Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah, sure it did.I disagree. I think Stock prices would have recovered anyway - history has shown that to be the case every time. The market does not move up and down in nice steady predictable chunks, it is irrational and highly emotional. There is RISK inherent in the stock market. That RISK is why the returns are historically higher than bonds and other investments. We have periods of irrational exuberance and periods of irrational gloominess. They go hand in hand and that is what creates opportunity. After the Market has fallen to a certain point, investors realized that stock prices had fallen too far and bought them back at bargain prices. It had nothing to do with Obama.
At any rate, it is good to know that when stock prices fall you will blame Obama. Oh wait .........no you won't.
History has shown you are full of shit.
Standing by and doing nothing during a panic leads to a complete collapse. If Obama had just "let market forces do what they want" the market wanted to panic...the market wanted the auto companies and banks to collapse...the market wanted to lay off as many employees as it could
Government action prevented a Depression
What facts do you want? I have my opinion and you have yours. You firmly believe that Obama caused the prices of stocks to rise and that whenever he farts a child is saved in Africa. I disagree. I don't blame or credit the POTUS for the prices of stocks and I have given you my reasons.Yeah, sure it did.History has shown you are full of shit.
Standing by and doing nothing during a panic leads to a complete collapse. If Obama had just "let market forces do what they want" the market wanted to panic...the market wanted the auto companies and banks to collapse...the market wanted to lay off as many employees as it could
Government action prevented a Depression
As usual Zander....no facts
I WIN! 3 to 2
What facts do you want? I have my opinion and you have yours. You firmly believe that Obama caused the prices of stocks to rise and that whenever he farts a child is saved in Africa. I disagree. I don't blame or credit the POTUS for the prices of stocks and I have given you my reasons.
The midterm elections will decide who's right Leftwingnut - the nutroot liberal progressives, like you, that want more government, higher taxes, and income redistribution - or normal people that reject these ideas.
PS- you still refuse to answer the question - if the stock market goes down will you be consistent and blame Obama? He can't take credit when it goes up but not blame when it goes down.
The stock market is NOT the economy. Unemployment, wages, GDP growth, and other measures are far better ways to compare economic performance of various administrations.Why? I do not blame (or credit) Presidents with the price performance of the stock market. It is a free market.
Come on man, Policies, or in this case a lack of one. have a very Real effect on stocks.
That being said, if you are going to blame politicians for stock prices (which I think is inane) - Congress passes the budgets and enacts the laws, so they would be more culpable IMHO.
The stock market is NOT the economy. Unemployment, wages, GDP growth, and other measures are far better ways to compare economic performance of various administrations.Why? I do not blame (or credit) Presidents with the price performance of the stock market. It is a free market.
Come on man, Policies, or in this case a lack of one. have a very Real effect on stocks.
That being said, if you are going to blame politicians for stock prices (which I think is inane) - Congress passes the budgets and enacts the laws, so they would be more culpable IMHO.
He can't take credit when it goes up but not blame when it goes down.
The stock market is NOT the economy. Unemployment, wages, GDP growth, and other measures are far better ways to compare economic performance of various administrations.Come on man, Policies, or in this case a lack of one. have a very Real effect on stocks.
That being said, if you are going to blame politicians for stock prices (which I think is inane) - Congress passes the budgets and enacts the laws, so they would be more culpable IMHO.
Then why do Republicans want to gamble and throw our Social Security into it? What happens to the poor saps that lose everything?
The stock market is NOT the economy. Unemployment, wages, GDP growth, and other measures are far better ways to compare economic performance of various administrations.
That being said, if you are going to blame politicians for stock prices (which I think is inane) - Congress passes the budgets and enacts the laws, so they would be more culpable IMHO.
Then why do Republicans want to gamble and throw our Social Security into it? What happens to the poor saps that lose everything?
Considering that Republicans never wanted Social Security in the first place, why would you be surprised?
Then why do Republicans want to gamble and throw our Social Security into it? What happens to the poor saps that lose everything?
Considering that Republicans never wanted Social Security in the first place, why would you be surprised?
Of course only a couple fringe Republicans have ever said anything like that. Most want a small part, Of younger workers contributions open for investment. Not the whole thing. But don't let that little fact stop ya from spewing Democrat taking points.
Bush's Plan to Privatize Social Security
Conservative Republicans never did want Social Security, and now think they can convert it to a giant 401(k) plan. (White House memo on Social Security privatization) The current strategy was developed in 1982 primarily by the libertarian Cato Institute which opposes almost all government programs. Gingrich recently explained it as "shifting fundamentally all Social Security retirement benefits to the personal accounts over the long run." Bush has pushed this strategy forward with by hyping a non-existent crisis which Cato said would be needed to sell privatization, and through his 2001 privatisation commission.
The 2001 Presidents Commission on the Privatization of Social Security, produced three plans. Plan #2 is the one the privatizers are pushing for; the other two are window dressing. Plan #2 has two steps: (1) Set up "optional" private accounts, and (2) repair the damage. This graph shows some of the damage from the private accounts.
Bush's Plan to Privatize Social Security, Bush Social Security Plan
The US government hase been stealing from Social Security from the outset. There is no "lockbox." There is just $13T in debt and tens of trillions in unfunded obligations.
The stock market is, always has been, and always will be more solvent than Social Security.
The US government hase been stealing from Social Security from the outset. There is no "lockbox." There is just $13T in debt and tens of trillions in unfunded obligations.
The stock market is, always has been, and always will be more solvent than Social Security.
The stock market is NOT the economy. Unemployment, wages, GDP growth, and other measures are far better ways to compare economic performance of various administrations.Come on man, Policies, or in this case a lack of one. have a very Real effect on stocks.
That being said, if you are going to blame politicians for stock prices (which I think is inane) - Congress passes the budgets and enacts the laws, so they would be more culpable IMHO.
Then why do Republicans want to gamble and throw our Social Security into it? What happens to the poor saps that lose everything?
Republicans totally want to privatize Social Security.
Bush tried it and got slapped down for it.