Stocks post best September in 71 years

Here is the real take of this "best performance". The issue addressed at bit after 2:00

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPtFLNq7NWU]YouTube - Gold, dollar, markets, the Fed, inflation, Rahm Emanuel[/ame]
 
Last edited:
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
Yeah, sure it did. :cuckoo::cuckoo:


As usual Zander....no facts

:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:

I WIN! 3 :cuckoo: to 2 :cuckoo:
 
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
Yeah, sure it did. :cuckoo::cuckoo:


As usual Zander....no facts

:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:

I WIN! 3 :cuckoo: to 2 :cuckoo:
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.
 
Yeah, sure it did. :cuckoo::cuckoo:


As usual Zander....no facts

:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:

I WIN! 3 :cuckoo: to 2 :cuckoo:
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.

Thankfully Zander...

Our country long ago abandoned the Coolidgites.

The Deregulation, look the other way, let the economy collapse philosophy that would lead to anarchy
 
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.
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?
 
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.
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.

The president can have a very real, and immediate effect on the stock Market. Just by giving a speech, and saying the right, or wrong things.
 
He can't take credit when it goes up but not blame when it goes down.

Yet that is exactly what he does.

When it is doing horrible he says stuff like. "I don't pay attention to the day to day jirations of the market"

When it does well he points to it as his achievement.
 
Come on man, Policies, or in this case a lack of one. have a very Real effect on stocks.
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?
 
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?

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.
 
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.

How much is a "small part"?

Who keeps track?

Isn't that just more government intervention?

Have you thought this through?
 
Republicans totally want to privatize Social Security.

Bush tried it and got slapped down for it.
 
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 President’s 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
 
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 President’s 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

Does the Republican base agree with their elected leaders?
 
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 key to an effective retirement strategy is a diversified portfolio. With few companies offering pension style retirement plans, a set income leg of your retirement is crucial. 401Ks and IRAs are available for those who want to invest in the market. By having a paid off home, 401K and Social Security you are better prepared for any possibility
 
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.

Too bad people weren't listening to Al Gore in 2000, where he wanted there to be a lockbox appoach, and warned of the shortfalls as the boomers began to retire. Yet George W called those "full faith and credit" notes, just pieces of paper.
 
Come on man, Policies, or in this case a lack of one. have a very Real effect on stocks.
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?

Once again you leftwingnuts mis-state, twist and lie about Republican proposals.....
 
Republicans totally want to privatize Social Security.

Bush tried it and got slapped down for it.

Nutroot liberal progressives like you seem to struggle with the concept of "OPTIONAL". You really need to be told what to do, how to vote, what slogans to believe in, global warming, hope change.....:clap2:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top