More economic GOOD News...DOW hits new record..on track to hit 17K.

[auditor0007]

Read it an weep gloom and doom conserverinos!

Dow Average and S&P 500 Hit New Highs
Stocks Notch Records as Beaten-Down Shares Mount a Rally

nvestors snapped up shares of companies large and small, driving major indexes to records and reviving beaten-down technology stocks.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 112.13 points, or 0.7%, to 16695.47, notching its second record finish in as many sessions and its third new high of 2014. The Dow notched 52 records in 2013.

The S&P 500 added 18.17 points, or 1%, to 1896.65, squeezing out its ninth record close of the year.

That along with a great April jobs report should really be making you folks cry.

We are beginning to see improvement in many of the numbers, but until we begin to see real wage increases for working Americans, the economy is going to continue to struggle.

 

[Sallow]

Read it an weep gloom and doom conserverinos!

Dow Average and S&P 500 Hit New Highs
Stocks Notch Records as Beaten-Down Shares Mount a Rally

nvestors snapped up shares of companies large and small, driving major indexes to records and reviving beaten-down technology stocks.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 112.13 points, or 0.7%, to 16695.47, notching its second record finish in as many sessions and its third new high of 2014. The Dow notched 52 records in 2013.

The S&P 500 added 18.17 points, or 1%, to 1896.65, squeezing out its ninth record close of the year.

That along with a great April jobs report should really be making you folks cry.

We are beginning to see improvement in many of the numbers, but until we begin to see real wage increases for working Americans, the economy is going to continue to struggle.

That's not really the biggest problem.

Austerity is.

Like I've pointed out, the Public sector job loss never recovered.

So the labor market is still flabby and there is no pressure to increase wages. And until the labor market tightens up? Wages will probably remain flat.

 

[hortysir]

So now it's a good thing when Wall Street makes money



You guys really should post us a list for this shit

 

[Sallow]

So now it's a good thing when Wall Street makes money



You guys really should post us a list for this shit

Well..for me it is..it's my bread and butter.

But on a grander scope it's one of the indicators that display the overall health of the economy.

 

[hortysir]

So now it's a good thing when Wall Street makes money



You guys really should post us a list for this shit

Well..for me it is..it's my bread and butter.

But on a grander scope it's one of the indicators that display the overall health of the economy.

Someone will be by tomorrow between 10am and 3pm to pick up your OWS card

 

[Sallow]

So now it's a good thing when Wall Street makes money



You guys really should post us a list for this shit

Well..for me it is..it's my bread and butter.

But on a grander scope it's one of the indicators that display the overall health of the economy.

Someone will be by tomorrow between 10am and 3pm to pick up your OWS card

Um..what?


This makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[GWV5903]

Read it an weep gloom and doom conserverinos!



That along with a great April jobs report should really be making you folks cry.

Irony of the successful on Wall Street, I thought you were against successful individuals?

You folks and your conflationsare hilarious.

Do you think the street lies? Who is benefiting under the current gains, middle class Americans?

Yes irony that you would use the Dows gain...

Typical double standard...

 

[Sallow]

Irony of the successful on Wall Street, I thought you were against successful individuals?

You folks and your conflationsare hilarious.

Do you think the street lies? Who is benefiting under the current gains, middle class Americans?

Yes irony that you would use the Dows gain...

Typical double standard...

I worked for the NYSE for 13.5 years..and now I work for a new financial firm.

There's no "double standard", I have a vested interest in a healthy market.

As do most Americans who have 401ks and other retirement plans or a stock portfolio.

Additionally a healthy stock market generally indicates an economy that's either healthy or recovering.

Only doom sayers think this is bad news.

 

[Meister]

You folks and your conflationsare hilarious.

Do you think the street lies? Who is benefiting under the current gains, middle class Americans?

Yes irony that you would use the Dows gain...

Typical double standard...

I worked for the NYSE for 13.5 years..and now I work for a new financial firm.

There's no "double standard", I have a vested interest in a healthy market.

As do most Americans who have 401ks and other retirement plans or a stock portfolio.

Additionally a healthy stock market generally indicates an economy that's either healthy or recovering.

Only doom sayers think this is bad news.

Why is the federal reserve still infusing billions of dollars into a healthy or recovering economy.........?

 

[RKMBrown]

Read it an weep gloom and doom conserverinos!



That along with a great April jobs report should really be making you folks cry.

We are beginning to see improvement in many of the numbers, but until we begin to see real wage increases for working Americans, the economy is going to continue to struggle.

That's not really the biggest problem.

Austerity is.

Like I've pointed out, the Public sector job loss never recovered.

So the labor market is still flabby and there is no pressure to increase wages. And until the labor market tightens up? Wages will probably remain flat.

Yeah cause government employees getting twice the pay and benefits of the private sector is working so well for us.

 

[Theowl32]

All we have done is conclude in this entire thread is the unbelievable hypocrisy and double standards of liberals.

Lets see. They crush Bush for...................his drive for home ownership for low income housing. Which in every sense of the word is right in line with what the pathetic left supposedly wants.

They will of course all of a sudden deny they want that at all. A lot like how they all of a sudden celebrate wall street doing great. All of a sudden, they do not mind it all, regardless of their ignorance of what drives the market. All while they protest wall street. You tell me what they stand for. Good luck with that one.

They of course ignore the vast number of warnings put out by the Bush administration. I will not list them again, cause liberals either ignore it, or obfuscate from the warnings.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which was formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush — and other Republicans — to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under stricter regulatory control, after a report by outside investigators established that they were not adequately hedging against risks and that Fannie Mae in particular had scandalously mis-stated its accounts. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings — to which its senior executives' bonuses were linked — by a stunning $9.3billion. Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae's executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.

Predictably the liberals on this board will bring up the fact that republicans controlled the House during this period. However, unlike the SUPER MAJORITY Obama had for nearly two years, Bush never had that. Republicans did have control in congress but not enough majority so that they could pass their own bills. No, they needed some democrats' votes to pass anything during Bush's terms. Did they get any? No. Therefore I do not see how the republicans deserve most of the blame in this matter.

Of course, liberal scumbags who stand for nothing, will not acknowledge any of this....even though they hear and see all of the facts.




^^^^

Watch that liberals and comment on it. No, wait, I do not want to hear your double talk bullshit.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So what we have concluded and demonstrated is that hyper-partisans will try to twist any kind of good news into bad, if they think it will help their side.

They are so invested in failure, they refuse to see anything else. Even if it is a modest piece of good news, they are partisan-bound to try to tear it down.

Pretty funny stuff.

 

[Theowl32]

So what we have concluded and demonstrated is that hyper-partisans will try to twist any kind of good news into bad, if they think it will help their side.

They are so invested in failure, they refuse to see anything else. Even if it is a modest piece of good news, they are partisan-bound to try to tear it down.

Pretty funny stuff.

Which of my facts I provided are you refuting? Specifically what?

Oh, just to let you know, before you do it. Facts cannot be refuted.

 

[Spoonman]

So what we have concluded and demonstrated is that hyper-partisans will try to twist any kind of good news into bad, if they think it will help their side.

They are so invested in failure, they refuse to see anything else. Even if it is a modest piece of good news, they are partisan-bound to try to tear it down.

Pretty funny stuff.

yea i know. all this stuff the left trashed bush for they are now praising obama for. pretty amazing

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Gloom, despair, and agony on me
Deep dark depression, excessive misery.
If it wasn't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all
Gloom, despair, and agony on me....."

 

[HenryBHough]

Yes, the market is up - marginally today.

Good time to remember that nobody ever went broke by leaving a little money on the table.

 

[Zander]

Stocks are literally priced to perfection.

It is prudent to pare holdings in such an environment.

 

[Faun]

All we have done is conclude in this entire thread is the unbelievable hypocrisy and double standards of liberals.

Lets see. They crush Bush for...................his drive for home ownership for low income housing. Which in every sense of the word is right in line with what the pathetic left supposedly wants.

They will of course all of a sudden deny they want that at all. A lot like how they all of a sudden celebrate wall street doing great. All of a sudden, they do not mind it all, regardless of their ignorance of what drives the market. All while they protest wall street. You tell me what they stand for. Good luck with that one.

They of course ignore the vast number of warnings put out by the Bush administration. I will not list them again, cause liberals either ignore it, or obfuscate from the warnings.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which was formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush — and other Republicans — to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under stricter regulatory control, after a report by outside investigators established that they were not adequately hedging against risks and that Fannie Mae in particular had scandalously mis-stated its accounts. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings — to which its senior executives' bonuses were linked — by a stunning $9.3billion. Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae's executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.

Predictably the liberals on this board will bring up the fact that republicans controlled the House during this period. However, unlike the SUPER MAJORITY Obama had for nearly two years, Bush never had that. Republicans did have control in congress but not enough majority so that they could pass their own bills. No, they needed some democrats' votes to pass anything during Bush's terms. Did they get any? No. Therefore I do not see how the republicans deserve most of the blame in this matter.

Of course, liberal scumbags who stand for nothing, will not acknowledge any of this....even though they hear and see all of the facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoPKRBD9E6Y


^^^^

Watch that liberals and comment on it. No, wait, I do not want to hear your double talk bullshit.

Republicans didn't need a super majority ... Democrats didn't block any legislation to add oversight of the GSEs. It was Republicans who failed to even allow an up or down vote in the full Senate on any one of the numerous bills which made it to the Republican leadership in the Senate.

Republicans had the ball and they fumbled it. You don''t get to blame Democrats now who were on the sidelines.

 

[Theowl32]

All we have done is conclude in this entire thread is the unbelievable hypocrisy and double standards of liberals.

Lets see. They crush Bush for...................his drive for home ownership for low income housing. Which in every sense of the word is right in line with what the pathetic left supposedly wants.

They will of course all of a sudden deny they want that at all. A lot like how they all of a sudden celebrate wall street doing great. All of a sudden, they do not mind it all, regardless of their ignorance of what drives the market. All while they protest wall street. You tell me what they stand for. Good luck with that one.

They of course ignore the vast number of warnings put out by the Bush administration. I will not list them again, cause liberals either ignore it, or obfuscate from the warnings.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which was formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush — and other Republicans — to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under stricter regulatory control, after a report by outside investigators established that they were not adequately hedging against risks and that Fannie Mae in particular had scandalously mis-stated its accounts. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings — to which its senior executives' bonuses were linked — by a stunning $9.3billion. Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae's executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.

Predictably the liberals on this board will bring up the fact that republicans controlled the House during this period. However, unlike the SUPER MAJORITY Obama had for nearly two years, Bush never had that. Republicans did have control in congress but not enough majority so that they could pass their own bills. No, they needed some democrats' votes to pass anything during Bush's terms. Did they get any? No. Therefore I do not see how the republicans deserve most of the blame in this matter.

Of course, liberal scumbags who stand for nothing, will not acknowledge any of this....even though they hear and see all of the facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoPKRBD9E6Y


^^^^

Watch that liberals and comment on it. No, wait, I do not want to hear your double talk bullshit.

Republicans didn't need a super majority ... Democrats didn't block any legislation to add oversight of the GSEs. It was Republicans who failed to even allow an up or down vote in the full Senate on any one of the numerous bills which made it to the Republican leadership in the Senate.

Republicans had the ball and they fumbled it. You don''t get to blame Democrats now who were on the sidelines.

Oh really? You not commenting on Barney Frank's speech speaks volumes. Yhe democrats did block Bush's attempts to regulate.

I have provided documented facts. Your denials of those facts does not change the facts.

Warning after warning from Bush and democrats would not allow any regulations. The democrats blocked all attempts.

Highlighted by Barney Frank.

Your little jedi mind trick will not work on me.

 

[Faun]

All we have done is conclude in this entire thread is the unbelievable hypocrisy and double standards of liberals.

Lets see. They crush Bush for...................his drive for home ownership for low income housing. Which in every sense of the word is right in line with what the pathetic left supposedly wants.

They will of course all of a sudden deny they want that at all. A lot like how they all of a sudden celebrate wall street doing great. All of a sudden, they do not mind it all, regardless of their ignorance of what drives the market. All while they protest wall street. You tell me what they stand for. Good luck with that one.

They of course ignore the vast number of warnings put out by the Bush administration. I will not list them again, cause liberals either ignore it, or obfuscate from the warnings.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which was formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush — and other Republicans — to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under stricter regulatory control, after a report by outside investigators established that they were not adequately hedging against risks and that Fannie Mae in particular had scandalously mis-stated its accounts. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings — to which its senior executives' bonuses were linked — by a stunning $9.3billion. Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae's executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.

Predictably the liberals on this board will bring up the fact that republicans controlled the House during this period. However, unlike the SUPER MAJORITY Obama had for nearly two years, Bush never had that. Republicans did have control in congress but not enough majority so that they could pass their own bills. No, they needed some democrats' votes to pass anything during Bush's terms. Did they get any? No. Therefore I do not see how the republicans deserve most of the blame in this matter.

Of course, liberal scumbags who stand for nothing, will not acknowledge any of this....even though they hear and see all of the facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoPKRBD9E6Y


^^^^

Watch that liberals and comment on it. No, wait, I do not want to hear your double talk bullshit.

Republicans didn't need a super majority ... Democrats didn't block any legislation to add oversight of the GSEs. It was Republicans who failed to even allow an up or down vote in the full Senate on any one of the numerous bills which made it to the Republican leadership in the Senate.

Republicans had the ball and they fumbled it. You don''t get to blame Democrats now who were on the sidelines.

Oh really? You not commenting on Barney Frank's speech speaks volumes. Yhe democrats did block Bush's attempts to regulate.

I have provided documented facts. Your denials of those facts does not change the facts.

Warning after warning from Bush and democrats would not allow any regulations. The democrats blocked all attempts.

Highlighted by Barney Frank.

Your little jedi mind trick will not work on me.

You have nothing. I'm well aware of your Frank/Dodd diversion. Meanwhile, at least 3 bills made it to the Republican leadership in the Senate. Not one was blocked by Democrats. One even passed in the House, get this ..... despite Barney Frank's nay vote. One was even rejected by Bush. Look up ...

S.1508 (2003)
S.190 (2005)
H.R.1461 (2008)

... and then get back to me.