrats to look better than the Republicans when it comes to the economy, but the data doesn't show that.

Again, I can understand your position because you live in a country that approves of such things as Keynesian economics and Nationalized everything and you sincerely want to believe that Canada has it 'right', but you are simply wrong. And before you use the excuse again that I am some kind of Bush-loving Republican, note yet again that I am neither. Your ways are those of the idealogue. You have become what you hate the most.

This is one of the dumbest posts I have seen in a while from a poster not named "PubliusInfinitum." It demonstrates, yet again, that people should not listen to ideologues because ideologues will continue to believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the facts. They will twist whatever data they see to fit their worldview because they can't bare to face the facts that their cherished beliefs just might be wrong.

Stocks have done better under Democrat Presidents than Republican Presidents, and under Democrat Congresses than under Republican Congresses. Stick your head up your ass as far as you want, but that doesn't change the facts. I'll take my data from a reputable firm such as Ned Davis Research than an ideologue with a political axe to grind.

I couldn't give a damn about Republicans or Democrats. If it comes across that I support the Democrats more than the Republicans that is only because Republicans here post more stupid shit than Democrats, like this post above.

And I don't hate anybody.

So what Toro wants is for people to disregard her ideologue deceptions... Which is fair enough for me...

The fact is that whether working under the rubric of "Republican" or "Democrat" any policy which discourages the freedom (Leftist Policy) causes the equity markets to contract and policy which reflects American principle encourages the growth in equity markets... PERIOD.

Toro is a leftist, who prides herself on being half-right and half wrong at all times... this on the erroneous premise that 'no one can be right all the time'... Naturally such a premise is half wrong all the time, so she finds great pride in her .500 average.

All Capital markets will expand under periods where the immutable rights of humanity are recognized and defended and they will recede when those rights and the responsibilities inherent in those rights are ignored.

The current economic crisis is 100% a function of those rights and responsibilities being ignored... as is the case in every instance of such crises.

It's no more complex than that... the problem is that despite the simplicity of these circumstances, such falls well beyond the means of the average leftist intellect to comprehend... which provides yet another example of why leftists should never be allowe within 10 miles of a voting booth; they simply lack the intellectual means to understand the principles at play.

Nothing new here... I mean Toro is apparently a CANADIAN, she isn't even a US Citizen, let alone an AMERICAN! So who gives a fuck what this piece of shit feels about anything?

Is there ANYTHING more useless than the ignorant based opinion of a CANADIAN?

ROFL... Get serious... they're CHILDREN, for God's sake... There are no adults in a socialist society... and onyl fools give two shits about what children 'feel'...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Capitalism is the natural order of economics... it cannot be destroyed, thus attempts to 'save capitalism' are fool's errands.

When you understand simple concepts such as "production" and "consumption" we might listen to you opine about economics. Otherwise, there is no point.

ROFLMNAO... So what Toro is saying is she wants to respond to the referenced assertion, but she is simply unable to do so...; as she has learned, that to engage an American is to LOSE! Thus she trots out these addle-minded, irrelevances... in hopes of changing the subject. But that's a Canadian for ya...

The fact remains that Capitalism is the natural order and cannot be destroyed... PERIOD!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The dow has stayed over 9,000 for a few weeks now as the steady stream of government defecit spending continues. This is good.

Now what happens to us when the interest from this defecit spending catches up to us as our deficit is 1.7 trillion dollars, a new record high and 3x where it was in July of 2008?

I can tell you what happens...1 of 2 things will have to happen.

1) Raise Taxes to pay the interest on the debt

2) Allow inflation so that you can increase tax revenues while keeping the tax rates the same.

Its very basic economics.

We should be taking all the money the banks are paying back and some of the money allocated for the stimulus and put it straight on our debt, especially debt owned by foreign nations.

I'm not trying to be a "downer" about this good news for the stock market, i'm just playing chess with the economy instead of checkers.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The dow has stayed over 9,000 for a few weeks now as the steady stream of government defecit spending continues. This is good.

Now what happens to us when the interest from this defecit spending catches up to us as our deficit is 1.7 trillion dollars, a new record high and 3x where it was in July of 2008?

I can tell you what happens...1 of 2 things will have to happen.

1) Raise Taxes to pay the interest on the debt

2) Allow inflation so that you can increase tax revenues while keeping the tax rates the same.

Its very basic economics.

We should be taking all the money the banks are paying back and some of the money allocated for the stimulus and put it straight on our debt, especially debt owned by foreign nations.

I'm not trying to be a "downer" about this good news for the stock market, i'm just playing chess with the economy instead of checkers.

Sadly, taxes can't be raised sufficiently to keep up with the interests on such absurd levels of debt.. as to do so would crush the possible levels of productivity and kill the economic potential... thus inflation will go hyper and it will soon cost $100 for a loaf of bread..

The US is certifiably doomed, as an economy... the only hope we have is that there remains sufficent levels of testosterone in the US for Nature to implement her time tested cure for such catastrophic cultural turns wherein the US culture goes to war to eliminate the Leftists among us and comes out on the other side, once again a free nation.

If not we'll be invaded by a nation with sufficient levels of such and become THEM!

 

[xsited1]

Uh, no. You have an excuse for posting the same old garbage over and over again because you live in Canada, but you really should stop it because it just makes you look stupid.

Here's the way it is. In the United States, the market has done worse under the Democrats. That is a fact. The reason why you want to limit the data to 20-25 years is because there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and older data is simply not valid. It is obvious by your posts that you want the Democrats to look better than the Republicans when it comes to the economy, but the data doesn't show that.

Again, I can understand your position because you live in a country that approves of such things as Keynesian economics and Nationalized everything and you sincerely want to believe that Canada has it 'right', but you are simply wrong. And before you use the excuse again that I am some kind of Bush-loving Republican, note yet again that I am neither. Your ways are those of the idealogue. You have become what you hate the most.

This is one of the dumbest posts I have seen in a while from a poster not named "PubliusInfinitum." It demonstrates, yet again, that people should not listen to ideologues because ideologues will continue to believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the facts. They will twist whatever data they see to fit their worldview because they can't bare to face the facts that their cherished beliefs just might be wrong.

Stocks have done better under Democrat Presidents than Republican Presidents, and under Democrat Congresses than under Republican Congresses. Stick your head up your ass as far as you want, but that doesn't change the facts. I'll take my data from a reputable firm such as Ned Davis Research than an ideologue with a political axe to grind.

I couldn't give a damn about Republicans or Democrats. If it comes across that I support the Democrats more than the Republicans that is only because Republicans here post more stupid shit than Democrats, like this post above.

And I don't hate anybody.

You obviously didn't read my post which proves that you're the idealogue. Sad.

Here's more data for you the chew on:

Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

And you call me a Republican? That reminds me of the time you disagreed with one of my posts and went off claiming that I was a Bush supporter which had absolutely nothing to do with the argument and I'm not even a Republican or have ever been a Bush supporter! Very sad indeed.

Now seriously, I forgive you for not understanding the data or understanding the political parties in the United States. That's fine. But don't act like you know what you're talking about because you don't. Unfortunately, you're just crawl back under your idealogical rock and believe whatever your masters tell you to believe.

Good day.

 

[david85282]

Damn robots.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Damn robots.

yeah... but they do the very BEST they can... GOD BLESS 'EM!...

LOL...
.
.
.
.
Leftists...

 

[Toro]

You obviously didn't read my post which proves that you're the idealogue. Sad.

Here's more data for you the chew on:

Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

And you call me a Republican? That reminds me of the time you disagreed with one of my posts and went off claiming that I was a Bush supporter which had absolutely nothing to do with the argument and I'm not even a Republican or have ever been a Bush supporter! Very sad indeed.

Now seriously, I forgive you for not understanding the data or understanding the political parties in the United States. That's fine. But don't act like you know what you're talking about because you don't. Unfortunately, you're just crawl back under your idealogical rock and believe whatever your masters tell you to believe.

Good day.

I read your post. And I read the Cato piece. You are data mining. You conveniently pull out data that suits your own argument. Ideologues do that.

Simple fact - stocks have done better under Democrats than Republicans. You can spin it all you want, but them's the facts.

 

[xsited1]

You obviously didn't read my post which proves that you're the idealogue. Sad.

Here's more data for you the chew on:

Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

And you call me a Republican? That reminds me of the time you disagreed with one of my posts and went off claiming that I was a Bush supporter which had absolutely nothing to do with the argument and I'm not even a Republican or have ever been a Bush supporter! Very sad indeed.

Now seriously, I forgive you for not understanding the data or understanding the political parties in the United States. That's fine. But don't act like you know what you're talking about because you don't. Unfortunately, you're just crawl back under your idealogical rock and believe whatever your masters tell you to believe.

Good day.

I read your post. And I read the Cato piece. You are data mining. You conveniently pull out data that suits your own argument. Ideologues do that.

Simple fact - stocks have done better under Democrats than Republicans. You can spin it all you want, but them's the facts.

Uh, no. Wrong again. You can insult me all you want, but it won't change the fact that what I have posted is correct. Again, I don't expect you to understand the fact that there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and you cannot simply group, say, Democrats of the 40s with those of the 90s. It just doesn't work that way. And the data is very clear for the past 25 years, but you are trying to throw extraneous data into the mix which clearly does not belong. Idealogues do that to prove a point. Again, you have become what you hate the most, but you will never see it. Idealogues never do.

Now please continue with your insults and calling me a Republican or a Bush supporter or whatever you want. It amuses me.

 

[Toro]

Uh, no. Wrong again. You can insult me all you want, but it won't change the fact that what I have posted is correct. Again, I don't expect you to understand the fact that there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and you cannot simply group, say, Democrats of the 40s with those of the 90s. It just doesn't work that way. And the data is very clear for the past 25 years, but you are trying to throw extraneous data into the mix which clearly does not belong. Idealogues do that to prove a point. Again, you have become what you hate the most, but you will never see it. Idealogues never do.

Now please continue with your insults and calling me a Republican or a Bush supporter or whatever you want. It amuses me.

Yes, like your "You are Canadian" line of reasoning! Yeah, that's real intelligent!

I am not making an argument about ideology. You are. I am merely stating facts and I am not passing any judgment on ideology or agenda on any political party at any time. I have merely shown that for as long as data has been collected - and I have the daily data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average going back to 1896 - that stocks have outperformed when Democrats are in charge.

You, on the other hand, are rationalizing political agendas. "Well, they really weren't Republicans back then like they are today!" Frankly, I don't care, but I do know that generally, Republicans are and have been pro-business while Democrats less so.

There are reasons why stocks have generally done better under Democrats, and those reasons aren't necessarily flattering to Democrats. But people in ideological straight-jackets are more concerned about getting into political pissing matches than actually learning things that can help them make money.

 

[DiveCon]

Uh, no. Wrong again. You can insult me all you want, but it won't change the fact that what I have posted is correct. Again, I don't expect you to understand the fact that there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and you cannot simply group, say, Democrats of the 40s with those of the 90s. It just doesn't work that way. And the data is very clear for the past 25 years, but you are trying to throw extraneous data into the mix which clearly does not belong. Idealogues do that to prove a point. Again, you have become what you hate the most, but you will never see it. Idealogues never do.

Now please continue with your insults and calling me a Republican or a Bush supporter or whatever you want. It amuses me.

Yes, like your "You are Canadian" line of reasoning! Yeah, that's real intelligent!

I am not making an argument about ideology. You are. I am merely stating facts and I am not passing any judgment on ideology or agenda on any political party at any time. I have merely shown that for as long as data has been collected - and I have the daily data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average going back to 1896 - that stocks have outperformed when Democrats are in charge.

You, on the other hand, are rationalizing political agendas. "Well, they really weren't Republicans back then like they are today!" Frankly, I don't care, but I do know that generally, Republicans are and have been pro-business while Democrats less so.

There are reasons why stocks have generally done better under Democrats, and those reasons aren't necessarily flattering to Democrats. But people in ideological straight-jackets are more concerned about getting into political pissing matches than actually learning things that can help them make money.

except they havent done better under dems when a dem was in the whitehouse as well
just like they did better when the GOP had congress and the dem had the whitehouse
when either party has full control they dont do well

 

[Toro]

except they havent done better under dems when a dem was in the whitehouse as well
just like they did better when the GOP had congress and the dem had the whitehouse
when either party has full control they dont do well

The best is when you have gridlock.

And the reason for this is probably because checks in Congress don't allow the other party to go over board and do too many stupid things.

It's one reason why I want the Republican party to be competitive.

 

[DiveCon]

except they havent done better under dems when a dem was in the whitehouse as well
just like they did better when the GOP had congress and the dem had the whitehouse
when either party has full control they dont do well

The best is when you have gridlock.

And the reason for this is probably because checks in Congress don't allow the other party to go over board and do too many stupid things.

It's one reason why I want the Republican party to be competitive.

and what we have right now is not that
and since it was by far better with the GOP in charge of congress(where control really is) and the Dem as POTUS, then we have to hope that the GOP can get its collective head out of its collective ass and get back control of at least the house

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You obviously didn't read my post which proves that you're the idealogue. Sad.

Here's more data for you the chew on:

Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

And you call me a Republican? That reminds me of the time you disagreed with one of my posts and went off claiming that I was a Bush supporter which had absolutely nothing to do with the argument and I'm not even a Republican or have ever been a Bush supporter! Very sad indeed.

Now seriously, I forgive you for not understanding the data or understanding the political parties in the United States. That's fine. But don't act like you know what you're talking about because you don't. Unfortunately, you're just crawl back under your idealogical rock and believe whatever your masters tell you to believe.

Good day.

I read your post. And I read the Cato piece. You are data mining. You conveniently pull out data that suits your own argument. Ideologues do that.

Simple fact - stocks have done better under Democrats than Republicans. You can spin it all you want, but them's the facts.

ROFLMNAO... now that's SWEET IRONY right there! A gal whose entire schtick is represented by posting GRAPHS accusses her opposition of mining data... A stat-liar... "mining data"...

ROFL... Oh GOD! That's precious...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Uh, no. Wrong again. You can insult me all you want, but it won't change the fact that what I have posted is correct. Again, I don't expect you to understand the fact that there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and you cannot simply group, say, Democrats of the 40s with those of the 90s. It just doesn't work that way. And the data is very clear for the past 25 years, but you are trying to throw extraneous data into the mix which clearly does not belong. Idealogues do that to prove a point. Again, you have become what you hate the most, but you will never see it. Idealogues never do.

Now please continue with your insults and calling me a Republican or a Bush supporter or whatever you want. It amuses me.

Yes, like your "You are Canadian" line of reasoning! Yeah, that's real intelligent!

I am not making an argument about ideology. You are. I am merely stating facts and I am not passing any judgment on ideology or agenda on any political party at any time. I have merely shown that for as long as data has been collected - and I have the daily data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average going back to 1896 - that stocks have outperformed when Democrats are in charge.

You, on the other hand, are rationalizing political agendas. "Well, they really weren't Republicans back then like they are today!" Frankly, I don't care, but I do know that generally, Republicans are and have been pro-business while Democrats less so.

There are reasons why stocks have generally done better under Democrats, and those reasons aren't necessarily flattering to Democrats. But people in ideological straight-jackets are more concerned about getting into political pissing matches than actually learning things that can help them make money.

Oh but you ARE making an ideological argument... as you always do. You're simply, as you always do, trying to conceal your ideological failure, through the tepid appearance of 'analyzing data.' Sadly for you, stoic analysis of data doesn't conceal your intent when your data consistantly props up a laughably discredited economic scheme.

Leftist economics CAN NOT SUCCEED in doing ANYTHING except discourage the growth of capital... and why is that? Because Leftist economics STEALS CAPITAL to fund productivity killing SUBSIDIES! Subsidies which the Leftist use to garner POWER. No Subsidies... No Leftist POWER! Leftist schemes discourage independence, thus they discourage initiative, which further discourages independence... Leftist schemes sets obstacles in front of entrepenuers, traps which make it far less likely for the INDIVIDUAL to step out of dependence and pursue the fulfillment of their lives... thus Leftist economics discourages, from the most basic level; that of the individual, to establish themselves as independent of the need of any subsidy... subsidies which are funded through the allianace with global corporations; which the leftist policies seek to sustain... as those corporations are the engine which drives the fascist 'social contract;' that which provides the funding for the aforementioned subsidies.

Thus where data is said to bolster the conclusion: 'Equity markets under Left control out perform equity markets under American control...' which is to say control by those who implement policy that cuts restrictions to individuals seeking independence... cuts financial liabilities to individuals, reduces the burden of government regulations... then such Data is most certainly being misrepresented.

Now you've admitted the basis for this early on in this thread; where you stated that the reason that the market will outperform under the Marxist Hussein, is because the shares are cheaper than they were under the previous administration.

Now the reason, which you overtly omit, that the shares are cheaper; is that LEFTIST POLICY FORCED THE MARKET TO CRASH...

Specifically the Leftist polciy which forced lenders away from sound acturial lending practices, into practices which were not sound; which provided for ridiculously easy access by the unqualified, to highly sought financial instruments; instruments which loaned enormous sums of money which was secured to real-estate; the Ideological left further GUARANTEED these loans, in the face of the mathematical certainty that there existed insufficient means for ANYONE, which includes the US Federal Government, to come anywhere CLOSE, to even BEGIN to execute such a GUARANTEE; and when that certainty, that such a policy would drive the cost of real-estate beyond the means of the market to sustain those costs... the Leftist policy then FORCED the system to crash... Meaning there was no other potential alternative.... but that the Lending industry and the equity markets tied directly to it MUST CRASH to correct for the unsustainable over-valuation...

Now the 5 trillion dollars paid by the US Federal government in TARP and the bailout schemes amounts to a tiny FRACTION of those guaranteed liabilties; and what's worse is that those subsidies have sustained the same players which FAILED TO REJECT THE ABSURDLY FOOLISH POLICY BEING FORCED UPON THEM BY THE LEFT; thus leaving the SAME players in play, who are just as certain to do the SAME DAMN THING, AGAIN... only next time on a much more egregeously fragile economy... and this due to the simple fact that the same over-priced instruments are STILL IN PLAY; STILL WORKING AS A MASSIVE DRAG ON THE ECONOMY.

Of course, HAD those lenders NOT allowed the Left to force such policy onto the system, there would have been no bubble to crash... HAD the AMERICANS not allowed the Left to bail out companies which had dishonored their fiduciary responsibility to NOT depart from sound lending practices; there would be no MASSIVE DRAG REMAINING TO DRAG THE MEANS OF THE ECONOMY TO PERFORM... thus recover...

It's not a complex calculation Toro... The Left is 100% responsible for that recession; and they're 100% responsible for the DEPRESSION resulting from their having sustained the drag which prevents the economy from recovering.

Thus the reason that the MARKET 'outperforms' under Leftist governance is that THEY CRASHED THE MARKET!

Now when one causes MASSIVE LOSSES... One can't then turn around and CELEBRATE the GAINS which are part and parcel of the market simply returning to where it was previous to the CRASH THEY CAUSED!

And THAT is what you're arguing... and given that you've CHRONICALLY declared yourself an EXPERT in all matters economic... its not reasonable to believe that you could be missing this OBVIOUS, UNAVOIDABLE, INCONTESTABLE, IRREFUTABLE POINT... thus given your self declared expertise, you're then necessarily OMITTING THAT POINT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE; ergo... you're a LIAR, of the Leftist (delusional) idealogical variety... whose ONLY potential defense here, is that you're not really an expert in such matters... just a common leftist dousche-bag, who's out to bolster a wholly discredited economic scheme.

 

[xsited1]

Uh, no. Wrong again. You can insult me all you want, but it won't change the fact that what I have posted is correct. Again, I don't expect you to understand the fact that there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and you cannot simply group, say, Democrats of the 40s with those of the 90s. It just doesn't work that way. And the data is very clear for the past 25 years, but you are trying to throw extraneous data into the mix which clearly does not belong. Idealogues do that to prove a point. Again, you have become what you hate the most, but you will never see it. Idealogues never do.

Now please continue with your insults and calling me a Republican or a Bush supporter or whatever you want. It amuses me.

Yes, like your "You are Canadian" line of reasoning! Yeah, that's real intelligent!

I am not making an argument about ideology. You are. I am merely stating facts and I am not passing any judgment on ideology or agenda on any political party at any time. I have merely shown that for as long as data has been collected - and I have the daily data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average going back to 1896 - that stocks have outperformed when Democrats are in charge.

You, on the other hand, are rationalizing political agendas. "Well, they really weren't Republicans back then like they are today!" Frankly, I don't care, but I do know that generally, Republicans are and have been pro-business while Democrats less so.

There are reasons why stocks have generally done better under Democrats, and those reasons aren't necessarily flattering to Democrats. But people in ideological straight-jackets are more concerned about getting into political pissing matches than actually learning things that can help them make money.

Yes, I see your problem very clearly now. In the Scientific community, we have people like yourself as well. Your problem, in this case, is that you are assuming that 'Republican' and 'Democrat' mean the exact same thing throughout history and so therefore your data is valid. That's like including data for a day when the laboratory equipment was out of calibration because, after all, it's the same laboratory equipment. That's just silly, but understandable since you are just a slave to data regardless of how it was obtained or a clear understanding of the parameters being measured.

Until you can understand this error, the data you present is useless.

But I do see another problem which I've already discussed. You don't believe what you are doing is wrong and you don't believe you are an idealogue. This is an even bigger problem. Again, in the scientific community, your presentation of data would be slammed so many times that you would eventually get the message. However, if someone is living in denial about who they are, all bets are off. I'll pop back in from time to time to do an 'idealogue intervention' for you in the hopes that you will realize the lie you are telling yourself and change your ways. In the meantime, good luck to you.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFLMNAO... I love how this thread was moved off the table, to a lower profile forum.

But... that is a fair indicator that the left has had their ass handed to them... when a comrade finds such is sufficiently obvious that they need to concela that loss by moving it.

LOL...


Leftists...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Not really....

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks sustained gains Wednesday after the Federal Reserve held interest rates near historic lows and signaled the economy has finally started to stabilize.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) added 120 points, or 1.3%, giving up bigger gains. The S&P 500 (SPX) index rose 11 points, or 1.1%. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) advanced 29 points, or 1.5%.

Wall Street rallied leading up to the Fed announcement as signs of improvement in the housing market pushed investors back into stocks following a two-day retreat.

The market seesawed a bit after the announcement, with the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 pushing toward fresh 2009 highs, before trimming those gains by the close.

"The Fed reinforced what investors already knew, that the economy has gotten a little better," said James Barnes, fixed income portfolio manager at National Penn Investors Trust.

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Aug. 12, 2009

Just remember to be intelectually honest chris. Now ANYTHING that happens to the economy is 100% obama's baby according to you.

If it keeps getting better its because of Obama's Plans
If it gets worse its because of Obama's plans.

Just wait until his record national defecit and debt spending catches up to us......just remember when it does who made it happen, Obama.

And I hope I'm wrong about that last bit and he actually decides to make the cogress pay down the debt.

 

[edthecynic]

Not really....

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks sustained gains Wednesday after the Federal Reserve held interest rates near historic lows and signaled the economy has finally started to stabilize.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) added 120 points, or 1.3%, giving up bigger gains. The S&P 500 (SPX) index rose 11 points, or 1.1%. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) advanced 29 points, or 1.5%.

Wall Street rallied leading up to the Fed announcement as signs of improvement in the housing market pushed investors back into stocks following a two-day retreat.

The market seesawed a bit after the announcement, with the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 pushing toward fresh 2009 highs, before trimming those gains by the close.

"The Fed reinforced what investors already knew, that the economy has gotten a little better," said James Barnes, fixed income portfolio manager at National Penn Investors Trust.

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Aug. 12, 2009

Just remember to be intelectually honest chris. Now ANYTHING that happens to the economy is 100% obama's baby according to you.

If it keeps getting better its because of Obama's Plans
If it gets worse its because of Obama's plans.

Just wait until his record national defecit and debt spending catches up to us......just remember when it does who made it happen, Obama.

And I hope I'm wrong about that last bit and he actually decides to make the cogress pay down the debt.

But of course, you right wing zealots don't have to be "intellectually honest" you can blame the bad economy on Obama before he even takes office and deny him credit after he takes office and the economy improves.