Question For Liberals

[☭proletarian☭]

Not sure how far back posts are kept here.

I'm not aware of any limit.

 

[GWV5903]

If Bush lied, so did all the Democrats that said the same thing about Iraq at the time. The entire world though Saddam has WMD's... not just Bush. Anyway... it was the right thing to do.

Curious there were lots who contradicted that, and if you remember the inspectors found none. Iraq after the Iran war and the first Gulf war had nothing - not even a real army. They were contained and it was only an incompetent president and his draft dodger side kick Dick who raised fear to a new level and invaded a nation that was absolutely no threat.

As far as Bush and 911, while he was asleep at the wheel you can't really blame him, his goal was squandering the surplus with reduced taxes for the rich while the infrastructure collapsed - that he accomplished. He was lost that first year, actually silly looking."

The statements below are anything but a contradiction, I suggest you dig a little deeper, you might not look as foolish.....

The epitome of Anti-American is to support the idea of taxing the rich even more than they already pay, are you so jealous your willing to follow this socialist agenda, did you not get beyond the 7th grade?

Accusations that President Bush lied to the American people about whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are counterbalanced by quotes from prominent Democrats about Saddam Hussein and weapons in Iraq.
Most of these statements were during the debate over whether to use force against Iraq.

There are several quotes.
Most of them come during a time in the Clinton administration when decisions were being made about action against Saddam Hussein and amid concerns about weapons of mass destruction.

We'll take them one at a time.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Rep. Waxman's contribution to the debate over going to war.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
In a speech to Georgetown University.

 

[MaggieMae]

BLAME Obama for adding 4,000 to the DOW and 5.7% GDP growth? O.K. I "BLAME" him.

The economists were saying that the stock market AND the economy were going to move back up after December 08 without any aid at all.

But go ahead and believe that Mr. Obama had anything to do with it.

Find me one economist who ever said that. Please.

 

[Nonelitist]

If Bush lied, so did all the Democrats that said the same thing about Iraq at the time. The entire world though Saddam has WMD's... not just Bush. Anyway... it was the right thing to do.

Curious there were lots who contradicted that, and if you remember the inspectors found none. Iraq after the Iran war and the first Gulf war had nothing - not even a real army. They were contained and it was only an incompetent president and his draft dodger side kick Dick who raised fear to a new level and invaded a nation that was absolutely no threat.

As far as Bush and 911, while he was asleep at the wheel you can't really blame him, his goal was squandering the surplus with reduced taxes for the rich while the infrastructure collapsed - that he accomplished. He was lost that first year, actually silly looking."

The statements below are anything but a contradiction, I suggest you dig a little deeper, you might not look as foolish.....

The epitome of Anti-American is to support the idea of taxing the rich even more than they already pay, are you so jealous your willing to follow this socialist agenda, did you not get beyond the 7th grade?

Accusations that President Bush lied to the American people about whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are counterbalanced by quotes from prominent Democrats about Saddam Hussein and weapons in Iraq.
Most of these statements were during the debate over whether to use force against Iraq.

There are several quotes.
Most of them come during a time in the Clinton administration when decisions were being made about action against Saddam Hussein and amid concerns about weapons of mass destruction.

We'll take them one at a time.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Rep. Waxman's contribution to the debate over going to war.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
In a speech to Georgetown University.

Game, set, Match. Sit down libs... your argument has just been deemed ignorant.

I am sure you will still try to weasle out of this. This proof presented will either make you admit Bush didn't lie or
else will show you to be factually dishonest.

 

[MaggieMae]

Curious there were lots who contradicted that, and if you remember the inspectors found none. Iraq after the Iran war and the first Gulf war had nothing - not even a real army. They were contained and it was only an incompetent president and his draft dodger side kick Dick who raised fear to a new level and invaded a nation that was absolutely no threat.

As far as Bush and 911, while he was asleep at the wheel you can't really blame him, his goal was squandering the surplus with reduced taxes for the rich while the infrastructure collapsed - that he accomplished. He was lost that first year, actually silly looking."

The statements below are anything but a contradiction, I suggest you dig a little deeper, you might not look as foolish.....

The epitome of Anti-American is to support the idea of taxing the rich even more than they already pay, are you so jealous your willing to follow this socialist agenda, did you not get beyond the 7th grade?

Accusations that President Bush lied to the American people about whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are counterbalanced by quotes from prominent Democrats about Saddam Hussein and weapons in Iraq.
Most of these statements were during the debate over whether to use force against Iraq.

There are several quotes.
Most of them come during a time in the Clinton administration when decisions were being made about action against Saddam Hussein and amid concerns about weapons of mass destruction.

We'll take them one at a time.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Rep. Waxman's contribution to the debate over going to war.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
In a speech to Georgetown University.

Game, set, Match. Sit down libs... your argument has just been deemed ignorant.

I am sure you will still try to weasle out of this. This proof presented will either make you admit Bush didn't lie more than anyone else or will show you to be factually dishonest.

Give it a rest. As I said, the debate over Iraq has been ongoing for six years now, much of which included all the quotes above. There's also a separate topic named IRAQ if you are determined to carry on.

 

[Newby]

BLAME Obama for adding 4,000 to the DOW and 5.7% GDP growth? O.K. I "BLAME" him.

The economists were saying that the stock market AND the economy were going to move back up after December 08 without any aid at all.

But go ahead and believe that Mr. Obama had anything to do with it.

I think it would be even better than it is now without him or his policies. It's tanked on several occasions where it wouldn't have if not for Obama policy or speech.

Nov. 5, 2008 (Wednesday after Election Day): -486 (5.0%)
Jan. 9, 2009 (one day after Obama speaks at George Mason University on “need” for $800 billion stimulus package): -143 (1.6%)
Jan. 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day): -332 (4.0%)
Feb. 10, 2009 (one day after Obama declares that without a stimulus, “an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with a catastrophe&#8221: -382 (4.6%)
Feb. 17, 2009 (market opens for the first time after Congress passes $787 billion stimulus on Feb. 13; Obama signs bill into law, declaring, “The stimulus lets Americans claim destiny.&#8221: -298 (3.8%)
Feb. 19, 2009 (one day after Obama announces potential mortgage relief plan): -90 (1.2%)
Feb. 25, 2009 (one day after Obama’s first speech to the full Congress): -80 (1.1%)

And that's only the first few months...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13301]Obama Agenda Tanks, Stock Market Soars

Stock Market Tanks after Obama Speech on Banking | MyWayBusiness.com

 

[Toro]

BLAME Obama for adding 4,000 to the DOW and 5.7% GDP growth? O.K. I "BLAME" him.

The economists were saying that the stock market AND the economy were going to move back up after December 08 without any aid at all.

But go ahead and believe that Mr. Obama had anything to do with it.

Which economists?

And if they were, they certainly aren't good economists one should listen to.

 

[Toro]

BLAME Obama for adding 4,000 to the DOW and 5.7% GDP growth? O.K. I "BLAME" him.

The economists were saying that the stock market AND the economy were going to move back up after December 08 without any aid at all.

But go ahead and believe that Mr. Obama had anything to do with it.

I think it would be even better than it is now without him or his policies. It's tanked on several occasions where it wouldn't have if not for Obama policy or speech.

Nov. 5, 2008 (Wednesday after Election Day): -486 (5.0%)
Jan. 9, 2009 (one day after Obama speaks at George Mason University on “need” for $800 billion stimulus package): -143 (1.6%)
Jan. 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day): -332 (4.0%)
Feb. 10, 2009 (one day after Obama declares that without a stimulus, “an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with a catastrophe”): -382 (4.6%)
Feb. 17, 2009 (market opens for the first time after Congress passes $787 billion stimulus on Feb. 13; Obama signs bill into law, declaring, “The stimulus lets Americans claim destiny.”): -298 (3.8%)
Feb. 19, 2009 (one day after Obama announces potential mortgage relief plan): -90 (1.2%)
Feb. 25, 2009 (one day after Obama’s first speech to the full Congress): -80 (1.1%)

And that's only the first few months...

Obama Agenda Tanks, Stock Market Soars]America’s Photo Gallery

Stock Market Tanks after Obama Speech on Banking | MyWayBusiness.com

Look, I can go pick out speeches by Obama and show when the market went up. FFS, the guy is on TV every day. Its not hard.

If you want to play politics, stocks are substantially higher than they were when Obama was sworn in. However, overtly political partisans engage in obvious confirmation bias to make their point, and your post is no different.

I can think of only two times since Obama was sworn in when he had a negative effect on the market. The first was about this time last year when he built Geithner up as having a credible plan to deal with the banking crisis and Geithner wiffed badly, causing stocks to drop nearly 20% in a month. But stocks have rallied 70% since then. The second was immediately after the Scott Brown victory a few weeks ago when Obama began to bash the banks, but that effect is irrelevant now as his ideas are being neutered.

The last few days, the market has been falling because of fears of debt default in Europe, but I'm sure some unknowing partisan will blame the decline on Obama.

 

[uscitizen]

"I expect there will be some failures. … I don't anticipate any serious problems of that sort among the large internationally active banks that make up a very substantial part of our banking system." —Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve chairman, Feb. 28, 2008
The Worst Predictions About 2008 - BusinessWeek

Many more like it at this site. Just google around a bit if you don't believe me.

Hmm Bernanke, wasn't Bush still president?

 

[Truthmatters]

There are some things government can do about the economy and many they cant.

Stimulating the economy with money is one thing they can do.

It will mute some of the effects of the downturn but the economy still has to climb out on its own.

Its a matter of how many people are harmed and for how long.

Fewer people hurt and a shorter duration is what we are in fact trying to effect.

 

[Newby]

The economists were saying that the stock market AND the economy were going to move back up after December 08 without any aid at all.

But go ahead and believe that Mr. Obama had anything to do with it.

I think it would be even better than it is now without him or his policies. It's tanked on several occasions where it wouldn't have if not for Obama policy or speech.

Nov. 5, 2008 (Wednesday after Election Day): -486 (5.0%)
Jan. 9, 2009 (one day after Obama speaks at George Mason University on “need” for $800 billion stimulus package): -143 (1.6%)
Jan. 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day): -332 (4.0%)
Feb. 10, 2009 (one day after Obama declares that without a stimulus, “an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with a catastrophe”): -382 (4.6%)
Feb. 17, 2009 (market opens for the first time after Congress passes $787 billion stimulus on Feb. 13; Obama signs bill into law, declaring, “The stimulus lets Americans claim destiny.”): -298 (3.8%)
Feb. 19, 2009 (one day after Obama announces potential mortgage relief plan): -90 (1.2%)
Feb. 25, 2009 (one day after Obama’s first speech to the full Congress): -80 (1.1%)

And that's only the first few months...

Obama Agenda Tanks, Stock Market Soars]America’s Photo Gallery

Stock Market Tanks after Obama Speech on Banking | MyWayBusiness.com

Look, I can go pick out speeches by Obama and show when the market went up. FFS, the guy is on TV every day. Its not hard.

If you want to play politics, stocks are substantially higher than they were when Obama was sworn in. However, overtly political partisans engage in obvious confirmation bias to make their point, and your post is no different.

I can think of only two times since Obama was sworn in when he had a negative effect on the market. The first was about this time last year when he built Geithner up as having a credible plan to deal with the banking crisis and Geithner wiffed badly, causing stocks to drop nearly 20% in a month. But stocks have rallied 70% since then. The second was immediately after the Scott Brown victory a few weeks ago when Obama began to bash the banks, but that effect is irrelevant now as his ideas are being neutered.

The last few days, the market has been falling because of fears of debt default in Europe, but I'm sure some unknowing partisan will blame the decline on Obama.

Obviously, many others, professionals, disagree with your opinion. The market is very sensitive to many factors, and Obama is definitely one of them. And since you say that I can't relate a dive in the market to him, how is that you can relate an increase in the market to him? As you said, the guy is constantly on tv, so it's not any speech, it's specific speeches and specifically what they were talking about. To say that he has as little effect as you what you are trying to say is naive.

 

[Toro]

Obviously, many others, professionals, disagree with your opinion. The market is very sensitive to many factors, and Obama is definitely one of them. And since you say that I can't relate a dive in the market to him, how is that you can relate an increase in the market to him? As you said, the guy is constantly on tv, so it's not any speech, it's specific speeches and specifically what they were talking about. To say that he has as little effect as you what you are trying to say is naive.

I am not making a political argument. You are. I am not attributing the market to Obama. I am pointing out that if you want to make this a political dogfight, you can point out all sorts of anecdotes to support or oppose your argument. The market has been going straight down since Scott Brown was elected. Should we attribute the market getting crushed to the Republicans now able to block the Democrats agenda?

I am a professional investor, and no, many professionals do not disagree with me because I'm talking to those professionals all the time. Yes, Obama, like Bush, has some effect on the market, both good and bad. But it is not a serious argument to pull out a bunch of dates and randomly attribute market moves to what the President said.

 

[beowolfe]

Why do you blame Bush for not preventing the 9/11 attacks after 8 months in office but then refuse to give Obama any blame for the economy after almost 13 months in office?

Probably because the economy crashed on Bush's watch and Obama inherited the mess. Now, what you can hold Obama responsible for is how and when we come out of this mess. But I've got to tell you, we didn't get in this overnight and won't get out of it overnight. Eventhough it's clear to me that those on the right seem to think that Obama has some sort of magical powers and can undo all of this damage with a snap of his fingers even though they oppose any measure he might even think about taking.

Unless and until the right becomes more rational about things, your irrationality will continue to blind you to what's really going on. And even worse, your irrationality will continue to make those who have maintained their rationality to circle the wagons against you.

 

[Newby]

Obviously, many others, professionals, disagree with your opinion. The market is very sensitive to many factors, and Obama is definitely one of them. And since you say that I can't relate a dive in the market to him, how is that you can relate an increase in the market to him? As you said, the guy is constantly on tv, so it's not any speech, it's specific speeches and specifically what they were talking about. To say that he has as little effect as you what you are trying to say is naive.

I am not making a political argument. You are. I am not attributing the market to Obama. I am pointing out that if you want to make this a political dogfight, you can point out all sorts of anecdotes to support or oppose your argument. The market has been going straight down since Scott Brown was elected. Should we attribute the market getting crushed to the Republicans now able to block the Democrats agenda?

I am a professional investor, and no, many professionals do not disagree with me because I'm talking to those professionals all the time. Yes, Obama, like Bush, has some effect on the market, both good and bad. But it is not a serious argument to pull out a bunch of dates and randomly attribute market moves to what the President said.

It's not a political argument that the market is affected by what the government/congress/administration does, it's a fact.

So why do business journals disagree with you, do they have a political agenda as well?
What, precisely, do you do?

 

[Toro]

It's not a political argument that the market is affected by what the government/congress/administration does, it's a fact.

So why do business journals disagree with you, do they have a political agenda as well?
What, precisely, do you do?

I'm an institutional money manager. And you are making a political argument. You are saying that the market went down because Obama did or said this or that. Someone who disagrees with your political persuasion has even more of a case to argue that what Obama has done has been beneficial to the market because the market is up substantially since he took office.

Markets rarely go up and down day to day because of politics, and when they do, they often reverse shortly thereafter. Government policies can have large effects over long periods of time, but such instances in American politics and markets are not common. Political people don't understand this, and few understand how financial markets really work.

People who are overtly political tend to see things through a political prism, and engage heavily in confirmation bias to support their arguments. They often ascribe false causality to events because they have trouble looking at the world empirically.

I know very few successful money managers who are overtly political in their interpretation of the markets.

 

[Nonelitist]

Libs... like it or not... disagree or not.... the Democratic party controls the White House, the Senate and the House... AND THEY STILL CAN'T DO ANYTHING!!!

Do you wonder why? It is because what they want to do is so extreme that even with that much control, they still can't do it.

On top of that, Dems are losing elections all over the place, Dem politicians are retiring like crazy and they stand to possibly lose the Senate and 40 house seats.

This indicates that America as a whole is rejecting what Obama and his cohorts want to do.

Nothing else really needs to be said... You are losing.

 

[Newby]

It's not a political argument that the market is affected by what the government/congress/administration does, it's a fact.

So why do business journals disagree with you, do they have a political agenda as well?
What, precisely, do you do?

I'm a money manager for a multi-billion dollar fund. And you are making a political argument. You are saying that the market went down because Obama did or said this or that. Someone who disagrees with your political persuasion has even more of a case to argue that what Obama has done has been beneficial to the market because the market is up substantially since he took office.

Markets rarely go up and down day to day because of politics, and when they do, they often reverse shortly thereafter. Government policies can have large effects over long periods of time, but such instances in American politics and markets are not common. Political people don't understand this, and few understand how financial markets really work.

People who are overtly political tend to see things through a political prism, and engage heavily in confirmation bias to support their arguments. They often ascribe false causality to events because they have trouble looking at the world empirically.

I know very few successful money managers who are overtly political in their interpretation of the markets.

I didn't say day to day, I illustrated on specific days how policy has affected the market and it certainly can have an impact on the market in the long term overall. The government had a direct hand in the cause and collapse of the housing market over a long period of time. It has nothing to do with trying to make a political statement. The Obama administration most certainly can have an impact on what the market does both in the short and long term by what actions they take.

So, to be sure I'm understanding you correctly, you are not attributing any increase in the market to what this administration has done over the last year?

Have you ever heard of Unity - The Fund Administration Platform? Now I understand the bull in your avatar.

 

[Toro]

So, to be sure I'm understanding you correctly, you are not attributing any increase in the market to what this administration has done over the last year?

I think it has some effect, but I think what both the Bush administration and the Obama administration did at the end of 2008 and early 2009 helped save the economy and the world. More importantly than the federal government are the monetary authorities. The Fed did more to save the world the federal government. But they were probably most responsible for getting us into this mess, and the actions of the Fed and both the Bush and Obama administrations are going to have significant unintended consequences in the future, probably bad.

Have you ever heard of Unity - The Fund Administration Platform? Now I understand the bull in your avatar.

I'm short.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/stock-market/103745-toro.html#post1959618
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/94569-the-gold-bubble-6.html#post1926439

I am not dogmatic. I only care about making money, at least in my profession.

 

[Newby]

So, to be sure I'm understanding you correctly, you are not attributing any increase in the market to what this administration has done over the last year?

I think it has some effect, but I think what both the Bush administration and the Obama administration did at the end of 2008 and early 2009 helped save the economy and the world. More importantly than the federal government are the monetary authorities. The Fed did more to save the world the federal government. But they were probably most responsible for getting us into this mess, and the actions of the Fed and both the Bush and Obama administrations are going to have significant unintended consequences in the future, probably bad.

Have you ever heard of Unity - The Fund Administration Platform? Now I understand the bull in your avatar.

I'm short.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/stock-market/103745-toro.html#post1959618
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/94569-the-gold-bubble-6.html#post1926439

I am not dogmatic. I only care about making money, at least in my profession.

Separately managed accounts then?

 

[Toro]

Separately managed accounts then?

Not necessarily. It depends.